PenguinTD

If you are a software company, like valve, but to publish phone app. They have to go through Google store since that's how you get that "verified" thing and you don't have to enable developer mode. And for user that's a peace of mind.

Is there a phishing website on PC, yeah, and how do you know? Usually it's going through search engine or your bookmark and then check the HTTPS icons on your browser. There are also signed cert if you download and the windows exe launcher will check that with 3rd party cert. These alternative methods are not readily available on a phone, and that's intentionally implemented so software developer will funnel back to the play store.

You can't really open a android store unless you make phone and ship with your own store. Like Samsung one, it's listed in the play store contract, almost all forms of paying developer directly is not allowed. There are many conditions/steps and warnings if you tried to install apps off the play store, some of them waive your warranty. You also open the phones to potential scammer to have identical looking website and instruct users to install app that steal identity.

If gameplay itself is dependant on online servers, the game has to release a working version of the server code so it at least could be run by fans, or be refunded.

I replied to one of it a while ago and basically, this part is impossible since developer also "license" 3rd party backend/plugins/software solutions to make their server working. The developer do not have the right to release licensed code/api etc.

meaning, say if a backend have the free learning version of license, the developer are bound to the commercial license, which dictates if they can release code that involve 3rd party code/api.

Feb 28th, 2025

I am fine with electric car that have software to monitor battery/motor efficiency and gives feedback for the driver/owner. But have it controls almost everything and can remote brick your vehicle is like you never really own the car.

It goes back to province and then where? If it benefits everyone, say upgrade the library to be more energy efficient, provide rebates if you upgrade your heat/aircon system to modern standard of your buildings, like those I'd say that's good use of carbon tax money. But if dumped to some big oil RnD branch for green energy tech that we won't see in another 10/20 years, cause they do not have any motivation to actually pull it. (since their balance sheet is neutral once they get the tax money back from one of their branch/subsidiary. ) I might be biased cause I lived in a old tower building, I really wish our building can start the window/etc remodeling but I only have 1 vote. (my winter base board heating is 200+ on coldest weeks, cause the entire building's windows are over 25+ years old and already leaking and not up to par. )

I do wish there are more locally own/operated grocery stores or farmer's markets. But they are usually located at the out skirts of the city and then you have to drive to get them. The web operated aren't exactly benefiting those farmers nor consumers nor the carbon goals and more expensive/less choice. (because quantity and delivery vehicles etc. )

Yeah, I am talking in macro scale. The things as consumer can choose to avoid:

• change to non-carbon fuel vehicle or get rid of personal vehicle and choose public transport if available.
• do less things to increase carbon foot print. (like dial the thermo stat and put on more clothing in winter. )
• buy stuff from company that have goals toward carbon neutral.

But as consumer I can't avoid:

• increased price of grocery/goods from manufacturing or shipping
• the way companies decide to approach their own cost cutting/offsetting.

The important part is, where the carbon tax go? Do they go into hands that actually have goals and plan/milestone to meet? Or they go into some paper green RnD subsidiaries of big oil?

misinformation aside, tax the industry simply increase their cost and they can still just offset to the consumers no? since consumer don't have others down the chain to offset that cost. I know on the sheet you can't list tax as cost, but if the tax come when you buy the fuel, then it becomes part of the cost for say, a truck fleet company. If you tax the oil/fuel companies for how much they produced/shipped, they will have to raise the cost to account for the lost of potential tax to make the balance sheet or projection look nicer. I can't think of a way to tax carbon and those cost won't trickle down. But tax at the source would make overall consumption reduced since the gov artificially drive up the cost of that resource.

In short, consumer would still foot the bill, but the goal to reduce carbon based fuel stays the same.

Yeah, just get a PS5 slim? should be fine if you don't want the disc, or buy used PS5. My launch PS5 is still doing really well. But I stopped playing any multiplayer game on it and stopped PS Plus.

so they embeded a separate launcher?? welp, it's also not necessary, the EOS backend does not need the Epic launcher. As far as I know, the only cross platform/cross play back end is EOS. Sony have their own PC/PSN cross play in example of Helldivers 2. Capcom have their backend and the up coming Monster Hunter Wild is their first title to support cross play. (it was always separated in their past games.) Some big Chinese/Korean dev have their proprietary cross platform backend to support their mobile/console/PC games. (like Genshin)

If you do know any 3rd party cross play back end service please let me know.

Steam backend are not cross play ready for consoles, EOS backend can.

that's why it has a update a couple days ago. XD