Try clicking past the first result next time you "research" something to prove how unbiased you are:

https://upptic.com/valve-structure-employment-numbers-revenue-revealed-in-lawsuit/

Also, stop dick riding corporations.

So basically "we should all be little dumb dumbs who praise the shiny bauble in front of us, not the actual work and effort that goes into creating something".

Interesting point.

Bruh, there's a whole help page on that:

https://code.visualstudio.com/docs/remote/ssh

Yes you are defending rent seeking behaviour, which is what rent gouging landlords do.

Its not arguing about shifting money between two arbitrary corporations, it's about shifting money to the people actually creating something, not the people who own the store that sells it to you.

Every dollar Valve gets, is one less that a game developer had to spend on staff and creatives to make a better game.

So?

Just because you don't understand electrical engineering doesn't make it less valuable then paint. If Valve is a saint for contributing to Linux then so is Microsoft and IBM and we should all dick ride Microsoft and IBM like the Valve dick riders in this thread.

No, they're anti Starbucks price gouging. It's like all those companies taking advantage of a little inflation to drastically increase retail prices.

I said Valve is taking 15% more that they don't have to, they said who cares if a landlord drops Starbucks rent 15%, the consumer won't save. I pointed out that that means that not just Starbucks is being gouged but also independent stores and places that might actually drop their prices, or not increase them as quickly in the future.

There is literally no way to defend rent seeking. It makes everything more expensive for everyone.

Lock-in != Monopoly

They asked if they did anything anti-competitive. Lock-in is inherently anti-competitive.

And the Linux Kernel which powers the whole thing directly effects them, so we should all praise Microsoft and IBM like we praise Valve right?

False.

We can't have nice things because corporations and the wealthy take an ever increasing share of a limited pool of resources and waste them on nonsense for themselves.

Also, if you design and build something and then the suicide rate increases, and then you remove that something and the suicide rate decreases, it throws entirely into question how much free will actually exists and whether the idea of "personal responsibility" even makes any sense.

And regardless, suicide is an inherently somewhat transient and impulsive choice. All the stats show that suicides are more likely to happen when you give someone easy opportunity (think guns), and just because someone attempts to kill themselves, doesn't mean they will again. Yes there are natural high points in a landscape that people will be tempted to jump from (look at the cliffs of Dover for instance), but that doesn't mean we need to build artificial ones in the middle of a depressing concrete jungle with millions of people.

Personally I really like the vessel and the architect behind it, and do wish I could have gone up it when I was there, but I also do think that in hindsight, it is an inherently problematic design that should not have been approved.