> It doesn't help Linux adoption if 98% of games are playable but that remaining 2% is what 70% of gamers are playing

Well that isn't the case. It's not "70% of gamers are playing", it's "played 70% of the time". Extraction shooters, battle royale shooters, mobas and gacha MMOs are played a lot in terms of hours played and in terms of money extracted. But far less so in head count. Unless you're addicted to one of these games, it doesn't matter much whether Steam has them or not. If you're trying to sell a game, and it's not in one of these genres (or not realistically competitive in them - even in the age of AI this is ridiculously capital intensive to compete in), then you're also much better off on Steam.

Covert Russian network exploited French riots on social media, EU report says

Covert Russian network exploited French riots on social media, EU report claims

Covert Russian network exploited French riots on social media, EU report alleges

Which of these is a real Reuters headline? They're all uncontroversially true statements, but you can steer things a lot without actually lying.

(This type of manipulation is so obvious, Reuters has taken steps to curb it - it's always "says" now from them. But the papers that use them rarely care that much about being subtle.)

Rust compiled to wasm, maybe?

None of that contradicts my view that the Republican party is the party of telling the rich blowhards "do as you please, let no one stop you!" and the Democratic party is the party of telling the rich blowhards "Trust us, let us handle it, we're on your side here". Given that, sure, it's surprising that Trump was ever a Democrat, but when you look at Bill Clinton it's not so hard to understand it was under him he was. They were both Epstein-lifestyle to the core.

More truth here than you probably think... Trump was a democrat once, a big Clinton backer. Then the caliph decided he could do better than his wise vizier (He couldn't).

There's the party of letting the rich do as they please, then there's the party of attempting to protect the rich from their own worst excesses. Obama was quite explicit about it, telling them "I'm the one standing between you and the pitchforks".

At least in the current climate, some actually meaningful changes might be necessary to protect the likes of Musk, Bezos and Ellison from their own stupidity.

How much has your government money grown in that time?

You all speak as if this isn't down to the whims of the wig clowns.

Good, cause I didn't hear that.

Illegal doesnâ(TM)t mean I donâ(TM)t have the right to record, tho. Government doesnâ(TM)t give rights.

They've already burned millions on lost races. The silver lining to patronage politics is that everything bet on the loser is lost.

You will not replace us!!!

But with a little stretching of English grammar, we might replace us.

Nonononono. Build prosperity. Build progress. Build civilization. Build job... Uh, timeout on that one.

Please don't look too closely or ask what any of it means in practice, because we can't have you standing in the way of prosperity and progress.

I can paint you as a monster. And if I say it often enough, enough people will believe it.

But he's arrogant. You can't make anyone actually believe it. You can just make them plapper it for loyalty purposes - which is what you're doing now.

They're independently funded in much the same way the Nobel peace prize is politically independent. Of course the prize sometimes goes to a deserving candidate still. And sometimes Guardian publishes something good.

Just, as David Graeber reminded us, never, ever forget their ratfucking of Jeremy Corbyn. And remember it's things like that they will spend their carefully built up goodwill on.

It says something that even though Lula is fairly close to Russia and China (the whole BRICS thing), and was endorsed by his close friend Julian Assange in a rare public statement, even US democrats can't feel bad about Trump's and Facebook's preferred candidate losing.