Thaldor

Mostly just common sense. Even Google doesn't really want to hold personal information that hard especially when there is the chance that if it leaks out and it's taken to EU court that could be up to 10M€ or 2% of annual global turnover (which one is higher) for violation or up to 20M€ or 4% of annual global turnover for severe violation, just not worth it to risk it. And if you get fined and don't pay the fines, you will get more fines and most likely you can say bye bye for any foothold on European markets until you pay your fines.
 
But in the US I don't know is even the California able and willing to really strong arm companies the way EU has shown to be willing to.

Depends how the law is written. EU's GDPR is very similar, as in I as a EU citizen can demand even US companies to delete their data about me since the GDPR isn't written from the perspective where the data or company is but where the person, about who the data is, resides. As in, while Facebook tried to shovel their data from Ireland to US in hopes to run from GDPR and the fear of needing to give people access to their data with hopes that if the data is in US it would fall under US jurisdiction and EU couldn't set sanctions on Facebook for not giving GDPR accesses to EU citizens. However the GDPR isn't about where the data is but where the people are, Facebook just wasted bandwidth since if they wouldn't have given that GDPR access, EU could have fined and sanctioned them.
 
Same here if they were wise, they wrote the law the way that company must delete the data about Californian demanding it and not "Californian company must delete data in California if Californian demands it", it could be the same as GDPR and at least bigger companies won't try to fight it in fears of getting hefty fines.

If it would be that profitable and easy, we would burn garbage to heat TEGs instead of boiling water and using steam to run turbines (even the most modern power plants basicly are using steam to run turbines that generate electricity, yes, even the nuclear power plants use the heat of the fission reaction to boil water though very much simplified).

With 2.5m cap you are needing the center support unless you're going to use some really thick and sturdy table material (like +5cm solid) or steel reinforcements. 2m starts to be the point where you really need to start thinking about the weight and how much the table can hold.

Three things that this brings up.
 
1. When has Linus been more philanthropic? When has he's gist been to help those in need and spread his wealth? When I see these types of threads, I must wonder which channel you have watched. He hasn't really changed in these perspectives. But your view on him has changed between when he was working out of garage to building Labs and badminton center. And you have to remember, most giveaways are sponsored, so sponsor has big say on who gets and what.
 
2. I'm pretty sure he knows how things are in other countries. He has extended family in Indonesia after all. Would going into another country change the views, or more importantly, the actions/content made? No. You bring up the video with Strange Parts. That's not about general wealth or what's available for middle class. That's just about what a tech mall in country with most production of the area holds. Which is why it's interesting. So having content about how bad the markets are isn't going to bring views, or change the general publics opinions towards other countries.
 
3. You want him to become more like MrBeast? Showering "the poor" with money to gain views. There's drawback with that. Yes, it will temporarily give light and happiness for small group. But also make them a target. Because the bigger picture in most of these countries isn't so rosie, having much of something expensive makes you a target. If not by common thieves, then by someone else who thinks selling the bit better laptops will give them enough money. Doing it once also would give same result as doing ANY giveaway does. Salt and grief about "why noy us" and "you are bad person for not doing this to everyone".

IMO you are thinking way too much. I don't mean it's a bad thing so don't take it as that. Coming from the music side of things I can tell you there are things that will fry stuff connected to them, like my 60's guitar amp won't give mercy if you connect it to a some poor tape player to record it same as it's 3x12" cab won't give mercy to any amp connected to it because it's wired parallel and 8/16 ohm standard really wasn't a thing in the 60's so it's 2.7ohms pure Yamaha mayhem. But anything half-way modern won't fry things unless you go the extremes like connecting some PA amplifier to some stereo speakers style of madness.

You have a mixer going into a soundbar, you already at that point have 4 volume control stages: 1) devices connected to the mixer 2) mixers input 3) mixers output 4) soundbars output. You will set 1st stage to be optimal output for the devices amps, 2nd stage you will use to balance the devices (what you want higher volume, what you want at the same, you get it), 3rd will be set so you don't push the preamp side of the soundbar (so probably pretty low, until the soundbar doesn't clip) and 4th will set your listening level. You most likely cannot control the "gain" of the soundbar (basicly the preamp volume or the input volume), so that will be the mixers output volume controls job or either you get some cheap stereo volume controller to lower that signal even more but as you have a mixer you can lower the signal even by lowering the input volume to the mixer, as in, the mixer doesn't automatically set the amplification level of itself so if you lower the input volume -> you lower the output volume and so lower the signal going to the soundbar, if still too high, you can lower the volume on device and bring that signal even lower.

The mixers leds will never sync with the soundbar. At the point where mixers output amp is receiving too high signal and clipping, your soundbars preamp is already gone way past that point.

Not really necessary. The paint is conductive which means instead of blocking the signals with some material absorbing the signal and so having a feature of letting some frequencies through, it just turns the box into Faraday cage (actually shield since the paint won't have holes in it) and blocks everything.

Not really necessary. The paint is conductive which means instead of blocking the signals with some material absorbing the signal and so having a feature of letting some frequencies through, it just turns the box into Faraday cage (actually shield since the paint won't have holes in it) and blocks everything.

Not really necessary. The paint is conductive which means instead of blocking the signals with some material absorbing the signal and so having a feature of letting some frequencies through, it just turns the box into Faraday cage (actually shield since the paint won't have holes in it) and blocks everything.

If you repair the hardware and the software says "no", did you actually repair anything because the device is still broken?
 
When it comes to Apple the whole mess is their own doing, that they have pretty much forever refused to sell spare parts and that has created blooming market for stolen Apple products broken down to parts isn't a problem of repairability, that's a problem of company policies and their results. Doesn't really help the company policy problems that official Apple repair has been more scam (as in, the only part swapping and then billing the same for new and refurbished spare parts and outside of Apple gracious warranty, that's fucking expensive for the consumer for basicly no reason other than Apples bottom line) for decades already.
If I need to call Apple, wait in the line, go around hoop after loop, plead and pray and all that just so that someone will press a button and things will work only because the Apple's repair policies have been shit for years, yeah, I give them 0 maybe 1 if I didn't need to install plethora of software and buy a Mac so the repair can be finished.
 
I will give the same 0 to 3 for Microsoft or anyone else if their products have same kind of artificial problems to solve the company's shitty policies. If I change the SSD in Surface and the machine goes *poof* and the reason isn't that I used some random SSD in which case the problem can be that the SSD has some non-standard stuff, I would give them 0-3. Definitive 0 if I was to replace the SSD with exact same model and exact same firmware and the Surface refuses to accept it because "it's not the original", that's a 0.
 
I do, however, make the difference if we would be talking about a device that the user must go through multiple hoops and loops to activate some security option that will render the device basicly unrepairable without going way past everything usual, you would need to call the manufacturer, get codes from the customer and whatever rain dances and ancient spells you must do. But that should never be the default, in business products sold strictly to businesses based on contracts is exception, but in normal consumer products, there should never be that kind of "security" activated on default.
(And before you say, that is because that kind of security features are way past even the word "excessive", I can understand some CEO or celebrity having burner phone that if stolen deletes everything and cannot be accessed, no matter what, but for general population that is more problems than it is a benefit. In some specific cases maybe but if someone finds themselves in a place where it's beneficial for them to sacrifice all of their data and everything in case their device gets to wrong hands, they can go through the hoops and activate the feature themselves so the non-techsavvy person doesn't need to question why broken screen means they need to loose their vacation photos which doesn't have backups. There's usecases for those kind of security features, but they are more trouble for 90% of the population.)

Splitting a score like that risks that some people might assume that they could still attempt a repair themselves only to end up shit creek without a paddle when the software won't cooperate. I feel like this is an instance where the lowest score you get on any metric is the score you get overall. No point in flattering Apple for making hardware repairs easy for their own technicians and certified corporate slaves when the end user isn't getting anything out of it.

Going through the "fun" thing that is called Unity licensing I just found out something interesting. "Interesting", not surprising since the whole quest started from remembering that Unity has revenue limits on their licenses that were earlier $100,000 for Free/Personal, $200,000 for Plus in the past 12 months, as in, if your game/company makes more than the limit, you HAVE TO buy the next license. Now that the Plus license is gone the Free/Personal license cap has been raised to $200,000...
 
...Then who does pay the 0.20c/install when it comes into action only after the game has been installed more than 200,000 times AND made more than $200,000 in the past 12 months when if you have revenue over $200,000 in the past 12 months, you need to buy the Pro license which will then move you over to the progressive runtime fee which is completely pennies?
The Pro license however moves the goal posts of the runtime fee, now you need to pay the fee only after 1,000,000 installs AND after making $1,000,000, at which point it pretty much comes into question do you wanna pay the $2,040/year/seat for Pro license or send couple emails and negotiate the Enterprise license that halves the runtime fees to pocket money.
 
There's a thing thou in the Unity license system that makes this REAL bad. The thing is that you actually buy the Unity license for continuous support or for the next project. As in, you can make a game that can earn you millions on Unity Free/Personal license and Unity won't come and bang on your door demanding you to buy a license BUT if you continue to use Unity Editor after that THEN you must buy the license. You also don't need to maintain a license once you have stopped working on the game.
Unity doing these changes so they work retroactively is the key here, at least after the April TOS change that made it possible for Unity to change their TOS retroactively however they want means that any Unity game released after April is under the runtime fee, depending on the court where Unity would take the older games the chances are that any game ever made with Unity would be under the fee.
However now we have the problem under which license a game has been released and what license applies to it. As in, if you release a game under Free license and for the next game you get the Pro license, is the first game still under Free license and so applicable to the higher runtime fees and vice versa, if you released a game under Unity Pro and then dropped your license, is the game still under Pro license or falls under the Free license and higher fees?
 
[TINFOIL HAT]
I would believe the real thing behind was more the removal of the Plus license than the runtime fee. Unity never had dreams to hold on to the runtime fee but as people are as stupid as they are, they just jumped to the runtime fee like a pack of starving wolves without noticing the other things Unity is doing. While the developers falling to the canyon of $100,000-$200,000 can now use the Free license because the raised revenue limit. BUT Unity Free/Personal isn't the same thing as Unity "Pro", it lacks features and there we have it, basicly making actual good game release with Unity (trust me, you don't want to release a game under Free Unity, msotly because the splash screen is dead giveaway that you use Unity with Free license) the price was raised, multiplied even.
 
And yet, no one barks on that. Hardly even a whisper because everyone is fighting against the runtime fee that is so outrageous that it's odd they even gambled it.
[/TINFOIL HAT]

Going through the "fun" thing that is called Unity licensing I just found out something interesting. "Interesting", not surprising since the whole quest started from remembering that Unity has revenue limits on their licenses that were earlier $100,000 for Free/Personal, $200,000 for Plus in the past 12 months, as in, if your game/company makes more than the limit, you HAVE TO buy the next license. Now that the Plus license is gone the Free/Personal license cap has been raised to $200,000...
 
...Then who does pay the 0.20c/install when it comes into action only after the game has been installed more than 200,000 times AND made more than $200,000 in the past 12 months when if you have revenue over $200,000 in the past 12 months, you need to buy the Pro license which will then move you over to the progressive runtime fee which is completely pennies?
The Pro license however moves the goal posts of the runtime fee, now you need to pay the fee only after 1,000,000 installs AND after making $1,000,000, at which point it pretty much comes into question do you wanna pay the $2,040/year/seat for Pro license or send couple emails and negotiate the Enterprise license that halves the runtime fees to pocket money.
 
There's a thing thou in the Unity license system that makes this REAL bad. The thing is that you actually buy the Unity license for continuous support or for the next project. As in, you can make a game that can earn you millions on Unity Free/Personal license and Unity won't come and bang on your door demanding you to buy a license BUT if you continue to use Unity Editor after that THEN you must buy the license. You also don't need to maintain a license once you have stopped working on the game.
Unity doing these changes so they work retroactively is the key here, at least after the April TOS change that made it possible for Unity to change their TOS retroactively however they want means that any Unity game released after April is under the runtime fee, depending on the court where Unity would take the older games the chances are that any game ever made with Unity would be under the fee.
However now we have the problem under which license a game has been released and what license applies to it. As in, if you release a game under Free license and for the next game you get the Pro license, is the first game still under Free license and so applicable to the higher runtime fees and vice versa, if you released a game under Unity Pro and then dropped your license, is the game still under Pro license or falls under the Free license and higher fees?
 
[TINFOIL HAT]
I would believe the real thing behind was more the removal of the Plus license than the runtime fee. Unity never had dreams to hold on to the runtime fee but as people are as stupid as they are, they just jumped to the runtime fee like a pack of starving wolves without noticing the other things Unity is doing. While the developers falling to the canyon of $100,000-$200,000 can now use the Free license because the raised revenue limit. BUT Unity Free/Personal isn't the same thing as Unity "Pro", it lacks features and there we have it, basicly making actual good game release with Unity (trust me, you don't want to release a game under Free Unity, msotly because the splash screen is dead giveaway that you use Unity with Free license) the price was raised, multiplied even.
 
And yet, no one barks on that. Hardly even a whisper because everyone is fighting against the runtime fee that is so outrageous that it's odd they even gambled it.
[/TINFOIL HAT]

Just couple notions:

- Unity license is "per seat". As in you pay that $2,040/year/seat so if your studio has 10 developers officially you need to pay $20,400/year for Unity Pro licenses +5% revenue after $200,000 profit on game and then the runtime fee after $200,000 revenue and 200,000 installs. Unofficially you can get by with one paid Unity license and just use one PC to do the builds.
 
- Console development is expensive AF. Not only you need the Unity license but the revenue share is up to 50% if you have physical sales and you have all kind of fees for distributing patches and whatever the console manufacturer finds out to be feeable, like you almost get fee for fee of feeing you. Not only that you pay for the release and the game engine but if you are going with more than indie launch you need to pay for localization and kind of "reparations" for Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo (they want to make sure your game is fitting to the markets and they need a bit guarantees that if your game gets them trouble, they ain't paying that completely from their wallet), this is more AAA stuff but still something to keep in mind.
 
-For anyone running a bit bigger operation all of this is pennies, you pay way more to license Photoshop and stuff like 3Ds Max and the hardware than you pay to license Unity. But Unity has always been more the "small" engine for indies and already only the runtime fee is good scare to not make the next Flappy Bird or anything that may bring you $200,000 in few days as it blows up and the ads roll. The removal of affordable Plus license is really a bad kicker because going from $399 to $2,040 is pretty steep jump and if you have even a little confidence in your product that $0.20 per install after 200,000 installs vs. progressively smaller fee is a bit extortion.
 
-Pretty much any volume sale strategy with Unity is now dead. Making cheaper early access with lower price and hope enough people buy it and give you more budget to develop is dead.
 
-There's that big word called "revenue". Is it more profit or net revenue still remains a bit negotiable thing.
 
- Unsurprisingly Unity has pretty much since Unreal 4 been the more expensive option out of the two. Unlike Unity, Unreal 4 coming with the same 5% revenue split made the big separation from Unity that has been a bit taboo when talking about Unity, Unreal only has two licenses, the "free" one and then the Enterprise one. You didn't need to pay even that $399/year/seat to get the same Unreal 4 as AAA studio gets (minus the enterprise benefits like on-site/personal support, getting rid of the 5% split, negotiable things that just bring more value to the deal). There's no strings attached, no "this feature is only available on Pro version", no bullshit, just "here's the engine, go and do your thing, if you make it extraordinary huge, we will call you". You can have 200 seat studio developing on Unreal without paying a cent to Epic before they find out you have reached the revenue cap and need to pay the 5%.

Not to forget the tiny little part where most of the time you will need a PC to run emulators on consoles.
 
And seriously, without emulators we are talking about a media machine that can run whatever the manufacturer in their high and mighty gracious let's you run on it vs. a thing that just runs anything it can. Modern consoles have ZERO backwards compatibility, that you can download and run digital versions of older generation console games isn't backwards compatibility, that is emulation. As in, we aren't talking about taking PS1 game disc and stuffing it into PS2 and the console doesn't even care and just runs the game, that's backwards compatibility, that you can download old game to your console is emulation and that is exactly what Xbox Series X does with old games (when you insert original Xbox game into it and it prompts to install the game, it really downloads the game and emulator from Microsoft and runs that, the disc is only used to validate you have the game).
 
Strictly with that Xbox Series X has zero backwards compatibility while PC has probably around 20 years of direct backwards compatibility (I would think you can just install Morrowind on Windows 11 and it doesn't even care that the game is now 21 years old). With emulation without any modding included Xbox Series X goes as far as Original Xbox while PC goes all the way to the dawn of computer games. With modding you get the SeriesX to go Retroarch and get the old consoles outside of Microsoft emulated ones but you are still far from running 1971 The Oregon Trail made for HP 2100 on SeriesX but your Ultimate Cyber Dick 5,000,000 with all the bells and whistles and the extremely needed dual RTX 4090's will happily run it, if you can find it, but you can easily run the 1975 Apple II Oregon Trail on your browser (the 1971 is a bit hard to find since it was never really published outside of the source code released in 1978, and if we are nitpicky the 1975 is also just a port on Apple II published in 1978).

Just couple notions:

- Unity license is "per seat". As in you pay that $2,040/year/seat so if your studio has 10 developers officially you need to pay $20,400/year for Unity Pro licenses +5% revenue after $200,000 profit on game and then the runtime fee after $200,000 revenue and 200,000 installs. Unofficially you can get by with one paid Unity license and just use one PC to do the builds.
 
- Console development is expensive AF. Not only you need the Unity license but the revenue share is up to 50% if you have physical sales and you have all kind of fees for distributing patches and whatever the console manufacturer finds out to be feeable, like you almost get fee for fee of feeing you. Not only that you pay for the release and the game engine but if you are going with more than indie launch you need to pay for localization and kind of "reparations" for Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo (they want to make sure your game is fitting to the markets and they need a bit guarantees that if your game gets them trouble, they ain't paying that completely from their wallet), this is more AAA stuff but still something to keep in mind.
 
-For anyone running a bit bigger operation all of this is pennies, you pay way more to license Photoshop and stuff like 3Ds Max and the hardware than you pay to license Unity. But Unity has always been more the "small" engine for indies and already only the runtime fee is good scare to not make the next Flappy Bird or anything that may bring you $200,000 in few days as it blows up and the ads roll. The removal of affordable Plus license is really a bad kicker because going from $399 to $2,040 is pretty steep jump and if you have even a little confidence in your product that $0.20 per install after 200,000 installs vs. progressively smaller fee is a bit extortion.
 
-Pretty much any volume sale strategy with Unity is now dead. Making cheaper early access with lower price and hope enough people buy it and give you more budget to develop is dead.
 
-There's that big word called "revenue". Is it more profit or net revenue still remains a bit negotiable thing.
 
- Unsurprisingly Unity has pretty much since Unreal 4 been the more expensive option out of the two. Unlike Unity, Unreal 4 coming with the same 5% revenue split made the big separation from Unity that has been a bit taboo when talking about Unity, Unreal only has two licenses, the "free" one and then the Enterprise one. You didn't need to pay even that $399/year/seat to get the same Unreal 4 as AAA studio gets (minus the enterprise benefits like on-site/personal support, getting rid of the 5% split, negotiable things that just bring more value to the deal). There's no strings attached, no "this feature is only available on Pro version", no bullshit, just "here's the engine, go and do your thing, if you make it extraordinary huge, we will call you". You can have 200 seat studio developing on Unreal without paying a cent to Epic before they find out you have reached the revenue cap and need to pay the 5%.

Just couple notions:

- Unity license is "per seat". As in you pay that $2,040/year/seat so if your studio has 10 developers officially you need to pay $20,400/year for Unity Pro licenses +5% revenue after $200,000 profit on game and then the runtime fee after $200,000 revenue and 200,000 installs. Unofficially you can get by with one paid Unity license and just use one PC to do the builds.
 
- Console development is expensive AF. Not only you need the Unity license but the revenue share is up to 50% if you have physical sales and you have all kind of fees for distributing patches and whatever the console manufacturer finds out to be feeable, like you almost get fee for fee of feeing you. Not only that you pay for the release and the game engine but if you are going with more than indie launch you need to pay for localization and kind of "reparations" for Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo (they want to make sure your game is fitting to the markets and they need a bit guarantees that if your game gets them trouble, they ain't paying that completely from their wallet), this is more AAA stuff but still something to keep in mind.
 
-For anyone running a bit bigger operation all of this is pennies, you pay way more to license Photoshop and stuff like 3Ds Max and the hardware than you pay to license Unity. But Unity has always been more the "small" engine for indies and already only the runtime fee is good scare to not make the next Flappy Bird or anything that may bring you $200,000 in few days as it blows up and the ads roll. The removal of affordable Plus license is really a bad kicker because going from $399 to $2,040 is pretty steep jump and if you have even a little confidence in your product that $0.20 per install after 200,000 installs vs. progressively smaller fee is a bit extortion.
 
-Pretty much any volume sale strategy with Unity is now dead. Making cheaper early access with lower price and hope enough people buy it and give you more budget to develop is dead.
 
-There's that big word called "revenue". Is it more profit or net revenue still remains a bit negotiable thing.
 
- Unsurprisingly Unity has pretty much since Unreal 4 been the more expensive option out of the two. Unlike Unity, Unreal 4 coming with the same 5% revenue split made the big separation from Unity that has been a bit taboo when talking about Unity, Unreal only has two licenses, the "free" one and then the Enterprise one. You didn't need to pay even that $399/year/seat to get the same Unreal 4 as AAA studio gets (minus the enterprise benefits like on-site/personal support, getting rid of the 5% split, negotiable things that just bring more value to the deal). There's no strings attached, no "this feature is only available on Pro version", no bullshit, just "here's the engine, go and do your thing, if you make it extraordinary huge, we will call you". You can have 200 seat studio developing on Unreal without paying a cent to Epic before they find out you have reached the revenue cap and need to pay the 5%.

Just couple notions:

- Unity license is "per seat". As in you pay that $2,040/year/seat so if your studio has 10 developers officially you need to pay $20,400/year for Unity Pro licenses +5% revenue after $200,000 profit on game and then the runtime fee after $200,000 revenue and 200,000 installs. Unofficially you can get by with one paid Unity license and just use one PC to do the builds.
 
- Console development is expensive AF. Not only you need the Unity license but the revenue share is up to 50% if you have physical sales and you have all kind of fees for distributing patches and whatever the console manufacturer finds out to be feeable, like you almost get fee for fee of feeing you. Not only that you pay for the release and the game engine but if you are going with more than indie launch you need to pay for localization and kind of "reparations" for Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo (they want to make sure your game is fitting to the markets and they need a bit guarantees that if your game gets them trouble, they ain't paying that completely from their wallet), this is more AAA stuff but still something to keep in mind.
 
-For anyone running a bit bigger operation all of this is pennies, you pay way more to license Photoshop and stuff like 3Ds Max and the hardware than you pay to license Unity. But Unity has always been more the "small" engine for indies and already only the runtime fee is good scare to not make the next Flappy Bird or anything that may bring you $200,000 in few days as it blows up and the ads roll. The removal of affordable Plus license is really a bad kicker because going from $399 to $2,040 is pretty steep jump and if you have even a little confidence in your product that $0.20 per install after 200,000 installs vs. progressively smaller fee is a bit extortion.
 
-Pretty much any volume sale strategy with Unity is now dead. Making cheaper early access with lower price and hope enough people buy it and give you more budget to develop is dead.
 
-There's that big word called "revenue". Is it more profit or net revenue still remains a bit negotiable thing.
 
- Unsurprisingly Unity has pretty much since Unreal 4 been the more expensive option out of the two. Unlike Unity, Unreal 4 coming with the same 5% revenue split made the big separation from Unity that has been a bit taboo when talking about Unity, Unreal only has two licenses, the "free" one and then the Enterprise one. You didn't need to pay even that $399/year/seat to get the same Unreal 4 as AAA studio gets (minus the enterprise benefits like on-site/personal support, getting rid of the 5% split, negotiable things that just bring more value to the deal). There's no strings attached, no "this feature is only available on Pro version", no bullshit, just "here's the engine, go and do your thing, if you make it extraordinary huge, we will call you". You can have 200 seat studio developing on Unreal without paying a cent to Epic before they find out you have reached the revenue cap and need to pay the 5%.

My last console I really bought was Xbox 360 and that was already pretty much in it's EOL, but I do have quite a few consoles (NES, SNES, both minis, N64, PS2, GC, Xbox 360, Wii with everything from Wii up soft modded) but they are mostly just for collecting and tinkering with. It's just too easy with AndroidTV to use Steam Link and play pretty much anything by streaming from main rig in LAN with either X360 controller with the PC dongle or XOne/Series controller through BT.
 
Pretty much I stopped caring about consoles when they started to be more PCs than old consoles, so that's pretty much when I started to need to wait for the games to install, manage the HDD space and update games. Just too much trouble when you want to play a moment on sofa when you count in that at the same time I bought the X360 I had 9800GTX+ with 10m S-Video-to-SCART cable hooked to CRT TV (I didn't get flat TV before FullHD was more mainstream). Like what's the point when you just as well need to wait the same time and go through the same trouble but you loose "surprise sales", modding and far superior compatibility with retro games? You couldn't even solve the problem of running out of HDD space with just throwing money at the problem and getting another HDD, fucking stupid.

This is actually something really interesting here because the TOS change that makes it possible for Unity to apply the runtime fees retroactively is from April 2023. Could be interesting court cases over the applicability of TOS's if there isn't a loophole how Unity can apply that April change retroactively into all of the old games done under way older terms.
 
At least what I know while in the US TOS is almost next to the declaration of independence in it's holding, in EU it's much more like "well, it's a binding contract BUT that part is against the law and/or that second part is just completely unfair, so, we will put this paper here into this nice little shredder and see what our laws say about this matter". Especially EU side will be coming interesting if there was just individual people without companies taking this to the court because then we would go to more into the consumer vs. corporation side of things which has way stricter margins what companies can demand from consumer.
 
E: And I would like to welcome Apple developers to develop for the Apple Vision Pro with...... Unity! Poor people, it's either to make your own engine or use Unity, Unreal or any other VR ready game engine (at least now) doesn't have Apples blessing to be used for Vision development.
 
Oh and another thing that hasn't been brought up that heats the discussion: Unity has ended Unity Plus licensing and while Plus members can buy Pro license for a year with the price of Plus license, after that the cheapest more serious license for Unity will be the Pro that is $2,040/year while Plus has been $399/year. This far if you have wanted the Unity Pro features like own splash screen, release on consoles, Unity Mars tools (for native AR/MR, these are kind of... well, they work but you can live without them), Havok, crash and error reporting, cloud diagnostics and some lighting and other things and you have been a small developer (<$200,000/year profit) you can have had more affordable license to release more professional looking game, NOT ANYMORE better get used to the kneecapped Free license or get back to MacDonald's to make that $2,040/year or $185/month. And yeah, they are still taking that 5% but you will get a lot cheaper runtime fees.

I just love how in panic mode Unity is currently. Out of their 12 FAQ questions 7 has been already updated with the biggest change going for WebGL games which earlier were counted in (as in every initialization) and now the answer is just "No".
 
The "trust me, bro" side of logging installs is also nice to see after being more or less under the hood of Unity and especially the more experimental builds for over a decade. It's a fucking hackjob of game engine at the best, things "just work" and other things change so fast you're fixing your earlier doings more than developing new because someone at Unity decided to do things differently, again. Like seriously, I wouldn't be surprised if their new install detection system is just one check byte in Windows registry and you can just go and flip it like 5 year old ADHD kid does light switch and Unity counts every time as a new install.
 
Then you have the REALLY dangerous parts of this fuckery.
The different kind of game passes. Unity says that they won't bill the developer for those installs but the platform, wanna know how happy Microsoft, Sony, Apple, HTC (Viveport Infinity), Nintendo and whoelse would be about this? So, happy that they either drop every. single. Unity game from the programs or they just pass the bill to the devs or consumers (either dig deeper into dev pockets with poorer contracts and golden handshakes or rise the prices for consumers). The game passes are surprisingly good things for many developers because they offer good visibility with at least some income, not as good as legit sales but better than just getting the game pirated and you cannot really argue against that consumers doesn't like it with Xbox Game Pass having 25 million paying users.
 
What I believe this is some financial dying breaths of Unity, the last tries to hold on to the income and the past profitability of the company. 2023 hasn't been a good year for Unity, over 600 employees fired and plans to cut 28 offices (from 58 to 30), the engine being challenged by others while falling badly behind it's main competition without much teeth to bite back (Godot and O3DE have come a long way while Unreal 5 is far ahead). Tells a lot when the Unity execs have sold their stocks in pretty huge numbers along the year, CEO 50,610 shares during the year with 2,000 shares just before this release, President 37,500 shares September 1st, Board Director 68,454 shares in August 30th... While not big things, still shows that the value keeps dropping and the leadership is jumping the ship.
 
 
This is actually kind of interesting point when it comes to Unity. They are also dropping the Plus license and moving those users to the more expensive Pro license which is kind of asshole move as it's own. But the thing is quite many devs who have made Unity games in the past and moved on to Unreal or other engines probably don't have active Pro/Enterprise licenses since generally those just give you benefits during development and after launch and "death of the project" you can drop on to the free license and pay the 5% to Unity. Few years back it was even adviced step in releasing Unity game on budget to pay the Pro license for the launch month to get the few extra features and rid of the watermark and Unity was completely fine with it. There's also publisher(s) who will make some "acquisitions" if you manage to sell them Unity game because for them it's a lot cheaper to have their own Enterprise license and suck in the games and release them under it than get a new license for the studio.

Because putting it in would have costed surprisingly much compared to the possible usage most of the users will get out of it. Putting it in even today is kind of "why?"-thing because what are you going to do with it? Unless you are jumping into server and business stuff with the price showing it, you don't do anything with 2.5Gbit LAN-port unless you're going to configure and use it directly from PC to PC. This is because even finding a consumer router with over 1Gbit ports (often even more than one 1Gbit port) is a job since consumers don't have internet connections to even surpass that for another decade easily.
 
Also just the ANSI standard for the Star Spangled Ding Dongs was ratified in 2016... For the rest of the world that would be IEEE 802.3an standard from the 2006 defining 10GBASE-T connection with the difference that the people over the big water thought that their consumers might be confused by 10 folding the standard speed all at once.
This is also pretty much why the 2.5Gbit and 5Gbit connections will probably be just a shortlived gimmick, no one is really working on trying to make anything with them since it has been and still is more profitable to work with 10Gbit where the companies are moving currently than make the 2.5/5 things for the consumers who will eitherway in few years start to move into the 10Gbit when the development costs have been paid off and the prices start to fall. We will probably see couple overpriced ASUS routers with 2.5Gbit or 5Gbit ports (which actually will be 10Gbit ports because no one seems to be currently developing anything else than 10Gbit devices) but the next and probably the last copper-cable routers will be with 10Gbit ports.

Just add in that and those are only randomly tested unless there's a lot of consumer complaints, serious allegations or some extra check-up event week/month.
 
It's far from systematic and only concerns products imported to Finland for resale (as in the Finnish Customs won't stop your Aliexpress package only to send it to TUKES for checking that your ordered product passes the tests and has the right markings). Also it seems to only concern products strictly sold in Finland, so shit dropship stores even with some warehouse in Finland (e(i-saatana)-Ville) are kind of safe from getting raided by TUKES and having their couple-€ China crap tested, marked as dangerous and pulled from Finnish markets. So, there's stores like FlyingTiger and partially Rusta and Biltema (sometimes good, often bad, only good thing that has lasted longer than half of the intended use I have ever bought from Biltema has been clone-Dremel that smells like burning crap) which sell pretty bad China shit.

There isn't any certification system that would need to be passed. Just like with PSUs 80+ rating. It means nothing more than few characters on package. 
 
I can say that in Finland, national check for product safety does just that, checks that standards for chemicals used, electronic safety etc. are met. The luxury ratings aren't on the list. So only way to know whether something is or isn't at the advertised levels is to read some reviews. 

Don't forget there's more "industry standard" way to show the pickup pattern called... *drum roll*... Polar graph! Of course it doesn't give you frequency response around the mic as LTT showed, because that is kind of a silly thing to be worried about and test because optimally you use the mic as it is meant to be used and the point of pickup pattern is to limit the amount of surrounding noises the mic captures so you want to test how well the mic dampens the noise coming from unwanted directions. But I guess it's more important to show how your voice sounds around the mic than how the mic blocks unwanted noise.
 
And the video just proved my age old reason why I loose my interest when I see clickbait. "wHy EVeRyOnE is ByUiNG ThIS miC?" "Because it has unicorn vomit amount of RGB, comes with the most questionable accessories to make it look like Rode mics (which also aren't that good, at least the cheap ones everyone use) and it's dirt cheap", watched the video and didn't get disappointed anymore.