I'm fairly certain there would be no Classic WoW without private servers to show Blizzard there was a demand. They seemed embarrassed about the entire concept.
Same with emulation, really; had that not been developed, I doubt Nintendo would care about their back catalogue.
Blizzard has become a greedy and insidious org. I genuinely dislike the way they do business and implement systems to keep players playing their games as chores rather than for fun. They charge huge money for trivial things, and their support is entirely useless.
> Same with emulation, really; had that not been developed, I doubt Nintendo would care about their back catalogue.
I agree with the previous point (no WoW classic without private server), I'm a bit more doubtful about Nintendo. They did remakes before it was cool (see: Super Mario All Stars), and the Super Nintendo -> Gameboy Advance pipeline was well received.
Well yeah, but, hypothetically speaking (and just for the sake of pure curiosity) - what about "no sun" scenario, such as nuclear winter or something similar?
Frankly the other cofounders are just as bad as Thiel but don't draw the headlines quite as much.
"Yesterday, Palantir founder Joe Lonsdale agreed with an X post suggesting communists in the Western hemisphere should be blown up. “Exactly,” he wrote. “What did you think founding Palantir was supposed to be about?”" - https://responsiblestatecraft.org/defense-companies-maduro/
"In a CNBC interview Thursday, Palantir cofounder and CEO Alex Karp opined that AI will undermine the influence of “highly educated, often female voters” and empower working class men instead. And anyone who doesn’t realize this political reality, he added, belongs in an “insane asylum.”" - https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/ceo-palantir-ai...
It limits both sides involved in a conflict from using nuclear weapons first.
As history has clearly shown, it doesn't do much to prevent conventional wars, especially involving third parties.
I don't think anyone in power truly believes that France would actually use nuclear weapons to protect Italy during a conventional war against a nuclear power when France itself isn't in danger - let alone in a war Italy started. That's a no-win scenario for France.
Italy isn't a third party. They're both EU states. French nuclear doctrine is specifically the only one with nuclear first strikes as response to conventional threats.
If push comes to shove, I believe France is incredibly unlikely to actually attack the US with nuclear weapons regardless of what happens to Italy.
Doctrines and policies are meaningless under pressure. Would France risk global nuclear armageddon and the near-extinction of humanity for Italy? Almost certainly not, regardless of what their "doctrine" says.
They are a third party. The EU isn't a country, it's an association and it's clear that solitary between member countries only goes so far.
We saw what happened when France triggered the mutual defense clause in the EU charter after the terrorist attacked. Even when they all but begged other EU states to help them, they were rebuffed.
There's little reason to believe France would behave any differently if the roles had been reversed in the especially if there was any real risk to themselves if they got involved.
So their "fix" was to have an artist do a quick paint-over to remove the most egregious artifacts. Is that... actually any better? Just hire artists to make the damn paintings in the first place.
