I use Linux on everything except my gaming rig... There are games that I like that only run on windows. As soon as that's handled I'll make the switch on they machine too.
Ok very good. I'll accept that you didn't downvote me.
Modern OCR is exclusively AI driven which is why it's so incredibly good right now. Moreover the OCR on modern cell phones such as the Samsung Galaxy s24 and pixel variance do much more than simple text recognition, they're able to scan bar codes and translate text on screen.
It's extremely useful for what I do. I think you should give AI a try instead of falling onto the anti ai band wagon.
I think you're the one who rated me down to zero. Normally I wouldn't care, but I'm bringing it up for a reason. If you did rate me down, it would only be because I stated that Al has benefits, which it objectively does. That would mean you did it solely because my statement conflicts with your ideology, which is the same behavior you see from conspiracy theorists and radicalized right-wing groups.
I'm correct that Al has beneficial applications. That is not up for debate.
Are you so locked into your own rhetoric that you can't even acknowledge that?
It is a payday loan in the most classical sense that's why it exists.
Sometimes people aren't able to pay by the first so they have to get it paid somehow it absolutely relies on getting paid later on to pay off the loan.
They're just one half step above being a loan shark.
There are things that AI does well and certain features should be available in an operating system. For example the AI features on my Samsung phone I actually really like them I use them all the time.
Especially the highlighting feature for copy and paste absolutely fantastic for my work.
But what Microsoft is doing is just all intrusive AI it's completely unnecessary and nobody wants it.
No they're not. Those are the opinions of the majority of people that played the game and/or reviewed it. Also they're quantifiable by the game play.
The fact that it was too expensive is not subjective, the fact that the art direction was poor is not subjective, lack of material at launch is not subjective.
I highly recommend you look up the definitions of subjective/objective.
Look, the reason Concord crashed and burned isn’t some deep philosophical mystery. It’s because the game simply wasn’t good enough to survive in a genre that’s already stacked with better, cheaper options.
It launched with no real identity. Everything about it felt like a watered-down version of other hero shooters, same structure, same archetypes, none of the charm. Characters were forgettable, abilities didn’t mesh well with the modes, and the balance was all over the place. The movement was slow, the time-to-kill was absurdly long, and fights dragged on like you were playing in molasses. That’s not “a bold design choice,” that’s just poor pacing.
Then you add the fact that they tried to charge forty bucks for something that, by every metric, should’ve been free-to-play. On top of that, content was thin at launch. Maps were bland, the mode selection was tiny, and there wasn’t enough variety to keep anyone invested. When a live-service shooter launches with barely anything to do, the writing is already on the wall.
Players didn’t walk away because they “didn’t give it a chance.” They walked away because the game gave them no reason to stay. Sales were abysmal, concurrency numbers cratered immediately, and Sony pulled the plug in record time. That’s not player bias or community toxicity; that’s a product failing on its own merits.
You can dress it up however you want, but the reality stands: Concord entered a crowded market with nothing special to offer, priced itself like it was a premium experience, and then delivered something that felt half-thought-out and generic. It wasn’t some misunderstood masterpiece. It was just a bad game.
They could have but it's their game they refunded all the purchased copies of it. The whole point of copyright is to protect intellectual property for its owners if they don't want people playing it they shouldn't be.
And keep in mind copyright protects everyone not just large corporations like Sony.
There are ways around that kind of stuff even for the most stringent of governments. Of course inherently there's always a risk you asked me if I'm willing to take it and I said yes.
Here lies the core of the disconnect. The property is not yours. When someone takes or uses something that does not belong to them, against the owner’s wishes, they have committed a violation. The owner’s reasons are irrelevant; it is their property.
Consider this scenario: you write a book you do not wish to publish. Then an external entity steps in and announces that they will publish it and distribute it for free. You would rightfully feel that your autonomy had been overridden.
This is why copyright laws exist. They can be exploited, like any system, but they remain the most effective framework we currently have.
Sony isn't giving the game away for free you're taking it by force.
I've noticed here on Lemmy that the general user base just doesn't like copyright laws or have a complete lack of knowledge of what a copyright is how they function and why it's beneficial to copyright works.
It's actually really frustrating mainly because you get downvoted for supporting copyright which is insane.
I use Linux on everything except my gaming rig... There are games that I like that only run on windows. As soon as that's handled I'll make the switch on they machine too.