You don't have to believe anyone. Try to run code on the GPU using OpenCL on Snow Leopard, you will be using NVidia or Intel implementations. I know as much because I've been there done that 13 years ago.
$1M in W2 earnings isn't that unusual for senior engineers at companies that have seen significant stock growth. Suppose you had a $200k salary, $500k RSUs over four years, $50k/year bonus offer mid-2017. The last batch of stock vesting in 2021 would have pushed total stock adjusted compensation close to the 7 figure mark.
NVDA has seen over +500% stock growth during that time. Apple has gone up close to 400%, GOOG over +200%.
What's interesting is that even if we ignore the recent dip, FB has only gone up +150% since mid-2017. If you held through the recent dip, that falls to something around +60% over four years.
The chance of getting a million a year in stock equivalent is next to nil. These are extreme outliers, you can probably count the number of companies on two hands, and maybe name them all.
In terms of statistics, achieving this would be very 'unusual'.
HTML is far from the first document format that's turing complete. See Postscript, PowerPoint (No macros needed), Excel (No macros needed), PDF (if you count the embedded JS), Word (If you use macros), etc.
I was looking forward to seeing some of the games that would have only been possible on Stadia's architecture. Imagine a Battlefield-style game with a larger map and over 500+ simultaneous players.
Hopefully the games that SG&E do finish showcase what's possible when a developer targets Stadia's strengths.
Why is that sort of game only possible with cloud rendering vs some dedicated server architecture?
I think you'd need to go much higher in terms of how many unpredictable, latency dependent objects are needed on screen before you'd start hitting issues with client side rendering.
Synchronising the game state in games now is exceptionally hard even with 64 players for any sort of latency dependent game. It's a constant grievance in most gaming communities today. If you just have to point a gpu view into the world, then it just depends on how many gpu's you can attach to the server.
>I was looking forward to seeing some of the games that would have only been possible on Stadia's architecture. Imagine a Battlefield-style game with a larger map and over 500+ simultaneous players.
Never. As a game developer you don't want to be tied to a specific system. Never be able to sell it somewhere else.
>I was looking forward to seeing some of the games that would have only been possible on Stadia's architecture. Imagine a Battlefield-style game with a larger map and over 500+ simultaneous players.
Never. As a game developer you don't want to be tied to a specific system.
Even if the intended meaning is that it does (in the title) say "best" not favourite, which is ultimately, if not exactly, a reasonably quantitative question.
I’m pretty sure normally when people express “____ is the best _____ I’ve ever owned”, they’re implicitly saying it’s the best “for my needs and preferences”. Absent brain trauma or serious delusion, I would assume the person speaking is better able to quantify that than any outside observer.
Our founders thought about that quite a bit, the answer they came up with? You can't.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - James Madison
As those were spoken over 200 years ago I think we can forgive the phrasing and understand the meaning of "moral and religious." And though at the time I'm sure these intelligent people thought that morality and religiosity were positively correlated, today I'm almost tempted to say that in my own relationships I see an inverse correlation, and I say that as a deeply religious person.
It doesn't even follow from what's written in the constitution. Religious freedom is not compatible with only certain religious folks being able to use it properly.
To be fair, to some extend it is like that everywhere. Armed services are generally attractive to people with authoritarian mindset - exactly like those movements.
Plus, police can be more or less corrupt, but you never get 0 corrupt cops. You have always proportion of those who are work with criminals - helping or being direct members. You occasionally even have gangs composed of cops only.
I think people are more trying to outline the difference in response, not calling for escalation. I think most people would want to see de-escalation in both cases. The point is more that the responses are clearly unequal.
No injured guards/ officers/ staff/ journalists reported (afaik). I cannot help but think that this is a comparatively! good outcome when dealing with armed right-wingers.
EDIT: Heard on C-SPAN now: 5 reported injured now, 1 law enforcement. At least some of them gas related. I still stand by my opinion but I don't know for how long.
There also appears to be an awful lot of them running MacOS which doesn’t really make sense (overclockers with bleeding edge Ryzen systems don’t have a lot of overlap with the Hackintosh crowd). Seems like it might be at least partially a data error.
No! This is explained right at the beginning of the article:
> the question as to what is anticompetitive and what is simply good business changes as a business scales. A small business can generally be as anticompetitive as it wants to be, while a much larger business is much more constrained in how anticompetitively it can act
The word “monopolize” is used in a specialised way in antitrust; it doesn’t encompass every exclusive right of sale, because that would disrupt many small businesses and law is intended to prevent huge businesses from dominating the economy.
No. My point is not that they are a small business, it’s that they are smaller than Apple and selling into a different market. Thus it does not “follow,” from the proposition that Apple is a monopolist, that Epic is also a monopolist.
I think you've missed the point here. Neither Apple nor Epic have enough market share in their primary market (smartphones/games) to be considered monopolists.
So instead, people move the goalposts to an aftermarket of the product (iOS apps) and claim that Apple has a monopoly over that market instead. But every company has a natural monopoly over their own products, and by the very same logic you could claim Epic has a monopoly over the aftermarket of their product (Fortnite skins).
Selling virtual items is not especially common due to the exposure it creates to fraud and abuse. Fortnite doesn't allow selling or trading - games that do like Team Fortress 2 and Counter-strike Go are home to lots of scammers who try to trick teens and other uninformed players into giving away their valuable loot :(
Who are you going to buy from without giving Epic a cut? They're the only ones offering Fortnite items.
Apple doesn't just require you use their payment processor - which might in theory be acceptable - they also demand 30 cents on every dollar. Payment providers everywhere have shown that fraud and abuse can be mitigated to an acceptable level with transaction fees as low as half a cent on the dollar. So Apple forces you into an agreement to use a payment processor that is 30-60x more expensive than the competition simply because they can.
Correct for credit card transactions but not for gift card credit which A LOT of people use. Far more than you’d assume. Apple doesn’t get all $50 when you buy an Apple gift card. I’d be surprised if they even got net $40 per $50 card.
The physical cards cost money to produce and the retail stores will insist upon a decent cut. And then the cards are often discounted by 10, 15 or even 20%.
The difference is that if Fortnite abuses its power, it is relatively easy to build another MMORPG competitor. If Apple abuses its power, it's practically impossible to build another mobile platform to compete today. Even Microsoft failed with that.
The bottom line is that Fortnight can have practical competition (that for example offer 3rd party plugins or lower prices), while the iPhone only has Android as competition, which is taking the exact same 30% cut.
> it is relatively easy to build another MMORPG competitor.
Oh no it isn't. There are very few successful (and even fewer wildly successful) MMORPGs and countless failed attempts.
Games are not really fungible. It's not like I'm going to go out of Fortnite to buy items in WoW instead and treat them as the same. They are two completely different markets.
> The bottom line is that Fortnight can have practical competition (that for example offer 3rd party plugins or lower prices)
No, unless things change, you need to use the Epic store.
Sure, but if the community got sick of Epic's walled fortnite garden, they can play other games. Could be WoW, could be Call of Duty, could be Pubg, could be the latest Mario. It doesn't really matter. Fortnite competes for your time with all other games, and the main thing keeping people there, besides basic enjoyment of the game, is that a lot of people play with their friends. And not many people will say that certain in app purchases are essential item (unlike, say, having an email app on your phone).
iOS on the other hand has a single serious competitor, Android, and if you have an iPhone you can't install Android on it when you get mad at Apple - you need a whole new phone. From a developer's perspective, you would miss out on all the iPhone users if you ship and Android app and not an iOS one. In that sense, Apple has significant monopoly-like power over the app market; solidified by the fact that you can't just install Google play store and start downloading Android apps on your iPhone if you get fed up with Apple' App store. The switching costs are too high for most users to consider it, except when buying a new phone.
A lot of this comes down to what a meaningful market is. E.g. Border's and Barnes and Noble learned the hard way that they were in the same market as online book selling - you couldn't usefully look at their book store models and ignore Amazon in the last ~decade.
