So what, you think they shouldn’t be reviewed bad for a broken game?
No, it’s broken and shouldn’t be for sale if they’re not going to fix it.
Guess what, as a mobile dev, my job is to fix the broken shit on multiple OSs as well. It’s the territory.
It’s almost like you can delist it in such a way you prevent people from paying money for a broken game with no intention of updating it again, and still leave it for people who currently have copies.
Wow that was such a garbage take.
Sure
But when people are replying to
https://lemm.ee/comment/17210238
Saying that anyone not calling out Microsoft is biased, is a bad take. And I’m not sure what your point of more context is needed?
A broken game gets negative reviews. I’m not sure what’s biased about this.
Yes! That’s a very common use case for VPNs in the corporate world.
So tailscale client, the apps you actually download are open source. What’s not open source is the server side code.
Because the interface of tailscale is publicly known and available, someone went and made an open source server side version compatible with tailscale clients.
What’s tail scale?
It’s an easy to use VPN. I can expose just my server to the vpn and my community can easily gain access.
That yes, it doesn’t bother me that Ubisoft is a consumer of Microsoft.
If Ubisoft doesn’t update their product, they should be reviews negatively. If they don’t like it they should de list it so people don’t pay money for a broken product.
So, people should leave positive reviews for games that no longer work?
Like I get what your saying. It’s not Ubisoft’s fault.
But if they’re not going to fix their old game, than it should be reviewed negatively so people don’t spend money on a game that no longer works.
If they don’t want that, than delist it.
Companies aren’t people. So yes, my limit is “skin deep”.
(Not the person you replied to).
100% not a cost optimized way to host, but much more about balancing cost vs manual maintenance.
Thanks!
Yeah my goal was wired for this reason.
I’ve worked on Bluetooth as a developer and good lord it needs to burn in a fire.
That question is what brings me here!
I’m thinking of doing a soundbar and subwoofer in the living room, sound bars alone in each bedroom and some bookshelf speakers in other rooms
It misses where apple brought back audio and magsafe
Audio is valid, but apple brought back magesafe.
EDIT my 3 year oldacbook pro has bothagsafe and 3.5mm audio.
Except devices, specifically quoting routers, Do make up bot nets
That’s the specfici malware used on unsecured IoT devices and routers.
I was able to find tons of scholarly articles Like this one
That specifically talk about how many of these devices get comprised.
This isn’t some theoretical attack vector. This is active now.
The risk of taking down large portions of the internet has the same risks as a vacuum? Interesting.
Your right not every device has parts availability. But again, why not? Because it it’ll cost more?
Your willing to risk tanking the digital economy for what has historically been huge sums of money, because we don’t hold vacuum cleaners to higher standards?
I’m being obtuse, but you keep pointing to “well we don’t fix that problem over there, so we shouldn’t do it over here”. It doesn’t sway me. We should absolutely fix repability of ALL ELECRONTICS AND CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
We do take cars that fail safety inspections off the road. You are correct, we don’t hold them to higher standards, but that’s not a reason why we also shouldn’t remove genuine hazards off the roads.
If a car is far more likely to kill someone, it shouldn’t be on public roads either. Just like devices that can’t be update don’t belong on public nets. The risk to the broader public is to big IMO.
Software 100% needs to be included in support.
Old devices that become vulnerable but still accessible on the internet, eventually become part of bot nets producing DDOS and other network attacks.
Ubisoft isn’t the victim here, consumers buying broken games are.