yamazakiwi

Some inputs are hard but I don't see this as a problem. There are many characters in most FG's so I don't see a problem with some characters having challenging or even extremely challenging inputs. Some players enjoy that challenge, and if you don't, you don't have to play that character, you can play one that fits your playstyle.

In Mount & Blade you don't make nearly as many decisions or utilize raw mechanical skill, it is mostly strategy and preparation. Mechanical challenge is part of what makes fighting games, fighting games.

>Compare this with the simplicity of Mount & Blade Warband which achieves greater depth, in 3D, with a very simple and intuitive control scheme.

Most of M&BW depth is outside of the combat system (whereas fighting games are generally only comprised of a combat system) thus making them hard to compare directly. Simplicity is a not a good first principle for developing a successful fighting game combat systems historically. Simple = Less Skill Expression

I would be interested to see how places like Korea or Australia with large drinking populations would differ from dry places.

Not necessarily all of your issue I'm sure but genre plays a large part in discovery. I find it has a hard time with less popular electronic and soundcloud type beats for instance.

SMRPG also marks the initiation of the comedic writing style that would later become characteristic of games like Paper Mario and later Mario RPG titles.

Which 4? There's 11 of them

>But if this deal follows a Capitalist system, if we have greater supply of "valuable" content, than the price should go down and we should view less ads over time.

The prices are not going due to an economic change of form. It's happening because capitalism facilitates it. I think the writer is using an old view of capitalism and ascribing developments in modern capitalism to something brand new.

We can't stop the markets and tell them they're not being good old boy pure capitalists when they are doing exactly what capitalism promotes, albeit secretly. If a system develops differently than anticipated due to how it's used, it doesn't make it not the original design. You can repurpose the design, and make people view it differently, but the design remains static and people will react to the system appropriately based on the conditions allowed and not the conditions predicted or requested.

The need for a new definition arises solely from the person attempting to persuade you to accept it, better so if it confirms bias, uses half-truths to explain, and catchy language like Technofeudalism.

I guess it has provoked my thought, maybe I will read it.

Most times you are getting something else of value in return when viewing advertisements. free services, etc

What we're doing is more capitalistic so I'm uninterested in drawing parallels with feudalism personally, I guess fan-fiction economics are not for me.

You are right, it is easier to write utilizing few relations instead of trying to manipulate static categories and concepts that don't bend to your will. To me this is a signal of quality but I could see benefits to writing this way, such as, if your goal was to get more people talking about the issue proposed. There are also potential downsides to writing this way, especially if you actually care about solving these problems and are at the mercy of governmental and capatilistic systems vs selling a book (Not saying that's what this economist is doing).

I agree that the definition of "work" has changed over time and I'm not trying to be pedantic so let's get to the point, does it matter if it's considered work or not? The real issue most people would agree with is the bad guys are extracting tons of value through the actions of their users. Should those users be paid? The answer is: it depends.

In our current system we would create an organization that can generate money by holding the tech companies responsible to pay users when it is deemed to do so. Unfortunately I don't see the money amounting to very much unless laws change drastically since even class-action lawsuits for leaked data provide very little. I'm guessing that measuring "phone work" would amount to micro-cents regardless of value directly generated.

You are also picking very specific points, there are many ways that these techs are NOT like feudal lords.

Good examples though!

It is a bit complex and needs some deeper thought than these few comparisons make FB a Feudal Lord and you are a Cloud Slave.

That's a good point, and I think the topics, when not compared to feudalism are worth talking about.

I agree with everthing you said, but again, contextually users aren't doing any "work". That is the distinction I'm trying to draw. You are less like a serf and more like a thief victim, making the writers comparisons quite stretched by definition. We could be discussing these problems straight-forward as you have described them instead of trying to make it sound like skynet has turned us into actual slaves and selling people on 24 news-cycle style dystopia bait.

Your bank account begs to differ that reading blogs and watching videos isn't work? In what way might I ask?

Serfs work, it is not work to read blogs or watch videos.

Because this thesis is stupid

This framing is silly. He says we're Cloud Serfs because we do unpaid work whenever we use our phones... You're not a Serf for using social media or watching videos online, regardless of how much value is extracted by these companies.

You contributed nothing to the dialogue surrounding the topic that you are supposedly defending from mud throwing.

It's difficult to take this seriously.

Cloud Serfs? ...really?

He names these new capitalists Vassal Capitalists and then makes the title of the book What Killed Capitalism.

I never see ads on chromecast unless I'm using an application that has ads, e.g. youtube without premium

I personally don't blame the fastfood worker for giving me a Big Mac.

Are you ok? I'm genuinely asking.

Or you can also take the Google approach and minimize and obfuscate channels for support communication.

It depends on where you are in Japan, it's mostly Green but there are some Blue ones occasionally.

That is unfortunate

It's not weird to share opinions on a forum, I don't read any smugness in their tone.

The poster's intention is to fish for people that feel similarly and drive discussion, not flex that they are unaffected.

I think contextually art is one thing that can be made great utilizing creative restraints, but it's less likely a person will be willing to jump around obstacles if they are too great or not specifically related to the creative pursuit. Many times a creative pursuit doesn't seem like an option BECAUSE of the constraints.

I see, the missing link is not age, it's freedom.

I myself do a bad job of being bored, even when freedom is provided. My reaction is reinforced due to how often I am compelled to deal with boredom without freedom.

Maybe that's just for children?

I'm bored everyday at work and it never motivates me. Boredom drives me towards the easy things just to kill time. The outcome is usually waiting for the cause of boredom to end. (Work)

I'm personally hoping for an full scale AGI vs Human war so humans can have a common enemy.

The M&M test is a tactic. It's not the only strategy you would employ if you were trying to solve the issues that Fukushima had and money wasn't relevant to how this solution helped Van Halen. Drawing interesting parallels makes for better conversation, I'm not sure anyone needed to be reminded of the differences between a Band's live show setup and Nuclear Power Plant safety.

That being said... you would be surprised to learn how often "cute" tactics like these are utilized by governments to leverage human behavior.

If a person only spends that much time applying, it's likely those applications are going in the trash, unless they have highly relevant signals. I change my resume for every company I apply, which is likely not happening.