Some controllers are almost integral to the experience. Intellivision and Colecovision come to mind. Having said that, emulation and modern controls are generally great, and generally my preference.

Similar. Had a Colecovision when I was a kid, followed by a second hand Commodore Vic-20. Hands down the Colecovision had better graphics, but all you could do is play the games you bought or shared. Next was a Tandy 1000 TX, and I don’t think I ever looked back.

I did have an original Gameboy, that I bought with my own money, and that was pretty cool, but still it was simply a matter of playing the games they sold you. In the shareware scene of the 90’s, even the Gameboy was horrendously limiting.

For me it’s never been a performance issue. Most of the time I’ve been using old PCs, and the latest console would technically be more powerful (back to Colecovision vs. Commodore Vic 20). It was a matter of flexibility and variety.

Have you looked at the Stop Killing Games campaign?

I was 95% k+m until the Steam Deck (the 5% being my old Saitek Flightstick).

Since the Steam Deck I’m probably 90% controller.

I will say that k+m offers superior speed and precision, especially in FPSes, but the biggest improvement that I noticed was that I was getting a sore shoulder from repetitive strain sitting too much time in front of computers. Controllers are more ergonomic.

For sure. Easily half (likely more) of my unplayed games are Bundle games from a bundle I got primarily for something else. There’s a few gems I’m sure.

There are a few games I bought on sale to play later as well (I’ll get to you!) but the other glaring flaw I see is a selection bias. The people who use this service or similar services are going to be the heavier Steam users with collections in the hundreds.

So heavier users, with lots of bundle games and sales. I’d divide that total by 10 at least

Probably why I actually leave multiplayer on in No Man’s Sky. There’s people around, stuff happens, but there is no need to engage if you aren’t in the mood.

Plus, if you are feeling sociable and want to, you can go to the anomaly and team up for bonuses.

Some might say it’s giving finger counting too much thought, others might say it’s a tangent too serious for dad jokes, I say… the efficiency gains seem to come from a change in technique for how a count is stored.

Base-10 finger counting technique just accumulates, the number of fingers held up is the count.

Base-12 uses a pointer (your thumb) to point to a value (a knuckles or finger segment).

Base-2 uses a finger up or down to show a place value as one or zero.

You could tattoo numbers on your forearm so all five fingers from your other hand could point to a value for up to five more places to point.

ISO 8601 ftw!

Filters out the casuals.

Someone else who knows how to finger count in base-12 and binary!

I think the binary one I learned as a joke, show someone they are number four.

The base-12 was an explanation for how the ancient Sumerians finger counted, using the other hand’s fingers for groups of 12, leading to base 60 (5×12).

I have the same problem with binary counting practically though, and using a modified Sumerian system (both hands to 12) gets you to 144, which is plenty for anything where finger counting is actually useful.

One other thing, I use the finger bones rather than the knuckles, little easier but same idea.

Apples to apples, I wonder how much that holds true…

When a console launches, buying off the shelf equivalent parts is probably a fair bit more expensive. After a couple of years though, the latest and greatest whatever is at least two years old.

I’m sure console manufacturers flatten out these prices by making long term contracts, but still a 4 year old machine is still 4 years old. AMD has released new chipsets since that are in turn themselves coming up on 2 years old.

Granted, console games are optimized for a specific platform, but that will likely be very game specific.

It’s diplomacy though. Some things are better said behind closed doors as it were.

Going back to Cold War brinksmanship, the point of NATO was to loudly say that you were ride-or-die, go-to-the-wall with all your NATO homies. It made the risk of messing with NATO countries too high, likewise with the Warsaw Pact.

Now would all NATO allies go all in? 100%, all the way? Who can say with certainty. Still, so far there’s only been one US president who has said… it depends. For the record, Trump walked that back, but it certainly got a lot of NATO countries closer to Russia to quickly point out that they were over the NATO 2% GDP commitment.

Still, Article 5 has been invoked once in NATO’s history, and it was by the US. It’s why Canada was in Kandahar, Netherlands in Helmand, etc. Too my recollection, every single NATO country participated in Afghanistan at the US’s request.

Also, every NATO country on the frontier (as it were) is well over the NATO 2% GDP minimum. The three Baltic countries, Poland, the UK and the US have been over the 2% GDP minimum for a while. Finland is already well past that before joining, and I believe several more countries will hit the goal in 2023.

Trump just wanted everyone to spend more on the military. He wasn’t a threat to nato.

Not US-ian, so I’m going to have to disagree hard. Back in 2016 and 2017 he called NATO “obsolete”, although he later changed his mind and said it was “no longer obsolete”, as well as taking a while to affirm US support for Article 5, and even saying “If they fulfill their obligations to us, the answer is yes,” when asked if the US would defend the Baltic NATO countries.

Now you could argue that he was using this to push the NATO defence spending requirements, which is a fair critique, but it sent a pretty clear message that under his presidency, the US honouring article 5 was conditional. This wasn’t just a message to the other NATO members; it was a message to Putin as well whether intentional or not.

I believe that the silver lining of Trump’s presidency is now being felt as Europe is seriously taking it’s ability to autonomously defend itself seriously. This is probably why Petr Pavl is musing that it may be necessary to go beyond NATO’s 2% spending targets, because Trump could get elected again, or someone like Trump, and there could always be more conditions added to US NATO commitments.