Being able to run dx12 in a virtualized environment that's still under Windows (and thus not actually changing anything vs just developing only for windows) is going to lure undecided game developers how?
Say you're a game developer under Linux, OK? Then this comes along and you give it a try. This combined with all the great game engines that are pure Windows these days (see Unreal Engine 5 demo that was launched these days) and you now can target Linux using that. What do you do - continue with Vulkan or offer your game using this?
You can't target Linux using that. I think you misunderstand what this is. It doesn't help nor hurt Vulkan or Linux development -- this only exists to "optimize" the Linux VM in Windows.
Brave just has adblock by default with an opt-in system for ads based on notifications. It isn't replacing the ads on the page. Not sure how you see that as racketeering, it's a completely different system.
But it does replace the ads on the page, because those ads they serve are related to the pages you visit and that the system is "opt-in" is irrelevant, because that's their business model.
It's racketeering because they piggyback on publishers for serving their ads contextually, while not allowing publishers to run their own ads, forcing publishers to join if they want any revenue from Brave users. Brave wants to be a gate keeper, coercing publishers in the process.
Again, I don't see how this isn't illegal. It's one thing to be a non-profit browser extension developed by a community on GitHub, it's quite another to do build ad blocking products for profit, because the later is clearly copyright infringement at the very least.
You're a decade behind on consoles, 50k animated triangles haven't been an issue for years. Even early PS4 games had more triangles per character, in some cases more triangles simply for hair, let alone the rest of a character.
I'll give you that purely GPU-skinned on PS4 can go up to 700k for the entire scene, but that means 14 or less people visible at a 50k budget.
So for a game like Assassin's Creed, the per-character and per-item poly counts need to be significantly lower, to make sure the combined sum of the scene is still manageable.
Are these reviewers big enough in the industry for there to be any reason to assume they got a pre-tested vehicle? If not there's absolutely no indication that this failure suggests a higher overall failure rate.
I don't see why you're getting so defensive and making meaningless arguments when the entire point of the article is that the current arrangement isn't that great for consumers.
Yes, they're well within their rights to ban you, but it's terrible for consumers to not even get an explanation as to what rule you violated.
Because I believe in liberty. If I wanted to create a content hosting platform for example, I would want to reserve the right to ban people without notice and without recourse. I'm in the business of hosting content I want to host, not in the business of arguing with people on whether or not their content is appropriate. There are many other platforms to choose from.
I agree with the other response, well written entertainment would retain the viewer's attention consistently. I can binge 24 episodes of a well written show without looking at my phone at all, but something that doesn't require much attention will have me immediately reaching for the phone to catch up on other things.
I really enjoy complete pin drop silence, but when that isn't available (like when working at a computer that just can't be completely quiet) it's far more preferable to have some sort of conversation or music blocking out the sound instead of the whirring of fans and hard drives.
Add in how their humor generally doesn't amount to much more than bad faith descriptions of real world issues, senseless comparisons accompanied with a bad Photoshop and it's no wonder people use a second screen at the same time! John Oliver especially ran this sort of thing into the ground.
It appears that "respecting peoples' privacy" currently equates to having an overlay with a button to accept cookies, and a message stating that using the website means accepting <whatever>. So I haven't figured out what the button means, but to preserve maximum uncertainty, I try not to click it.
Or just because the US doesn't have good privacy laws doesn't mean you should then decide to suck up as much data on everyone as possible. Just because they can be a dick doesn't mean they have to.
