I totally agree on the pacing. The Red Strings Club is a masterclass of storytelling in a video game format.
I think it’s hard to describe as a game to gamers… the actual gameplay is pretty vague, the various minigame activities are almost inconsequential, but taken as a whole it’s a perfect experience.
I really enjoyed both Far games. I never felt like any of the puzzles were large enough to get tedious. When I finished Lone Sails I just wished there had been a longer section of driving the ship… it kind of felt like you never got to really go before there was some interruption that you had to stop and get out for.
Jazzpunk was one of those games that left me wishing there was more of it.
Manifold Garden is just such a perfectly executed atmosphere, it’s hard to do it justice with description - like walking around inside an Escher drawing.
Would this mini pc be a good homeserver
For what purpose?
every game is dark souls
Slashdot?
jesus tapdancing christ.
I went to a private Christian high school.
Attached to a church.
In the Bible belt.
They still taught separation of church and state in history and social studies classes.
It’s not that fucking difficult.
Get your shit together Arkansas.
Tactical Timmy likes to play dress-up.
If you’re just doing a quick config edit, nano is significantly easier to use and is also present in most distros.
Vi/Vim is useful as a customizable dev environment, but in the present there are better, more feature-rich development tools - unless you are specifically doing a lot of development in a GUI-free system, for some reason.
gestures at all of observed reality
Two different people. Both headlines are accurate.
Hmm, “millions of years” is technically correct but “paradise” is very much in the eye of the beholder, and “stable” is really only valid if you’re considering very short and selective time windows…
https://all-geo.org/highlyallochthonous/2007/11/how-the-air-we-breathe-became-breathable/
Or rather, the longest stable period we’re aware of is when the atmosphere was full of methane.
Um, the core feature is privacy invasion. It does what it says on the tin.
It’s fine if some people want that functionality, as long as it’s not enabled by default.
Food is a reasonable target for biodegradable packaging because you don’t really expect the food to sit around for more than a year (for long-term food packaging you just wouldn’t use a biodegradable material).
Packaging products that might have a long shelf life is more problematic. If the material breaks down in saltwater then it will start breaking down if someone picks it up with sweaty or recently washed hands.
Well right, and coating them with plastic means that they leave plastic residue behind if they break down in an uncontrolled environment, and increases the cost and complexity of recycling:
If the paper has a plastic or aluminum coating, it can be recycled, but it is much more expensive and complicated.
Some plastic coatings can be separated from paper during the recycling process. Still, it is often cheaper and easier to use virgin materials to create new products than recycling paper coated with plastic.
Paper coated with plastic isn’t suitable for composting, and most times, such products are incinerated for heat or landfilled rather than recycled.
https://www.almostzerowaste.com/non-recyclable-paper/
Yes they already exist. They are not really better than pure plastic, they’re kind of a form of greenwashing because they appear to be environmentally friendly.
Aida said the new material is as strong as petroleum-based plastics but breaks down into its original components when exposed to salt.
If this means that it does not break down when exposed to just water, that’s a pretty big deal. Water solubility has been the major issue making biodegradable plastics useless for food packaging (typically you want to either keep the food wet and water in, or dry and water out - either way water permeability is a problem).
Of course most foods also contain salt, so… I guess that’s why the article talks about coatings. If the material has to be coated to keep it from breaking down too fast, what is the point? either the coating will prevent it from breaking down, or it just moves the problem to the coating not breaking down.
How often do older devices get breached
A meaningful answer would require specificity about “older” (5, 10, 20+ years?) and would have to be broken down into manufacturer / major software / use case / target market groups. Also… would you include breach reports for software in the statistics? For instance, if an Adobe app was breached and leaked user account data, but it only affected devices running an older version of Android, is that an Adobe breach or an Android breach, or both?
and is there any way to continue using an “older” device safely
Basically, once a device stops receiving security updates from the manufacturer it should be considered untrustworthy. The only caveat to this would be if you knew the hardware (CPU/APU/GPU, storage, RAM, and especially NICs and TPMs), knew the firmware for all of it, knew the software running on top of it, knew that it had been audited, knew that there weren’t any major unpatched vulnerabilities for any of it, and probably limited its use to known/trusted networks. That’s a lot of work and some of it is probably impossible due to proprietary hardware & firmware.
But you’d also have to weigh all of that against your threat model like I described above. The question is always “How much effort would someone put in to hack me?” There is never zero risk, even with a brand new, fully up to date device. Security is always a game of “I don’t have to outrun the bear, I just have to outrun you.”
I feel like short security update lifecycles are a form of planned obsolescence.
There’s some truth in this, but also recognize that every CPU model has its own specific microcode, every discrete device will have its own firmware and driver, and every mainboard will have its own specific firmware that makes all of those devices work together. Every version of every phone model ever produced has some amount of device code that is specific to that version and model. Keeping on top of updating every one of them would be a monumental task. Testing every update for every device before deploying the update would probably be functionally impossible.
All of that is a big part of why Apple controls the hardware of their devices so tightly. It allows them to standardize things and limit the amount of code they have to write, and in general Apple supports their devices with security updates much longer than other mobile device manufacturers. Their support range seems to be about 7 years.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not personally an Apple user. I prefer the broader freedom of choice in hardware and software in the Android market, but I understand that there’s a tradeoff due to the lack of standardization. Apple’s approach has benefits - there is a degree of safety in the walled garden that is not possible outside of it.
What really needs to happen is that buyers need to demand end-of-life information and support commitments from the manufacturers. For instance, the Fairphone 5 has guaranteed security updates until 2031, eight years after the launch date. That way you can make an informed decision before you buy.
https://www.investopedia.com/news/bitcoin-pizza-day-celebrating-20-million-pizza-order/