this tells me nothing about what the game will look like, or run like
I mean... This was the first trailer to stir up a bit of excitement for a game that has only just entered full-scale development. They probably don't even yet know themselves what it will look like and how it will run on what hardware. Expecting that kind of info at this point is unrealistic
I am pretty fortunate to live in a country with a functioning health care system. Couldn't imagine having to weigh my health against not losing income, as if dealing with the illness itself wasn't bad enough already
Yup, definitely. Just had it a couple of weeks ago - knocked out for three days, recovery slowly over a week or so.
To be fair, it's still hit or miss, you need to do a little research to know what you're getting, but it has gotten sooo much better in the last couple of years. At this point, any brand that uses pieces made by gobricks is going to give you excellent piece quality rivaling or even surpassing that of Lego in some aspects. My recommendations if you want to check it out are Pantasy and Funwhole, both make great original sets with high quality prints, the latter even with fully integrated light kits. Those are not the only options, but the best ones at the moment in my opinion
Edit to add: as said a lot has happened just in the last few years, so to get a good picture of the current quality landscape, even with the brands I mentioned it's a good idea to stick to their newer sets for now, since you might still get earlier generations of bricks that are not quite as good with the older models that have been sitting on shelves for some time
Except there are competitors by now with equally good tolerances and overall part quality that still cost half as much, so that can't really be the reason
Ah, gotcha. Then maybe I'll have to design it custom for him. Having something to go off of would nonetheless be appreciated if you find the time!
Oh, that's cool! Would love to print one as a gift for my brother, are you planning on making the print files or maybe even the source available?
You're an ex British colony?
Amongst the top 100 most valuable companies, not a single one is ran as a worker collective. [...] I don't know how much more of a source you need.
I didn't ask for sources that they're not a thing, I asked for sources on the reasons for that.
The current legal system doesn't do anything to prevent worker-ran companies.
I'm a startup owner (in Germany) who has looked at the possibility of making my company worker-owned. It is serious effort and comes with a lot of hurdles, tax headaches, etc., because the legal system is not generally made with that kind of company structure in mind, much less the transition into it. It is very easy to start a company with the default capitalist structure of one or a few owners/investors, it requires magnitudes more to do it the worker-owned way (and do it right). But sure tell me again how the legal system is impartial in that matter.
In the end, too many cooks spoil the broth.
That's assuming that everyone wants to have a say in everything, and that there are no good internal structures for dividing and assigning responsibility. You can still have individual people who steer the ship, who make autonomous decisions in certain areas, etc. The difference being that they're selected by their peers, rather than through a management hierarchy, and they answer to their peers, rather than their managers and/or investors.
the overwhelming majority of businesses are not ran by the workers themselves.
And do you have any sources to back up your assertion that that's because they "don't work"? Because the way I see it it could just as well be our current legal systems and societal incentive structures that prevent them from being more of a thing.
I agree that this way of displaying the data is appropriate, but it would be nice to have a very visible indicator of this. Some kind of highlighted "fold" line or something at the very bottom of the chart, maybe. If I can deduce the units from context, and the trend is more interesting than absolute numbers, then I'm not going to look at the axes most of the time
It's about setting expectations. The wording is chosen because they believe that paying open source developers for their work should be the norm, not the exception. Calling it a donation would not do that justice. Their wording is saying "Here's the software, we'll trust you to pay us for it if it brings you value and you can afford it". It's an explicit expectation to pay, unless you have good reasons not to, which is also fine but should be the exception. Whereas a donation is very much optional and not the default expectation by nature.
In the end it's just a semantic difference, it's just all about making expectations clear even if there is no enforcement around them.