It’s common for those “other stores” to just be the dev’s own store or a store which takes a smaller cut than Valve.
To me, anyways, it seems perfectly expected for a business to want to pass on Valve’s charges to the customer. Whether this is harmful depends on whether you focus on the player or developer, and whether the developer responds by making the game cheaper everywhere or more expensive everywhere.
I’m not in favor of these practices by Valve either. It seems like the group you’re describing are interpreting this as Valve wont let anyone rip off their customers so you can be sure you’re getting it at the best price there, rather than Valve wont let anyone change the narrative that you’re getting it at the best price there and should buy everything there.
Don’t worry, this end well.
I’ve got 99 problems and 99 problems is at least one of them.
May as well go through the proofs:
First, we need to establish that two infinities are equal in cardinality (aka size) if all their elements can be 1:1 mapped to each other.
So, to go from the reals within [0, 1] and [0, 2], we can multiply by 2. This maps every value within [0, 1] to every value within [0, 2], so these are of the same cardinality.
Where things get interesting is the proof that the reals within [0, 1] are of greater cardinality than every integer.
Say we have an arbitrary mapping from every integer to a real within [0, 1]:
0 -> 0.89236…
1 -> 0.47389…
2 -> 0.84776…
3 -> 0.18790…
4 -> 0.90542…
⋮ ⋱
This list contains every integer, but it does not contain every real number because we can always come up with a new one by ensuring at least one digit is different in each existing real:
0 -> …8… ≠ 9
1 -> …7… ≠ 8
2 -> …7… ≠ 8
3 -> …9… ≠ 0
4 -> …2… ≠ 3
⋮ ⋱
0.98803… is not within the list
Therefore, no 1:1 mapping between the integers and reals exists. Because the limiting factor is the amount of integers, the cardinality of the reals is greater than that of the integers.
Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor’s_diagonal_argument
I recall sitting still for a while at one point and momentarily loosing the ability to make out anything but a patchwork of colors from my vision. It’s fascinating, what the mind’s processing tells us about the world compared to the either low granularity or low field of view provided by each input. I’m pretty sure I was only able to process my peripheral vision during that experience, maybe due to the amount of detail?
I would (probably not literally) wager that by “this” they meant *looks around at entire world*…
this
So still like birb?
(lol)
Not to go on a tangent but lol stands for lol out loud now.
Behold…
The Rule of Leettheius
It tells you how to exit if you press ctrl+C, which is many people’s first instinct.
You wouldn’t download someone’s awesome tile art
I know what you meant
I’m not trying to toy with you, please reciprocate. Because you didn’t say what about quantum mechanics causes reality to appear non self consistent I tried to connect the dots in my head: what I know about relativity fits the bill a hell of a lot better than QM.
QM does predict some weird probability distributions where the interpretation of causality is unclear. Just like mfed1122’s argument of understanding calculus, just because you or I don’t know what it means doesn’t indicate that it’s meaningless. Regardless of how confusing it is, QM describes everything objectively and so it doesn’t say the universe is inconsistent. Like with my example about GPS, quantum computers wouldn’t be possible if QM didn’t describe a uniform, self-consistent reality.
Unless, you know how to resolve the interpretation of QM, then by all means go ahead and take that nobel prize
This is unrelated to both your point and the original commenter’s discussion, per mfed1122’s argument.
If you want to continue this discussion in a meaningful way could you outline the elements of quantum mechanics that indicate a non self-consistent reality?
Quantum says otherwise
It doesn’t.
I meant that GR better fits the vague description you gave.
Thanks for the conversation.
I believe you’re speaking about General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics refers to “quantum” aka discrete, non-smooth things like the energy levels of electrons.
General Relativity indicates that the temporal ordering of events may appear different to different observers, although there is a way to objectively switch between perspectives.
In all cases, the theories point to a uniform, self consistant reality, as that is in fact their very purpose. If they didn’t work as expected, your GPS wouldn’t be a thing.
Fun fact: there’s a group that shares this goal but was actually capable of doing it: https://www.scratch.mit.edu/
(TL;DR you can just let people explore coding in a simple language/engine and that’s enough of a stepping stone)
Maybe an extension of Mx, Ms, Mr: Mixtress? (I suppose the “ess” is what makes it seem feminine)
Or just “Mx. Name”, like how “Mr. Bond” can feel like a single term in the James Bond movies. (Mx. pronounced “mix” feels right here)
Let’s see:
The end should be changed in stead. You can do the X thing: Mistrex (or Mistrix to keep the “e” part pronounced as “ih”).
Or change it another way: Mistro, Mistrez?
Humans created wheat and grapes. The work of society’s long dead founders of agriculture deserves respect, yet we’re actively geoengineering an environment which cannot support their work.
I liked using Gnome because it was my first introduction to virtual desktops. I am very thankful that it encouraged me to make use of them and to put 1 window per desktop. However, I tried KDE and it turns out that
In a nutshell I liked Gnome because it encouraged me to use KDE in a fun way. The actual thing that made me try KDE was finally getting fed up by their whole “we refuse to implement server side decorations and also a bunch of other basic features/customization stuff middle finger emoji” thing.