Weird, I’ve never needed root to make that happen. I used to just disable the built-in YouTube and then set Vanced as the URL handler for YouTube URLs, and then they’d open in Vanced. Maybe that doesn’t work on every Android variant?
Is there a disadvantage to ReVanced without root? Back in the Vanced days, I actually had less trouble with non-root on my OnePlus vs. rooted on my LG. I had to reinstall the rooted version every boot for some reason I never understood.
Figures, but disappointing.
This is pretty much my thought. It’s an enjoyable movie, but I’ve always been of the opinion that “enjoyable” and “good” aren’t the same thing.
There are good movies and music that I don’t enjoy, and they’re are movies and music I enjoy that aren’t good.
AFAIK Google isn’t mirroring any of the binary stuff anyway though, are they? So how big is it? Surely with proper text compression it’s under 100TB. That’s 5 large hard drives at this point.
Are they adding back AVX512?
Yeah, it needs to get into Internet Archive stat.
I realize that, but they don’t offer a read-only plan either. He’s been paying for something, whether it’s an official plan or not. If they sent an email saying that you can keep your data in read-only mode, and he kept paying the bill, they should’ve stuck with that.
I do realize it’s Google and they can’t be trusted to not fuck this up, but everyone is talking like this guy was just expecting Google to keep letting him access his data without paying a bill. The email they sent me basically said that I can keep paying my bill, and they’ll keep my data, but I can’t add any new data until I get under the quota. This is a plan that they offered to these people.
AFAIK they keep charging you once it goes read-only. Does it say he quit paying? I’ve got an account that went read-only after the grace period, and they still bill it every month.
Where does it say he quit paying? I have a Google account in read-only mode from about the same time period, and they keep charging me for it.
You know, I’ve routinely been surprised what gamers do and don’t put up with, so I really don’t know what to expect anymore.
I dunno if you remember how gamers responded when Steam came out, but they really, really hated it. And it wasn’t just the issues with slow internet, bugs in Steam, and stuff like that. They seemed to kinda philosophically hate it. Even the gaming magazines ran articles about how it ruined software ownership, it was awful how it made it so that you couldn’t even do things like give your old games to your kids or your friends, etc. And gamer forums had the same kinda complaints. And it was even worse since Valve forced people to start using Steam to keep playing CS, even though CS had previously not required Steam.
But fast forward to some years later, and nobody cares about any of that stuff. Well, I guess they do sometimes. People complained about Epic moving Rocket League to EGS, which was kinda funny since it was moving from a service that had, years prior angered people when it started being required for a different hit multiplayer game.
Anyway, I could see gamers complaining and then just getting onboard 5-10 years later. That’s what they usually do if the developers they like push for it.
If you can transfer / buy everywhere, how would there be any exclusivity, though?
Platforms are all already dealing with the possibility that they don’t make money but still have to distribute the games. If you bought a game for $0.99 on Steam 15 years ago, and you download it today, they’re not making money off you. If you download a F2P game via Steam and never buy anything, they lose money. Hell, I’ve never bought anything on Steam, but I’ve probably downloaded terabytes of data from them. They’re not making money on me, except maybe with ads (which would apply to this other scenario too).
The platforms also already have to deal with the issue of not getting paid because you bought / got the game somewhere else. You can buy from GMG, etc. and then download from Steam. And publishers give away games frequently during anniversaries, etc. that you then download from Steam or Epic.
My thinking is that the platforms would obviously want to make money, so they’re going to price compete to make sure you buy it there instead of buying it somewhere else and downloading it from there.
I also think an inevitable outcome of digital distribution in general is that companies are going to start charging for downloads. Digital games are one time purchases requiring lifetime support. They’re not going to let it work that way forever.
deleted by creator
I don’t have numbers for how frequently it happens, but the need to use old releases happens on both OSes. If you’re using an architecture that Debian has since dropped support for, you have to stick on the old release. (They stopped supporting one of the MIPS variants recently.)
Debian also sometimes drops packages because they won’t build on the newer release and there’s no maintainer for the package. Now you need to stay on the old release (or port it to the new libraries yourself) if you wanna keep using it.
This to me would be the potential big benefit. One of the problems right now is that there really isn’t an organization that everyone would trust to just hold onto their licenses without demanding some kind of exclusivity, etc. If Valve is the one holding your license to Borderlands 3, they’re not gonna let you play on Epic using that license. They want you to use their services.
If there’s a third party that is just in charge of licenses, and those licenses work everywhere, that basically makes launcher exclusivity impossible and also makes it so that licenses continue to live even if the launcher dies.
For the record, I think NFTs / Blockchain solutions are typically the stupidest shit in the world, but there was a Blockchain game licensing proposal some years back, and it actually would have avoided some of the vendor lock-in / licenses evaporating when the vendor dies type issues we’re dealing with now.
The problem is just that none of the publishers or launchers would ever play ball with the idea. They stand to make more money by not playing nicely with everyone else.
Why would allowing transfer between platforms be a bad thing? You wouldn’t necessarily have to be able to buy on any given platform, but it could be the case that the license allows use on multiple different platforms.
Everybody is shitting on this idea, but there was actually a GitHub repo a long time ago that proposed something like this.
IIRC, the idea was that your licenses would be associated with your private key. There would be independent resellers who could sell keys (in conjunction with publishers), and there would be distributors who actually distribute the data that your license then allows you to use.
It seemed like a cool idea, because it basically would make it so that there is a standard for licenses, making launcher exclusivity impossible.
I disagree that it’s more similar to service packs. Debian has dropped entire architectures at some releases, and they frequently break binary (and sometimes source) compatibility, far more frequently than service packs do. Hardware compatibility breakage is pretty common between releases too.
It’s probably true that Microsoft changes more between releases, but if you installed Debian on your 32-bit big endian MIPS hardware, you needed to switch to a different OS or buy new hardware when they drop support for Buster.
They’ve not been supporting the same release for that entire time, though. Debian requires you to upgrade to keep getting security patches, the same way Microsoft requires you to upgrade to keep getting security patches.
Looks like some kinda scaling artifact. It’s probably from processing of the screenshot and not anything to do with the way the app actually renders fonts.