The reasons for pre-order were many, but to name a few:
I don't see a single one of those that you couldn't have gotten at the official time of release, if NMS was what it was expected to be. I could understand if you mentioned some pre-order bonuses (there were apparently some, as well as a limited-edition box set), but you didn't, so they apparently weren't a big motivation. You mention being a big Steam user, so it couldn't have been because you were worried about it being out of stock in stores.
I rarely play new games, but in the past I have pre-ordered when I got something cool for it right away... something cooler than an in-game thingy upgrade. Or if I could play a pre-release version right away, like when I bought Minecraft back in the alpha days. Actually, being able to play a pre-release game right away is a big reason for me to buy in. That means other people have been playing it, and big problems like NMS has would Get Noticed.
Not that waiting for release day would have helped this time. People didn't realize the enormity of all the problems with NMS until a few days after release. I won't fault anyone from wanting to play on day one instead of waiting a few days for someone else to be a guinea pig. But I've got to draw the line at pre-ordering something you're going to play on Steam (no worries about stores running out) when you don't get some good swag from doing so. Or at least a 15% discount.
The only bias I see is that for some reason, Facebook seems to think I'm in any way interested in celebrity gossip, because that's about all that ever shows up in the "Trending" section for me.
I'm interested in science and technology, but every "trending" topic I seem to see is something about what Britney Spears ate for breakfast, or whose dress Catelyn Jenner wore to the mall, or some other equally banal and useless piece of "news" about some celebrity that I don't give a crap about.
I'm not even exaggerating. My current "trending" topics include:
As you can see, my "trending" doesn't have a Liberal or Conservative slant -- it just has a inanely stupid slant.
"Trending" is the least useful part of Facebook, and personally I wish they'd just get rid of it altogether.
When they talk about the "user experience" they mean someone who is buying ads, not the person who is posting "Look what Hillary Trump said last night" every day. Think in terms of Facebook's customers.
Knowing who is talking to whom is an important part of Facebook's marketing. Look at how Facebook targets and consider item #19 in that article. It's not just about who you are, it's about who you know. Whether you think this is a good idea for Facebook or not, it is what they do.
User A and user B are friends in real life, use Whatsapp, and have Facebook accounts -- but they're not "friends" on Facebook (maybe they only use Facebook for work, or something like that). (Or maybe they don't have Facebook accounts, but Facebook has profiles on them gathered by "like" buttons, and has some way to deliver ads to at least one of them.) They communicate with each other using Whatsapp. This lets Facebook connect the two profiles, even though within Facebook alone, they are unconnected. The result: Now user A can see shopping ads for user B's upcoming birthday.
The advertiser has a good products experience.
That being the case, why the hell is this Windows exclusive? Why not open it to Macs and desktop Linux?
A Sony rep mentioned on the PlayStation Blog today that they were evaluating Mac support. Obviously they can do it, because they are already doing it withPS4 Remote Play for Mac (interesting side note: the PS4 Remote Play for Mac app is significantly smaller than the Windows version. One of these days I'm meaning to look into why this is).
"With a Windows laptop or tablet, you aren't tethered to a big-screen TV. You could theoretically take these PlayStation games anywhere"
The article says it requires a DualShock 4 controller. I don't see how that will work with all Windows tablets, especially seeing as ARM-based Windows tablets (like the Surface 1 and 2 non-Pro) allow only XInput controllers (that is, Xbox 360 controllers and one Logitech model).
Sony also announced today a USB dongle for Mac and Windows that permits wireless DS4 connections. Assuming the tablet has a USB port you could presumably use that (although as of yet there is no word if it requires any special drivers or not).
No, they're not dropping that veneer.
Saying you compete with someone, isn't the same as saying you're the same kind of business. e.g. courier bikes, courier pigeons, telegrams and email can all compete with one another, but work differently and might have really good reasons for being regulated differently.
(BTW, I'm not taking a position about how Uber should or shouldn't be regulated; I'm just saying that there is nothing about their reaction which implies they're admitting anything.)
It doesn't matter how pretty you make a bomb, in the end all it has to do is go "boom".
Then again, it does help if it doesn't fall apart before it hits the target.
So they bought all the sub-gawkers except for the main gawker.com, right?
When do we get to see Jalopnik TV on our local Univision station? The production values of the average Univision entertainment show combined with Jalopnik's focus on all kinds of cars (low-riders, anyone?) would be an awesome match.
La Marcha Superior! Starring Señor Jason Torchinsky!
Oh, so you're manually inspecting the self signed certificate every time you visit your website? If not, then how do you know nobody is intercepting your communication, making your self signed certificate as useless as having no encryption at all.
No, and he didn't imply that. Here are several situations, in increasing order of security.
1) The connection is not encrypted or signed. No certs exist. Nobody knows who they're talking to. An active attacker on the network between the two parties, can proxy and impersonate each side. A passive attacker, someone who just gets copies of the traffic, while they can't impersonate, can at least read what everyone is saying. No warning.(?!)
2) The connection is encrypted, but with unknown parties' public keys. Certs exist but are essentially worthless. An active attacker on the network between the two parties, can proxy and impersonate each side. A passive attacker, someone who just gets copies of the traffic, can't read anything. DANGER! DANGER! FREAK OUT!!
3) The connection is encrypted, and if you believe certain faceless parties who are totally unaccountable to you and who you don't know anything about, you think you probably know the other side's identity. Active attackers can't do anything, unless they're active enough to coerce or trick the CA. Passive attackers can't read anything. No warning.
4) The connection is encrypted just like above, but the CA pinky-swears that they really tried hard to make sure. Green URL bar.
5) As case 3 or 4, but multiple CAs, which might be hard for a single attacker to simultaneously coerce or trick, have all signed the cert. We don't have this in our browsers yet; it's early 1990s level tech that we're still waiting for.
6) As case 3 but the user has verified the identity through a different channel. No trusted introducer was needed. The cert need not be signed at all, or might be signed by the user himself. No warning, but also no green URL bar. (Yet, this is the very best-possible case, definitely more secure than any other.)
See anything wrong here? Scenarios 1 and 2 have their warning severities reversed. (And there's also a UI defect at high degrees of security, too, but that's less important.) This trains the use to think of warnings as not necessarily meaning increased severity or risk. A user will adjust to this by ignoring warnings. This is bad communication, and it's making us all a little stupider.
What you should do is add your known self signed certificate to your local certificate store, which means that the warnings will stop
He's talking about a situation where it's not known. Adding it to the local store would be inappropriate. That would be an attempt to treat scenario 2 as scenario 6, just to get around a UI bug. It'd be much better to just fix the bug.
Maybe they're our guys, maybe they're not.
Country A is full of citizens, businesses, and government orgs which routinely depend on working computers and networks. Country B is similar, but a little behind, because they're not as wealthy.
Both countries' citizens, businesses and government orgs pretty much run the same code. Same OSes, same big applications, etc.
For the most part, everyone's computers run pretty badly, and outages and various fuckup are frequent. Criminals in both countries are very happy with the situation. Both countries have a pretty easy time with espionage, but a nearly impossible problem with counter-espionage. Everyone can attack, but hardly anyone seems to be able to defend.
Well, they're about the same, but not exactly. In Country B, due to the lower tech, more people use cash, more things are done low-techy, etc. Computer crime isn't quite as easy there. Fewer government systems (both civilian and military) are vulnerable to cyber-attack simple because they're not as computerized. Fewer businesses depend on networks. The airlines' schedules in Country B are run by a guy who has a big notebook, but Country A has an airline schedule that's run in some datacenter.
A group of nerdy people figure out part of the problem with everyone's fucked up computers. Turn out, there are bugs in popular software. Sometimes the symptoms just happen (bad luck) and sometimes they are exploited by adversaries.
The nerds have to make a decision: "Do we tell software industry about the bugs and have them fixed, so that everyone (both our country and the other country) get a defense advantage? Or do we not talk about the bugs, thereby preserving everyone's attack advantage?"
The group of nerds chooses the latter, opting to not have the bugs fixed.
Tell me this: judging from the nerds' actions, which country do you infer they working for? Who has more to win or lose from the computers continuing to work so badly?
Who goeth a-borrowing goeth a-sorrowing. -- Thomas Tusser