I love how you wrote all this, and are completely missing the mark. Nintendo is filing a lawsuit claiming that the palworld devs violated their patents, not their copyrights.

Anything palworld 'copied' from pokémon is either japanese lore, or from older games. This is not a copyright suit. If a copyright suit were possible, Nintendo would have brought it waaaay earlier. I'm wondering which patents Nintendo has that were supposedly violated.

I love how there's this entire discussion here about copyright etc... while that's not even what this is about.

By your definition no closed source company can act responsibly. If that is your definition, they indeed don't act responsibly, my point is that they appear to ship security updates for at least a decade after the device got released, which seems pretty decent. And they have a good record on quickly responding to any security issues and keeping everything up to date.

So they're doing pretty good. Would it be nice if they go open source? for sure, but for a closed source system, it's currently doing great.

I think it's closed source indeed, but their support window is very long at the moment, so while you're right, at least until now they're actually acting responsibly.

But is that the fault of XML, or is the data itself just complex, or did they structure the data badly?

Would another human readable format make the data easier to read?

There are people who find XML hard to read?

GP specifically talked about the first version of PHP, sounds like it was just a dummy implementation as they were working on PHP, that then later got replaced with a proper implementation :)

Ah yes, i can't critisize such stupid articles without opposing their message... I'd love more equality, and agree that something should be done about it.

I just would love to see actually useful numbers that mean something when we make a fuss about it rather than useless info like this that is meaningless.

How you interpreted my message as bootlicking is beyond me, but i guess you're a youngling that interprets any critique as an attack?

This is a completely meaningless figure...

I really hate when articles come out with this kind of data. Huge numbers like this without any context just mean nothing. Ok, 42 trillion$, how much money did they already have? How much percent did their fortunes increase? Is that more or less than inflation?

It's just a meaningless huge number that has no intention other than to shock, certainly not to inform or they would have given actually useful numbers that would actually let you have an idea whether it's that bad or not...

I hate that people keep falling for nonsens like this.... Just post a huge number without any context or any other numbers needed to be able to make sense of it, and everyone is like "omfgwtfbbq, this is SOOOO bad"! Is it? It's perfectly possible that this isn't even enough to keep up with inflation, and they're technically poorer, probably not, but we'll never know from this useless article...

I'm not assuming any of the people discussing here are doing the voting, but also in the discussion his points were being ignored. And i love me a good technology connections video too, but someone from the industry dotting some of the i's that technology connections missed was interesting :)

Btw, thanks for also discussing in good faith :). And your example of awnings in Mexico (and how the most modern technologies are indeed not available/practical everywhere) is also a great contribution :).

I'm no expert on this subject at all, i'm not pro or contra awnings, i just felt bad for someone going into deeper detail on modern techologies getting downvoted for not agreeing with the video because he works in the industry, while making good points (and having his points ignored)

If you have a situation were awnings worked really well, and are cheaper than modern alternatives, awesome, well done :)

No problem :)

Keep posting useful info on topics like this, we need more factcheckers on clickbait videos about how centuries old technology would still be the best.

Yeah, and on a discussion space it's probably also best that you actually read the comments you're replying to. He felt that the video wouldn't teach him anything since he's considers himself already knowing a lot about the subject.

I just pointed out the irony of you being bothered about him not watching a clickbait video about a topic he believes he already knows more about that such a video can teach. And you then tell him the video makes points he already dismissed.

He might be a bit abrasive how he entered the discussion, but if he works in the industry and knows why awnings are no longer a thing, and already dismisses the points the video made against more modern technologies since he seems to know what modern technologies are actually like.. that does seem actually useful to this discussion. I get him not wanting to waste 20 minutes...