Your set designer for a major blockbuster makes an hourly wage. At the end of production, that wage ends. Unionized workers have been able to negotiate "residuals" so that when their work gets reused (re-runs, streaming, etc.), they get another paycheck. The higher-demand movie stars can negotiate "points" or portions of gross or net revenue.

It should be the same for game development. Even if we suspend our disdain for the studio itself, who's the equivalent of the movie star who gets "gross points" (a share of revenue before expenses) or even just "net points" (a share of profits)? Wouldn't the star be the designers, voice actors, etc. all working together?

Here's my proposal for the gaming industry--

1. Studio contracts with an organization to pay defined revenue share to trust (X% of all sales, subscriptions to, and microtransactions within...).
2. A trust account created for the project.
3. Points assigned to eligible contributors.
4. Studio remits revenue with reports.
5. Trust audits and allocates funds per points.
6. Payments distributed to contributors on schedule.

It doesn't have to be a LOT of money, but someone who contributes to a dozen blockbuster games throughout a career SHOULD get something beyond a wage-- especially when employment in the industry is known to be unstable/unreliable.

Some things can't currently be improved upon. The standard bicycle, for example, has been only minimally improved upon since the introduction of the Safety Bicycle in the 1880s-- and it works so well in part due to pneumatic tires.

The article explains the problem that airless tires have:

1. Shock absorption
2. Tire weight
3. Tire cost
4. Heat buildup

Flat tires are annoying... but they're the best of the problems.

And you link directly to the evidence of my correct use.

There is no question of precision in counting humans and thus every 1 human can be represented as 1.000000 humans. When dividing populations to find a proportion, you have use as many decimal places as you see fit.

Kindest regards.

That's not how math works. You can't have 2 apples shared among 3 people and each person receive 100% of an apple.

That's not correct.

400/8200 = 0.0487804878 or 4.87804878%.

To be fair, I should have rounded up the hundredths part of the percentage instead of truncated. As a result, my math is off by .002%, but yours is off by .123%.

I'll stick with my math.

There are 8.2 billion people on Earth. According to Meta, 400 million people use Threads every month.
That's 4.87% of the GLOBAL population log into Threads at least once per month?
Nearly one in twenty living human beings use Threads every month?

I call bullshit. I work at a major American university and I've literally never heard anyone mention Threads-- students or employees.

There are multiple potential reasons to consider consuming a meat substitute:

1. Reduce harm to animals
2. Reduce use of water, arable land, and greenhouse gas emissions for raising livestock
3. Mitigate health risks of consuming excessive meats
4. Integrate more nutrients into the diet

Many/most people would love to do all of the above by consuming meat substitutes if...

1. The substitute was sufficiently indistinguishable in flavor and feel from real meat, AND
2. The substitute was as available (or more available) than real meat, AND
3. The substitute was the same price as or cheaper than real meat.

40 oz of Impossible Ground Beef (10x 4oz patties) from Costco costs $18.15. ($0.45/oz). Each burger is pre-seasoned with 370mg of salt and has 6g of saturated fat.
96 oz of Kirkland Signature Ground Beef Patties (18x 5.33oz patties) from Costco costs $34.04 ($0.35/oz). The burgers are not pre-seasoned and have around 9g of saturated fat for an equivalent 4oz of patty.

The Impossible Beef option costs nearly 29% more per ounce. It tastes fine on its own, but few people are willing to pay so much more for a lesser imitation. A person choosing to do so is almost certainly for ethical reasons or atypical health reasons. If it cost less than beef, tasted life beef, and was had similar nutrients, there would be higher adoption. But that's just not the case.

Holy crap, yes please! I'm stunned that it's not a journalistic standard to link to 1st party source material in the article as it is. Slashdot SHOULD be better than standard journalism.

Is there a link to the article without a Paywall or are we just accepting the summary as the basis for all discussion on the matter?

Put away your conspiracy theory hats for just a second and look at the big picture-- Credit card loyalty programs are helping to subsidize the price of airline travel by providing private transportation profits a source OTHER THAN airline tickets. This is a good thing for travelers (if still a bad thing for people who don't know how to manage a credit card).

If airlines weren't getting their profits from loyalty programs, they would need to increase the cost of economy airline travel because they're still publicly-traded companies and their shareholders demand profit!

The only risk is if the airlines have to STOP their credit card partnerships, their shareholders would revolt and probably force the airlines into destructive business practices that would harm travelers. The lesson here isn't "don't get credit card money", it's "transportation networks should not be publicly traded".

I disagree with your assessment. Let's go through my proposed analogy detail by detail because I think it works.

* Flo = Landlord
* App = Rental residence
* App terms and conditions = Rental Lease
* Flo User = Resident
* Using App = Walking around the residence
* Recording actions in the app = The landlord filming walking around the residence (which you agreed to as a term of your lease)
* Recording app open/close actions = The landlord filming entering and exiting the house
* Facebook paying Flo for details on how individuals use their apps = Someone paying the landlord for the film of you getting some booty

Mind you that Flo is an app specifically created to help women track menstruation, fertility, pregnancy, and as a result, pregnancy termination. TWELVE states have made it illegal to terminate a pregnancy. Facebook was buying personal, medical information from Flo and that information could then be used to track whether a woman has terminated a pregnancy.

I look forward to your feedback.

If I paid a member of your household to film you without your permission and send me the video, that family member would be guilty of a crime as would I.

This is a vague statement about social media and has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ARTICLE wherein people tracking their medical, health, and family planning efforts via an app, where they had a reasonable expectation of privacy, had that privacy infringed upon for profit. Moreover, given that some states have recently criminalized certain forms of family planning, these actions are seen as an extreme risk for the safety of those users.

Is there an article link or is this just a discussion topic?

California saw these efforts in the pipeline and has some legislation working through the process to nip it in the bud: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fleginfo.legislature.ca...

It's only 4 steps away from becoming law (Senate Appropriations, Senate Floor, Concurrence, Governor). It will likely pass and go into effect January 1.