Jeffool

In the quotes pulled from the original interview, he talks about how, thanks to early career specialization, “there is no fertile ground for these types of all-rounder game directors to grow.” It makes sense to me. With hundreds of people developing a game, and everyone starting at "ground level," there are so many levels to rise through before you get to lead a game, and even begin to grow in that role.

Compare that to a few decades ago. Carmack, Romero, and most of the Doom team were in their 20s when they made Doom. Or look at Chrono Trigger. Kazuhiko Aoki was the producer, and it was his 7th game at the age of 34. It was designer Hironobu Sakaguchi's 17th game at 33.

I get you! I was bigger into copyright some 20-30 years ago myself when we would've all been on Slashdot.

To that end, I was WRONG in my post, I think I was conflating two things, and for that, I'm sorry. I was certainly thinking in part about Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Corley (2001). That was the case that decided that the software DeCSS was illegal, and you could distribute the software. I was thinking that while the court did agree with Universal over the software, that it did not find that breaking DRM on a product you owned was inherently illegal. (I legit think this was a "take" at the time. Probably wouldn't hold up in court these days, sadly.) And I did find that years later the Library of Congress offered exemptions for breaking DRM on some hardware (vehicles, medical devices,) but I believe even those were temporary and have since lapsed.

Sorry I spoke so surely about something I was wrong about.

/edit: I was WRONG. This is my memory failing me. I explain it further below, and apologize for wasting any time.

~~After the DMCA passed there was a case of a judge finding it legal to bypass DRM to make backup copies, but illegal to distribute the software used to do so. I have no idea if there was ever further clarification or new law about this. That was like 20 years ago. It was part of a case going after the company who was making the software, but the name slips my mind. I'll try to look it up if anyone cares enough and wants to look for something more than hearsay on a forum.~~

His comment at 7:07 about how "it makes it look like these objects can't be perceived" is exactly the context that struck me. It begs for a Cthulhu-esque encounter of some type. Remedy could make masterful use of this in the next Control game, for instance.

Neat about the first music videos to do it, too. I only remembered seeing it in OKGO and Watsy videos.

/edit: Of course he goes on to mention Control. It's a good fit.

It's what Steam calls parts of the art assets a game displays in the store. I'm assuming they meant the header image. Here's some more info: https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/store/assets/standard

C̴̖͕̟̦̣̝̟̠̺̋̋͐̈̀́̚o̴̯͈̠͉̮̾͛̅̔͘n̶̡͎͙̻̹̮͔͓̩̟͆̏ͅg̷̝̰̹̝̙̻̺̭̲͍̜̾̾r̷̢̢̭̟̤̥̭̹̊̏̀̽̒̚͠͝a̴̧͇͕͍͇͐t̷̤̫̙̦̩̘̚͠u̵̞͚̝͗͂̉̓̆́͑̈́̇̚l̸̢͕͕̘͕̮̼̔͝a̷͉̯̥͉̦̱̋̌͘t̵̢̛̙̯̬̮̘̖̗̳̲̗̺̳̙̣̰͖͋̔͑̀͛͘͝i̴̡̤͓̹̞̗̪̗̜̜̝̟͔̰͇̺͇͛͛̋̒̋̍͑̽͂͠o̷̢̨̧͈̰̪͙̊ņ̵͎͈̉͑͊̂ͅs̷̨̝̣̭̭̫̜̳̝͍̪̔̆̄͂̃̽̚͝͝!̵̢̛̰͚̃̿̈́̈́̃̿͗̽͌̓̈́̀͊̿̚͘

I abandoned Twitter for Mastodon a few months after Musk bought Twitter. I figured I'd keep the account around to DM people who there, just in case my need to do so arose. Then I kinda forgot about it. Cut to a few months ago I sent a message to someone on a different service. I knew they were doing a project, but I politely asked them "hey, do you have the interest and time to do xyz?"

They said "I'm sorry, I'd normally love to, I'm just really busy right now and don't have the time; you probably know I'm doing ABC myself." And that was legit. But they added "Also, you should know I generally don't work with people who have Twitter accounts anyway, for future reference."

Initially I was "But wait, I don't USE it..." But I took a few minutes to think about it. I mean, he wasn't wrong. I DID have an account at the Nazi bar... And I don't use it. It just lends my name to the service for no benefit to me. And that's why I decided to download my data and delete my account. Sometimes calling people out (in a helpful way,) can be a positive.

And that, dear reader, not necessarily the person I'm replying to but you reading this, is now me reminding you that you can delete your Twitter account and stop supporting the Nazi bar.

I'm glad you're involved enough to know this and care about it. I'm 44 and have no kids, so take this with a huge grain of salt... But I'd probably let my kid keep it. At 16 you can just sit them down and have a talk with them about it. (And it sounds like you have.) Let them know this means his friend's family has money that he does not, and you do not.

Let him know that he shouldn't take advantage of his friend's cavalier attitude and kindness, nor should he let his friend's familial wealth pressure him. He should appreciate this, but not expect it, or feel guilty about it. And let him know this is a complex thing, and if they need to talk about it, it's better they approach you to talk about it early rather than late.

Underscore that this is squarely his friend's parents money, not his friend's. It can come and go at any time, and that's okay. Value the friendship more than the money, and if that changes, don't accept such gifts.

My folks would invite a cousin my age over for the night before Christmas when we were all in our mid teens. The next morning he would things like clothes, shoes, and an electric razor; things a young guy needs. My folks were not rich, just lower middle class and able to help out. It's a different situation than you're in. But if this family of your child's friend has money and wants to spread the love and is capable of doing so in an adult and healthy way, I personally think 16 is an age at which someone can begin to deal with the complex dynamics of monetary differences.

You know your kid better than us strangers online. And remember, they also have you on their side. Growing up is going to be difficult anyway. Just be there for them when they need it, and they'll probably be fine.

Edit: And also maybe get to know the other set of parents better. Explain to them you're appreciative of their kindness, and so does your son, but that your concern is just that you don't want it to create an awkward dynamic between your children in the future. Again 16 is young adult, but still a kid, so I understand your concern. They probably will to.

I imagine if the multimillionaires are feeling it, the billionaires already are as well. They're probably just better at keeping quiet about such things

Most of our banks have Zelle, which lets us send money from one bank account directly to another. You can to use the associated email address, phone number, or name. I think it shows you the name on the account? I'm honestly not positive as I so rarely use it. But even then you could create a business account. But not many people use it. Most people prefer Paypal, CashApp, or Venmo.

My first thought was "hey, I'm down for that!" and churros and a ton of other things. But ultimately you're right. I'm still down for ice cream while it's snowing.

Sadly this isn't new, and hospitals are an example that comes to mind for me. At least one in particular. In 2007 there was a huge scandal about the treatment of US soldiers at Walter Reed, which was thought of as one of the top military hospitals. The initial reporting was from the Washington Post and largely focused on how the privatization of care and the contracting process itself had failed the patients so horribly.

I vaguely recall that building upkeep was delayed years because of contracting issues, and that the staff was slashed from hundreds (plural) to less than a hundred, claiming they couldn't find qualified candidates. There were complaints about rats, roaches, and black mold. I'm also fairly certain there was a story of one guy saying he was handed a shitty photocopy of the grounds and it took him hours walking around in a hospital gown to find his room. Two weeks later he found the person who was supposed to be running his case, and the case manager said they had no idea where the patient had been those two weeks.

Looking now, Wikipedia doesn't even mention privatization or contracting issues. The one (2010) complaint of this on the Talk page gets a reply saying "well the military was ultimately responsible for holding those contractors accountable," and it ends there. Not wrong, but still feels like it's not giving a full account of the story.

Obviously this is just conjecture now, but honestly the staffing part reminds me just like how, as I'm job hunting now, I notice companies keep posting the same ads, saying they can't find anyone who wants to work, while offering peanuts for very high requirements, and getting hundreds of applications. I'm sure lots of them aren't qualified, but I'm confident some of them are. I've even been offered significantly less than my last job paid, for a position (at a different employer) that would've been a manager for my previous level. I can only imagine how crazy it gets in the medical field.