sh79

What a shallow take. Activism isn't "drama". Maybe the problem is just that cynicism has rotted your frame of reference.

>And yes, I know PSN supports less countries than Steam, but how many people on the internet really reside in one of those non-supported areas? I would bet it is less than 84,000 people.

I don't think it's a very good point to make. "I'm a consumer, but it doesn't affect MY bottom line, so it's not anti-consumer". Well, sure, I guess.

>I don't think it's a good thing to only point out a systematic issue when it's inconviient. That's how these "but it worked here" sorts of issues become abused. I'd rather point out how this snowball is rolling before it becomes a boulder later on, especially when boulders have already formed and gone not nearly as mentioned.

That's how you appear tone deaf. You're making your "hot take" under a legitimate case of review systems working as they were intended, it's not part of the systematic issue.

>Pet peeve: "anti-consumer" has lost all meaning. Paying $10 more was "anti consumer", downloading a store of your own preference is "anti-consumer". Now making an account you don't like is "anti-consumer"? You see how this word has gotten diluted in the gaming community, no? I miss when inconveniences were just that, inconvient. Not a declaration of war for capitalism.

I'm not sure what war you think anyone is declaring, this is merely a bunch of frustrated paid customers voicing their opinion. There are many things in gaming, and well everywhere else, that are indeed anti-consumer. I think it's why it may appear to you that the word is diluted. Ultimately, it's down to communication between the company and their customers: if the market views something anti-consumer as "acceptable", then those things would not cause a negative reaction of this scale. I'm not saying Sony was unjustified in requiring a PSN link, but it was communicated poorly and after the game has already been sold to people who would be losing their access a result of it. It's not a new practice either: many games do require you to create an account with their or someone else's service to enable different online features, like crossplay. It's not really a problem until it's handled in a way that it becomes one.

This is not a hot take, but uninformed one. They sold a game with PSN requirement in the countries where PSN was not available at all. You would just lose access to your game after 4 months, how is that a slight inconvenience? It's a pretty big legal mess they almost got themselves into.

There are probably times when you could make an argument like this, but this isn't one of them. A company pulled something very anti-consumer, and the review system was instrumental in holding them accountable.

It was mentioned in another comment to the parent. There are no alternatives currently, the whole thing has been built upon llama.cpp since its inception.

Their behaviour around llama.cpp acknowledgement is very shady. Until the very recent, there was no mention of llama.cpp in their README at all and now it's tucked away all the way down. Compare that to the originally proposed PR for example: https://github.com/ollama/ollama/pull/3700

To me it sounds like you're already convinced that the earth is flat and just taking out your bad day at people online.

The title is misleading. The author changed their open source project into a commercial product with source available. It's not a business built around an open source project as the title implies, it's a license switch.

The image of another tower used in the article is pretty confusing. This <https://apnews.com/article/radio-station-tower-stolen-am-fm-...> one apparently includes the real one, which I think makes the theft appear more within the realms of possibility.

Building a company inherently carries a risk of failure with it. You seem to be taking it the wrong way, you really shouldn't be building your company based on a few opinions of HN comments, nor it's their responsibility to outline the full extent of risks involved.

YT went too far from being fair for consumers personally. Google cuts off monetization almost randomly at times, creators then have to embed the ads directly into their video, bypassing Google's ad platform and inconsistent monetization terms, the consumers now have to watch through Google's ads and creator's ads. I'm paying Google for YT premium to get rid of its ads, there's no alternative to get rid of shit the creator decides to sell out for. And there should be no sponsorship deals in the first place, since Google should be paying them. So I feel justified to use SponsorBlock.

I don't think anybody is attributing it solely to Valve, but it's hard to deny that Valve is currently the main driving force behind gaming on Linux, hence they're getting lots of praise. The Linux gaming stack consists of quite a few open source projects however, and I don't think it's that criminal that they aren't being mentioned in a comment to an article that does mention them :)

Everything builds upon Wine, but when it comes to games it alone wasn't doing so well outside older dx9 titles.

It's mostly DXVK/Proton's VKD3D that actually allowed a lot of games to work on Linux with little overhead, both are funded by Valve. So I don't think calling upon Pareto principle in regards to Valve is fair either.