Depends on the studio and position. A very well paid senior programmer might make $150k-$170k in the US. But that's pretty much the top end of the scale. Salaries in the game industry are infamously low because it's so FUN. Aren't you grateful to have such a FUN job? It's FUN, be grateful that you make any money at all so you can be creative!

Designers make less, Artists make less. QA makes WAY less (which is a travesty, because we depend on them so much in the development cycle. As a programmer, I probably talk to QA as much as I talk to design).

But if you're a Canadian programmer, you might make $150k and live in a city like Vancouver which has insanely high housing costs. Maybe you have kids, or pets.

You've kind of hit the nail on the head with regards to the issue, though: many developers aren't paid particularly well, even by huge companies that make billions of dollars (and indeed, that's why the companies are so profitable).

I interviewed at Roblox, and their salary ranges STARTED far beyond where most studios ranges ENDED for my position (Senior Programmer, 20 years experience). They told me that they consider tech companies like Google to be their competition for talent, not other game studios, so their salaries are adjusted accordingly.

So yeah, very easy to believe that people are feeling the pinch after getting laid off. It's not a lucrative industry for the workers.

That mentality never left Microsoft. They just to have work harder to maintain plausible deniability. Plausible, that is, to the anti-trust courts and politicians, none of whom know anything about technology.

I don't think that's likely. GOG has been around for almost 20 years. If they were to renege on providing offline installers, what could that possibly gain them? That only makes sense if they are planning to reimplement DRM, and that would immediately kill the company.

Why are you commenting on a subject that you admit is none of your business? I suppose it's related to the fact that you didn't understand that you literally just said you ARE NOT OK with the ban, since the government definitely DOES NOT meet the requirements which would make you OK with it (and that goes for the US and your government.)

This comment is very stupid for a lot of reasons.

1. Not every developer needs help
2. Not every developer wasn't able to find a new job
3. The intention is not to distribute money to every person that lost their job in the layoffs, it's to extend a lifeline to people who are struggling
4. The thing that would meaningfully change things is to implement strong labour laws, tax the wealth of the extremely wealthy, and make it easier to form unions. The number of roadblocks to unionizing have increased over the decades, which is one of many reasons there's been such an obvious, ongoing, inexorable transfer of wealth from the working class to the owning class.

When the government is in the pocket of these huge companies and actively make laws diminishing the power of workers, it's an obvious bad-faith question to ask why people don't do something about it.

I have lots of ways to meaningfully change things, but I can't buy a politician because I'm not a billionaire, so changing things take longer. Don't worry, though, we're making some progress despite that.

I'm not sure if you understood that I am saying the Matrix is unwatchable or not.

So you don't think the 1st Amendment is important. You are OK with the government having power, but don't believe the people should have power. You have a right to that particular ridiculously ignorant belief. What you don't have is the right to infringe upon others rights. You don't have to like the 1st Amendment, but you do have to abide by it.

I'm well aware. I was writing software before the IBM PC existed, and before the Apple Lisa hit the market. I didn't mention Tron and the Matrix because I thought they were both released at the same time. I can't imagine why you thought that, even if I didn't already know that information, it would in any way be pertinent.

Thanks for explaining the "joke" ... Now I see why it definitely wasn't funny.

I won't figure it out because the premise of Tron is stupid. I'd sooner watch the Matrix all the way through than Tron and I don't have that much lack of taste. I prefer good movies where off the chart level of suspension of disbelief aren't required.

If you are taking about the shitty remake then you are correct. It doesn't matter though, because protocols can't kill. That's not how protocols work.

MCP and TCP/IP are protocols, and Tron and Kill Bill. Protocols don't want to kill movies. Asking if a protocol wants to kill a movie makes zero sense, which was the point of my initial reply to the GP. The second sentence in my reply to you was rhetorical. It is self evident based on the fact that you couldn't follow the logic.

And there is no T R O or N in MCP. Are you some kind of idiot?

That's like asking if TCP/IP wants to Kill Bill.

"Dunning Kruger the Internet meme is discredited nonsense."

A single study doesn't discredit it. Confirmation bias much?

"Meta glasses also have capability of recording audio and your statement "News flash ... like it or not, in a public place you have consented to, and almost certainly are, being recorded." does not stipulate a specific modality."

This makes it clear that you have no idea what prior restraint means. You consent to video recording, and in most states you also consent to audio recording. Regardless of which state you are in recording audio is not banned because that would be prior restraint. Under United States constitutional law, a blanket ban on recording devices in public would violate the First Amendment, which protects the right to gather information and record matters of public interest.

"In the United States, you do have some expectation of privacy - even in public - and it's important to stand up and protect that right.""

That's right. You have the right to not have your audio recorded without your consent. The right you *don't* have is to ban recording devices in public. It is *more* important that the people who have devices stick up for *their* right to have such devices, and that violation of Freedom of Speech (prior restraint) is not allowed.

"Further my statements were concerning the use of data."

Clearly you don't understand that audio and video recordings are data. Otherwise I have no idea why you would even think that was anything other than a phenomenally stupid thing to write.