blakeyrat

Well for next time, maybe you could do this thing called "testing" or "QA" before you put a product out there for hundreds of people to use.

EDIT: sorry I know it's negative, but while you're posting stuff about "oh I'm tearing up", what I'm seeing is some guy who wrote a website that steals people's videos without attribution. I realize you didn't "intend" it to do that, but that's what it's doing, and I don't have the psychic powers to know what you "intended" to do with the site.

Good site, but don't you think it's a tad sleazy to use these people's videos without at least letting us click-through to their YouTube channel? I mean it's the absolute least you could do to give them due credit.

You're kind of missing my point. That's great for the person who is already a Nintendo fan and already plays every Mario game like clockwork.

As a person who hasn't own a Nintendo console in a decade, what would be my incentive to buy one to play Mario? How the heck would I be able to tell that the Nintendo Switch Mario is any different than the ones that came before? If it is in fact different, why the heck isn't it in a different series?

(Of course the answer to that last one is: Nintendo's sales are fueled entirely by nostalgia, so of course they want the Mario or Zelda game on it because it's basically "free sales". People will buy it just because it says Mario on the cover. Which, going back to my first post, I find disgusting.)

So Nintendo is doing a great job (presumably) marketing to people who already love their products, but what reason are they giving a person who doesn't to try out the product?

> on the same PC I run Skyrim on. I don't really see how that game is still supposed to be a selling point.

It seems embarrassing for Nintendo:

"We finally have the game you've been playing on every other console for literally 6 years!"

But it's a huge boost for Bethesda:

"Skyrim's so goddamned popular that Nintendo approached us about putting it on their new console 6 years after it came out!"

> The GC was the most powerful console of its generation,

That's not true. The Xbox was far more powerful CPU/GPU-wise, and had far more storage (the 8 GB HD was pretty amazing) so games could install themselves to HD and use virtual memory to increase their performance.

> You say that like this is a bad thing.

Probably because I believe it is a bad thing.

> Nintendo isn't just making the same games over and over again.

Let's say I haven't owned a Nintendo console in a long time (which is true-- the last one I bought was a GameCube, which was a piece of crap so I sold it to my step-sister), how would I be able to tell that 2017's Mario is any different than 2014's Mario is any different than 2011's Mario?

If Nintendo genuinely has new game play ideas, maybe they should actually put those ideas in new games. They're not incapable of this-- for example, Splatoon looks genuinely innovative-- but they're more interested in keeping the nostalgia factor than marketing new game concepts. There's one Splatoon for every 10 Mario X or Zelda X or Metroid X.

> And ultimately, the first-party games Nintendo puts out, your Marios and Zeldas and whatnot, are always very polished, excellently-designed, and downright fun games.

Possibly; that doesn't make me interested in buying them. The 1998 Psycho color remake was very polished, excellently designed, etc. But it was just an identical remake of a movie that'd already been made, and if you've seen the original there's no point to seeing the remake.

> Typically the best games on the whole platform.

Because Nintendo's great at games, or because they can't convince anybody else to develop games for their wonky-ass platforms? The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

Just to drop a note here from the Xbox universe, the Xbox perennial first-party title is Halo. Halo 4 and Halo 5 kind of suck. Kind of suck a lot, really. But the strength of Xbox is that if Halo sucks, you can play Titanfall or Evolve or Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare or Battlefield 4 or... you get the point. And that's just in that one genre.

Unlike Nintendo, Microsoft (and Sony) isn't crippled by bad first-party games. If they were they'd probably put a heck of a lot more effort into ensuring their first-party games didn't kind of suck. So it's kind of an apples-to-orange comparison. Nintendo first-party titles are good because Nintendo has far more incentive to make them good.

> It's not unreasonable to say that Mario and Zelda by themselves sell a large portion of Nintendo's consoles.

Of course not; that's exactly what I've been saying. The company relies almost exclusively on nostalgia to sell its products. Mario and Zelda are nostalgic titles.

> I love Nintendo and am a huge fan. But part of me can't help but wish Nintendo would just straight up compete with Sony and Microsoft.

Well I don't love Nintendo, I think their consoles are pretty gimmicky and sales are fueled mostly by nostalgia and rehashing the same game titles over and over again (the Switch is getting a Zelda title and a Mario title? What a shocker!)

I honestly don't believe Nintendo is capable of competing with Sony or Microsoft. Maybe they could create hardware on-par with a PS4, but they can't get the publisher relations down, nor have they been able to get their online service to feature-parity with Xbox Live circa 2007 after a decade of trying. They also have this awful customer-hostile attitude that simply will not go away.

(Why should anybody have to buy a game title more than once, just because they bought a new game console? That's pure scam, Nintendo. On Xbox, you buy it once and you own it forever. On Nintendo, people re-buy Super Mario Bros 3 like clockwork every 3 years.)

Which is fine. There's already lots of competition in the "high powered console gaming" arena, and Nintendo would run the risk of becoming another SteamBox. And if their strength is nostalgia, maybe embracing that is a good business decision, even if the constant rehashing of the same titles over and over personally makes me gag.

Define "online services". Xbox Live still lets you do quite a few things for free. (Although I gladly admit the free capabilities suck compared to the Gold capabilities.)

I need more random people on the internet to tell me how stupid and illiterate I am, I guess. Thanks, that's really helpful.

Wow. Someone needs to tell the EPA about the inverted pyramid.

You can't blame me for missing that when they bury the lede in the very last paragraph.

That aside, the headline here still says the opposite of what it means to say. Exceeding the standard is a good thing. Exceeding the emissions limit is a bad thing.

Note: they mean exceeding in the bad direction, not the good direction. At first I thought this was some kind of spoof article, or Chrysler marketing effort. It should probably read "exceeding limits" not "exceeding standards".

EDIT: actually the press release doesn't even say that really. It says Fiat Chrysler installed software that could impact emissions testing but didn't tell the EPA about it, which is considered a violation of the Clean Air Act. It doesn't say the software cheats on tests.

Perhaps eventually our technology will out-pace NK's artillery so that Seoul will be basically immune from attack. We're nowhere close to that at the moment. Iron Dome isn't even entirely effective against a few artillery pieces, and NK has something like 20,000. Most of them already pre-aimed at Seoul.

Going solar is great, but we need some base-load power generation, and nuclear is brilliant for that.

The options for base-load are: nuclear, gas, oil, coal, dammed rivers. Pick one. Of that set, I prefer nuclear.

Take the mutated animal photos with a huge gigantic grain of salt. The "citation needed" alarm rang out loud when I looked at those.

> that will result in large swaths of Japan being uninhabitable for lifetimes.

Utter hogwash. This statement could not be more false.

Well of course it's not going to be popular here, where open source is considered holy and perfect, but he is 100% right.

For the record, I'm a HN reader and I don't feel disrespected.

The first patent troll was around in 1879: http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2012/11/05/the-origina...

Yeah, it wasn't a software patent, but. It's not hard to see something that's happened before and "predict" it could happen again.

Many, perhaps, but zero of those subject to (for one example) HIPAA data sharing rules.

It's been decades, so I'm probably remembering it wrong.

Point is: building's big.

My best bit of the tour was the explanation that if the climate control system ever goes down, the building's large enough to develop its own weather systems, including potentially clouds and rain.

Sourcetree is a pretty crummy product regardless of how maintained it is. It reveals a culture that seems to hold basic usability testing & concepts almost in contempt.

The "culture" part might be good, but the end-result is Steam-- lousy software which has been lousy for decades at this point, and is unlikely to ever improve.

Of course you can DISPUTE the claim. And in fact actual scammers will release the claim right away because they make all their scam-dollars off old videos where people don't check the ContentID status every week.

But there's no way to tell Google, "the guy making this claim doesn't own the content, he's a scammer". That's the feature I need.

I am 100% certain that the company claiming to have owned Morrowind's music: 1) Is not Bethesda (the developer of the game) 2) Is not affiliated with Bethesda in any way 3) Has no right to the music

But I have no way to communicate my research to Google. Because, guess what, those "ethical" Google employees make money off the scam, too! They take a percentage of all ad revenue, even if it's a ContentID scammer's ad revenue.

Nobody who's been a victim of ContentID scammers (basically, 80% of YouTube Creators) would never say Google is "ethical".

You should get the YouTube developers in on this, because their ContentID system is about the LEAST ethical piece of software in common use.

In my 2 dozen or so ContentID flaggings, maybe two of them have been by parties with a legitimate claim to the material. All the rest have been fraud.

My most recent "pleasant" experience with ContentID was some scam copyright company claiming they owned the soundtrack to Elder Scrolls: Morrowind. The beauty of this system is that not only are they fraudulently claiming they own that content, but to get my video published I have to swear that I'm not stealing the content they actually stole.

How do I report this scammer to YouTube? Well you can't. There's no automated way, and there's no support whatsoever. They can just scam in peace for years and years and nobody can do anything about it because nobody at Google cares.

"Ethical". Riiight.

What I'm not understanding is why logging out or rebooting is required to keep a computer with full disk encryption secure. That's certainly not the case on competing OSes like Windows.

Location: Seattle (Snohomish County preferred)

Remote: Yes

Willing to relocate: No

Technologies: C#, MS SQL, web analytics, healthcare experience

Résumé/CV: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jamesschend

Email: jamesschend AT gmail

15 years of experience, primarily in web analytics and healthcare fields. Most skilled with back-end development in C# and Microsoft SQL Server. I've also worked with MongoDB, Ruby, Python, JavaScript, website usability testing (A/B, multivariate test design), cloud computing (Amazon Web Services). An interest in gaming: did coding for a MUD back in the day, and have helped two teams get indie games published on Steam.

> but I do need to close down/reboot a couple of times a day otherwise no point in encryption.

Given, I'm not a Linux user, but I don't understand this at all.

On Windows, encrypted is encrypted-- the lock screen is exactly as secure as the login screen. Are you saying that in Linux the lock screen is easily-bypassed? So you have to keep your computer logged-out when you're in a place it might get stolen?

I was about to point out that Marathon: Infinity did it first, but it turns out DN3D beat it by about half a year. The fact that Marathon: Infinity included the game editor on the disk was a huge deal at the time though.

Obligatory name-dropping of Marathon, the greatest game to be virtually ignored by all gaming analysis/histories.

> And while I do love my PC for gaming, it definitely feels more and more like an afterthought these past couple of years.

Whenever people complain that the UI for AAA games like, for example, Skyrim, is designed with a controller in mind and not a keyboard & mouse, I just point out that Skyrim sold 10 times more copies for console than it did for PC.

If you want "PC master race" games, you gotta start selling games on that platform. Right now, it's a tiny fraction. (With a few exceptions, like Civilization games.)