I'm getting a different takeaway from that language in the context of which it was made. Microsoft/Bethesda isn't taking ES6 away from any platforms, in part because it wasn't promised to any specific platforms. Existing games and pre-existing platform promises are not being withdrawn: Skyrim will continue to work on the billion platforms it already works on and games with platform commitments will not see those commitments change as a result of the acquisition of Bethesda. That's as much as I'm willing to take away from those statements. There is explicitly no promise in any of those quotes to support any specific non-Microsoft platform.
The reason is that early on, the machine or computing device was the big invention and the programming method was seen as grunt work. Women did the "boring" work of programming while the men did the "exciting" work of inventing the next big new machine. It wasn't until programming started being seen as something worth doing that would generate money and plaudits that men started moving into the field and alienating women. There are also the traditional barriers to women in some branches of academia. Computer science and programming, often being an offshoot of math, and now also potentially being an offshoot of certain management programs, is a field largely dominated by men in academia.
So it really was the good-ol-boys club that drove women out. At the time programming was starting to become more important men had even more social capital than they do now and as they worked their way into the field they started erecting barriers to women.
This is a rather tortured analogy and as a result I'm not actually sure what point you're trying to make. Football is inherently oppositional (opposed teams competing) and association with a team (or interest in the sport at all) is purely volitional. And you're using this to make some comment about tribalism based on inherent qualities of identity which are not in opposition and not in the least bit voluntarily-assumed? You've used a lot of words to make a point that's as clear as mud.
Consoles have their own varieties of built-in DRM, but consoles are also not multi-use devices in the same way PCs are. I'm not sure whey Denuvo still has a market given its questionable efficacy, but at the same time all the doom and gloom about it "infecting" PCs and hurting performance is at least partially hyperbole.
This is perhaps adjacent to WHY publishers include and then remove Denuvo, but there is mixed evidence of a performance impact on games by Denuvo software inclusion. ExtremeTech found an impact on 3 games at the end of 2018, but Ars Technica found no significant impact on Batman: Arkham Knight and TechPowerUp found no significant impact on Devil May Cry 5, and both of those were in early 2019. Now, Denuvo is constantly being updated and I'm sure each different revision has differing impact, and there are probably better and worse ways to implement it. Regardless, it's clear that developers are willing to gamble in the hopes of getting a week or two of piracy-free sales and distribution, even if that gamble often doesn't play out.
I have no love for the conventional publishing economy controlled by massive publishers, but SciHub isn't the right answer. SciHub routes around those behemoths but doesn't fix the fundamental problem.
Preprints are only valuable, really, after the final article has passed peer review and been edited, because then the content that debuted in the preprint can be weighed using the published end-result. While publishers don't pay for peer review, and often don't pay for some of their editing, they do help organize everything and provide that network (to an extent). How this control is used to leverage massive profits is a big problem, but without that peer review and editing there's simply too much academic literature to process. This constant glut of literature is part of the Publish or Perish paradigm which needs to be eliminated at our universities.
SciHub would have little to no value without those reviewed and edited final works. The question then becomes how do we make scientific research accessible equitably and still provide a healthy and robust peer review process and the necessary editing and publishing required to reach readers? What we have now is clearly a big problem, but SciHub isn't the solution. What we need is something else.
That quote, out of context, appears to be a reversal, but what I've read elsewhere is that Jobs called Android a stolen project because Google was heavily involved with Apple, including having a seat on Apple's board, while they were in early planning and development of Android. It wasn't as much about copying Apple's ideas as it was doing it as an insider and a partner, thus betrayal of trust and whatnot.
That quote, out of context, appears to be a reversal, but what I've read elsewhere is that Jobs called Android a stolen project because Google was heavily involved with Apple, including having a seat on Apple's board, while they were in early planning and development of Android. It wasn't as much about copying Apple's ideas as it was doing it as an insider and a partner, thus betrayal of trust and whatnot.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Brandon.
(untitled comment)
I'm getting a different takeaway from that language in the context of which it was made. Microsoft/Bethesda isn't taking ES6 away from any platforms, in part because it wasn't promised to any specific platforms. Existing games and pre-existing platform promises are not being withdrawn: Skyrim will continue to work on the billion platforms it already works on and games with platform commitments will not see those commitments change as a result of the acquisition of Bethesda. That's as much as I'm willing to take away from those statements. There is explicitly no promise in any of those quotes to support any specific non-Microsoft platform.
Re:
The reason is that early on, the machine or computing device was the big invention and the programming method was seen as grunt work. Women did the "boring" work of programming while the men did the "exciting" work of inventing the next big new machine. It wasn't until programming started being seen as something worth doing that would generate money and plaudits that men started moving into the field and alienating women. There are also the traditional barriers to women in some branches of academia. Computer science and programming, often being an offshoot of math, and now also potentially being an offshoot of certain management programs, is a field largely dominated by men in academia.
So it really was the good-ol-boys club that drove women out. At the time programming was starting to become more important men had even more social capital than they do now and as they worked their way into the field they started erecting barriers to women.
Re: Discomfort, Bras, Men, Etc.
Or it was that many men don't care about bras and see that as a "woman thing" and as such, tune right out. "A woman talking about bras? NEXT!"
Re: It has to do with projection
This is a rather tortured analogy and as a result I'm not actually sure what point you're trying to make. Football is inherently oppositional (opposed teams competing) and association with a team (or interest in the sport at all) is purely volitional. And you're using this to make some comment about tribalism based on inherent qualities of identity which are not in opposition and not in the least bit voluntarily-assumed? You've used a lot of words to make a point that's as clear as mud.
Re: Re: Mixed evidence for performance impact
Consoles have their own varieties of built-in DRM, but consoles are also not multi-use devices in the same way PCs are. I'm not sure whey Denuvo still has a market given its questionable efficacy, but at the same time all the doom and gloom about it "infecting" PCs and hurting performance is at least partially hyperbole.
Mixed evidence for performance impact
This is perhaps adjacent to WHY publishers include and then remove Denuvo, but there is mixed evidence of a performance impact on games by Denuvo software inclusion. ExtremeTech found an impact on 3 games at the end of 2018, but Ars Technica found no significant impact on Batman: Arkham Knight and TechPowerUp found no significant impact on Devil May Cry 5, and both of those were in early 2019. Now, Denuvo is constantly being updated and I'm sure each different revision has differing impact, and there are probably better and worse ways to implement it. Regardless, it's clear that developers are willing to gamble in the hopes of getting a week or two of piracy-free sales and distribution, even if that gamble often doesn't play out.
https://www.extremetech.com/gaming/282924-denuvo-really-does-cripple-pc-gaming-performance
http s://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019/09/ars-analysis-denuvo-drm-doesnt-slow-down-batman-arkham-knight/
ht tps://www.techpowerup.com/review/denuvo-performance-loss-test/3.html
SciHub IS a problem
I have no love for the conventional publishing economy controlled by massive publishers, but SciHub isn't the right answer. SciHub routes around those behemoths but doesn't fix the fundamental problem.
Preprints are only valuable, really, after the final article has passed peer review and been edited, because then the content that debuted in the preprint can be weighed using the published end-result. While publishers don't pay for peer review, and often don't pay for some of their editing, they do help organize everything and provide that network (to an extent). How this control is used to leverage massive profits is a big problem, but without that peer review and editing there's simply too much academic literature to process. This constant glut of literature is part of the Publish or Perish paradigm which needs to be eliminated at our universities.
SciHub would have little to no value without those reviewed and edited final works. The question then becomes how do we make scientific research accessible equitably and still provide a healthy and robust peer review process and the necessary editing and publishing required to reach readers? What we have now is clearly a big problem, but SciHub isn't the solution. What we need is something else.
Re: Re: Sadly the exact opposite is almost always true. (as spenoza)
Re: Re: Sadly the exact opposite is almost always true. (as spenoza)
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Brandon.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt