I think part of what enables a monopoly is absence of meaningful competition, regardless of how that's achieved -- significant moat, by law or regulation, etc.
I don't know to what extent Google has been rent-seeking and not innovating, but Google doesn't have the luxury to rent-seek any longer.
I won't argue that I always use it in a stylistically appropriate fashion, but I may have to move away from it. I am NOT beating the actually-an-AI allegations.
Play the weight-loss game with your body, and you'll find the goalposts get moved.
Given what effects stress, depression, anxiety, guilt, shame, etc. have on the psyche and body, I'm running an experiment, and betting that making peace and taking care of my body as it is right now will benefit me in the long run.
And here I thought "crossing" LinkedIn was a new slang.
Why is daily gameplay desirable to you?
Your idea smells of a dark pattern—in my eyes you're attempting to generate FOMO from the leaderboard by making players redo levels they've already completed.
Moreso, levels players they scored low at are likely the ones that frustrate them the most.
You're proposing to make them revisit those levels.
This is not a good idea unless your game is about Sisyphus
I wonder what drives companies to include so much fluff when explaining a re-brand -- any wording beyond "hey, we think our branding looks stale so we gave it a haircut and a shave" is ripe for mockery.
Is the size of the blog post in their mind better justifying the time and money spent doing the rebrand?
Reminds me of a similar problem where nonfiction books spend two-hundred pages "expanding" a concept that could've been a tight ten or twenty pages.
If you're willing to share, I'm curious on what issues you're having with Spotify. Do you feel you're filling the silence too much with it, or something else?
I'm tired of Spotify too, in part because I don't see an endgame where I shut the family plan off. My family uses it a lot.
I try not to make my goals too lofty but perhaps I should think smaller for some of them.
General tips and info are welcome so that this question helps others! --- But also, specific advice to my situation is extra helpful as I'm a bit lost in life:I'm in a situation where I intentionally work 3 days/19 hours a week to make room for personal growth. The job pays just enough to cover my bills, rent, leisure/entertainment, etc. -- I have very few obligations otherwise.The idea was to...
Looking at the page's <script>, I think it's because they set the minimum score to 1 rather than 0.
In addition, for three of the questions, a high score is seen as a negative rather than a positive (e.g. a high score in "development effort" likely means "a lot of effort"), so behind the hood they invert those scores by doing (10 - score).
The problem is then that positive questions have a range from 1 to 10, and negative questions have a range from 0 to 9, and the means you have a minimum score of 3 and a max of 57, rather than 0 and 60.
For a more flowery answer: A developer never deals in absolutes :)
Side note: As much as I'd love for "table steaks" to be the parlance for minimum entry requirements, the correct term is "table stakes".