Check if you find anything about this in the kernel log (dmesg).

Well, the issue with that is that achievements are global over all playthroughs, so it doesn’t really work as a checklist.

Sure there are some interesting achievment, like the Stanley parable ones. For instance: ‘Go outside: Don’t play the game for 5 years’ (https://thestanleyparable.fandom.com/wiki/Achievements)

I only play single player games, but couldn’t care less about achievements. It is all about exploration, story, game mechanics and modding for me.

People treat achievements as if they are a status symbol. I mean sure, if you don’t know what else to do in a game, they can give you some goal, but IMO the game itself should encourage you to reach the goal, not some external badge. The experience doing the task should be the reward in of itself.

Its a bit old, but the last reports for DA:O on wine look good: https://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=version&iId=33926

I don’t know why you are so aggressive.

You made a good point, this is actually DLC, I just forgot about it.

I bought BG3 when it was in EA, so I got this DLC automatically, so I never really thought about it recently, I don’t even remember seeing it on any shop front.

But now that you mentioned it, I think I thought that they should probably release it for free for everyone at that time. Just like CDPR released some cosmetic ‘DLC’ for free after launch.

If I had to buy it, I probably wouldn’t.

AFAIK, modding is the main reason for Skyrims long term success. Sure, it did its part in inspiring people initially, but what keeps at least me coming back is my interest in trying new mods.

But it also didn’t start there with Elder Scrolls series. Morrowind, Oblivion, Fallout 3 and New Vegas use a very moddable predecessor of the Skyrim engine, and thus build the community up for Skyrim and later games.

Modability of KC:D was rather limited, so there isn’t a community around as big as the Skyrim one. That means with Skyrim, you get what you can mod into it, while with Kingdom Come, you mostly just get what you buy.

So I don’t expect it to be the next Skyrim, but never the less I am interested in it.

I don’t remember that. AFAIK Larian has not made, and will not make any DLC for BG3.

What do you mean?

Depends on how you use it.

I use youtube without login to see videos of specific creators or to search for specific videos.

I have no use for the recommending system.

Yes. Meat is expensive, and should be expensive.

However meat replacement products cost even more, but they should be cheaper, because they are cheaper to produce.

Diary free ice cream is more expensive. Cow milk is cheaper than oat milk.

This isn’t just about not eating meat or animal products, this is the whole “vegan lifestyle” food that is unreasonable more expensive.

Like buying more expensive vegan salt or sugar instead of normal one.

And if you don’t do that, you are not a “true vegan™”. And the vegan police will come and get you!

“Oh, the pepper you just ate was fertilized by pig manure, sorry you aren’t vegan anymore. You should have bought the more expensive vegan pepper.”

You can accept that they are making a better choice, but then you have to accept that you’re making a worse choice.

No, people don’t dislike vegans or vegetarians because of their choices, they dislike them because they lord their, what they think “better” choice over others. And create in- and out- groups via labeling.

Being vegan or vegetarian means that you have to spend more money in the store to buy food, because meat is heavily subsidized compared to vegetarian options. Also, because being vegan/vegetarian is not the default, many products are overpriced.

Another point is that a healthy and varied diet using only vegan or vegetarian food doesn’t come so natural, so you have to research this more, which means you have to spend time, which again is a commodity.

So it is not just about good or bad, it is also about privilege and class. So people should not go around making statements about other people making “worse” choices.

Currently being vegan or vegetarian is a choice of privilege. An healthy and varied diet becomes more difficult and expensive, when you start removing dishes from your pallet.

So it becomes coupled with a status symbol, instead of being the default way. As long as people call themselves “vegan” or “vegetarian” because of their choice (people being vegan or vegetarian because of mental or medical issues, is different case), they highlight that status over “normal” people.

If people are just not eating meat or animal products for whatever reason, without trying to use labels like “vegan” or “vegetarian” to highlight their status, then that is fine and a personal choice.

Creating societal change, to make vegan or vegetarian the default position, will also lessen the status of the vegans and vegetarians, that use those labels as such. So they have incentives to not produce a political or societal change.

Vegans & vegetarians should go on protests and lobby to make vegan food cheaper and easier than meat, so that it becomes the default. If they don’t do that, and still call themselves vegan/vegetarian then that might imply that it is all about showing their status, and people don’t like that.

Consumer choice is a privilege and not about creating an effective societal/political movement. They should not be used as a status symbol.

(Disclaimer: I eat meat and animal products very infrequently, only when my body demands it. I am also thankful for all vegans and vegetarians, because they gave us more interesting options in stores and restaurants.)

Not the drama itself should influence your judgment, but how they will deal with it.

Whenever people work together on something, there will be some drama, but if they are dealing with it, then that should be fine.

Nix and NixOS are big enough, that even if it fails, there are enough other people that will continue it, maybe under a different name.

Even it that causes a hard fork, which I currently think is unlikely, there are may examples where that worked and resolved itself over time, without too much of burden on the users, meaning there are clear migration processes available: owncloud/nextcloud, Gogs/Gitea/Forgejo, redis/valkey, …

As I said, it is not impossible to move away from gh compared to many other cases in other industries, just that it is more difficult than necessary because vendor-lockin is allowed.

If vendor-lockin was illegal, companies had more incentives to use established or create new standards to facilitate simpler migration between software stacks, without changing the external interface.

For instance allowing your own DNS name to be used as the repo/project basepath instead of enforcing github.com, Allowing comments, reviews, issues and pull requests via email or other federated services, instead of enforcing github accounts to do so, providing documented, stable and full-featured APIs for every component of their software, so that it is easy to migrate and pick and choose different components of their while stack from possible different vendors, …

There are so many ways that would improve the migration situation, while also providing more ways for other ideas to compete on a level playing field. If a bright engineer has an idea for improving one component from github, they should not be required to write a whole separate platform first.

Well the reason for that is the vendor-lockin and centralized technology.

If your project for instance uses a similar development method as the linux kernel does, e.g. sending and reviewing patches via mailing lists and providing url to push and pull git repos from, it is quite easy to switch out the software stack underneath, because your are dealing with quasi-standart data: Mbox, SMTP, HTTP(s) and DNS. So you can move your whole community to a different software stack by just changing some DNS entries and maybe provide some url rewrite rules without disrupting the development process.

I am not saying that the mailing list development process is the right one for every project, but it demonstrates how agnostic to the software stack it could be.

If vendor-lockin is made illegal, the service providers would have more incentives to use or create standardized APIs, so that their product can be replaced by competitors. So switching to or from github/gitlab/… becomes easier.

It has more than you expect, if your project is established on github and want to move away you have to deal with:

• migration of issues
• migration of pull requests
• migration of all review comments etc
• migration of the wiki
• migration of the pages
• convince all contributors to possible create a new account somewhere else
• changing of the project urls. I don’t think github offers a url rewrite service
• forks on github will not have the new destination as the fork base
• change the ci and release process
• because you cannot add url rewrite rules to your old gh project, you might need to only ‘archive’ the project there with manually written text, to point to the new destination, for people to find it

You don’t know what a “monopoly” is.

What the author is probably searching for is “vendor-lockin”, which is an anticompetitive practice for so long that it became the way many companies rely their business on. It favors established products over new-comers by making switching offerings difficult/expensive or even impossible, thus better products often have no chance of competing in a field, that was dominated by a single supplier for a while.

IMO there should be strict regulations and high fines associated with it, because it hinders innovation massively across all industries.

The cost of switching away from github for a project is high, but not as high as in other fields.

IDK. I think that just causes more confusion. Like with “Use gitlab”, do I mean the application or gitlab.com?

“We give you money, so that you don’t put a backdoor from another country in your software.”

I like RPG games, however I don’t like it when the company has the ability and incentive to bate and switch my game into a worse version after I bought it.

Denuvo forces me to be connected to the internet, which makes playing the game on the move difficult or even impossible. It also allows them to make sure that the most current version is played. MTX means they don’t have incentives to fix the game and instead sell you the fixes, or even enshittyfy it, to squeeze out more money.

This gives me the incentive to wait a couple of years, until the game doesn’t receive any updates anymore, and then decide if the final product is worth it. And hope that I will get a good experience out of it, before the Denuvo activation servers are shut down.

So you have to wait for a few years, in order to know if the gameplay is (and stays) any good.