I own a switch 2, partly for work obligations but also was kind of sold on DKB in combination with my mild curiosity for duskbloods, especially after being pleasantly surprised with nightreign.
I do hope they fix their networking stack a bit as match making was definitely the most annoying part of ER: Nightreign.
For being a "fluffy non-offensive" game, they sure seem offended.
We could all do with a little reflection on the words from the Book of Kel (Mitchell). It isn't prophecy, but it is accurate in a sense.
Penguin sounds intensify
I’m still pondering the physics and anatomy necessary to maintain a thigh gap in this sitting position.
You're just one step closer to the church of thighentology.
Crazy how nVidia is the backbone of the modern tech oligarchy.
Glad Steve made this video to expose the craziness of the whole thing.
Used to go to SF for work events.
It felt like a town that once had culture that still wants to peek out, but it almost entirely covered with silicon valley monotony and misanthropic policies. It feels like a city where the people living there are the after thought, and the tablet where you order your coffee while you sit around a room where nobody makes eye contact or speaks to you is the product.
I'm sure there's a part of the city where humanity still thrives, but it should be a cultural warning to those who are adopting silicon valley cures as anything other than snake oil.
Better yet, help support open data initiatives like OpenStreetMaps or alternatives. No reason why maps can't be digital without ads.
I don't know, but this is the second unexplained fire near portland city leadership, and there was also the incident during the election with the ballot boxes.
If I were to guess, there's someone actively targeting portland city representatives and perhaps a political vendetta.
There's a few different layers to this. Others have jumped at you a bit, but I hope to talk about this a little more understandingly...
When it comes to music distribution, as in, giving your music to others, the solutions already are in place to provide a federated distribution of music (see groove shark) which would in theory be a good way to provide a place to stream music while also allowing distribution to others. Even if you want to go through paid services, it has never been easier to publish music (though there are caveats, you do generally have to give up royalties to middlemanagers. This is generally ignored by people in this thread, but it is a problem for most artists.) The alternate distributions like groove shark simply don't have enough users yet, and I can't attest for whether it has the right features to be a substitute for bandcamp (there's no ability to set up payment, last time I checked.) It's really the case that independent labels aren't making good use of technology that isn't just putting up a random Bandcamp page.
You'll notice I didn't make any mention of crypto above: That's because I'm not sure of the practical uses of crypto in this particular regard beyond a "buy it as a collectors item" style distribution via NFT and I think that bubble has more or less completely popped.
There's been attempts from the likes of iTunes to provide encrypted song binaries, and in theory you could encrypt a song using a crypto transaction to store the metadata, but it would both be unpopular and entirely centralized (you would need to have an authentication server for tying transactions to keys.)
So short of not having to deal with payment processors (which is good for anti-censorship, fwiw), there's not a lot of benefit to using crypto specifically. And transaction costs would somewhat inflate the price of transactions and would basically force users to buy "albums" again (so that you don't get hammered with transaction fees.)
Lastly, the 5 to 10 years of earning before the rights go "public domain" is a very flawed concept. I know there's a lot of anti-copyright advocates here on lemmy, but there's some truth to the idea that artists actually value copyright to protect their own work and it would be very difficult to convince an artist to sign a deal that would effectively limit their own ownership; This is especially true in the era of AI data farming. You'd be better off making the decision (as a label) to claim ownership up to x dollars in debt to produce the album (there's always a cost, with a slim profit margin to be expected) and then hand the ownership entirely back to the artist once they've recouped the cost to produce the album to effectively put it back in control of the artist to let them do as they please. A record label isn't just about making the music listeners happy, but to empower the artist to create art that they otherwise couldn't afford. Most record labels are disliked by labels not because they withhold ownership from the listener, but because they aren't always paid equally in royalties due to ownership clauses in their contracts that allow record labels to extract profit from work that they've already well earned the loss with profit on.
Democrats should officially rename it to "The Trump and Epstein Ballroom" before demolishing it. :)
Fox news wouldn't know how to report that news.
sigh I really really wish you were right about this, but I think you're grossly overlooking one important detail.
Ticketmaster is owned by a company called LiveNation. LiveNation paritially owns or signed licenses to almost every single large venue. If you're a big band, you'll unfortunately need a large venue and the only company able to provide that service in most of the United States (ignoring Los Angeles, New York, or other huge metro areas) is LiveNation.
So the gambit that Ticket Master has employed: 1 - Bail out almost every huge stadium with financial investment, but with intent to sign a special license which gives them ticket priority (so LiveNation gets the tickets first) 2 - Sell these tickets on TicketMaster, with 1/4th being intentionally given to ticket resellers with the intent of inflating the market (each transaction on the "used" market is actually redirected to TicketMaster).
I've looked and in my city (Portland, Oregon) there's only a 2 venues that are large enough for a popular artist to play at that aren't owned or invested into by live nation, and these venues might not always be appropriate for acoustic needs. You can read more about this here but, to put a point on it, I actually don't think artists are to blame for needing to sell tickets on ticket master due to how hard it is to find a large venue in every city across the United States. Otherwise, you'll end up paying ticket master more for venue access anyway, from my understanding. Granted, all of this is hard to know for sure, as you'd actually have to have experience with managing a multi-million dollar band or singer to really understand the scope of the problem here.