Just know that it will still get cracked and cheats will exist. I suspect this is Microsoft's next "console" as they have been developing "anti-cheat" for quite some time.
Microsoft will shoehorn their Anti-Cheat into the next Xbox project and force it down the throats of Windows 11/Windows 12 users. This will cause game developers to gobble this technology up.
This is the only defense Microsoft has against the growing Linux Gaming crowd. Microsoft forgot how to make good, consumer friendly software.
If there are stipulations for receiving the money then it is a demand.
If you think the above example isn’t a donation then I don’t see the logic behind seeing this as a donation.
And to be clear, I view it as a donation that is still probably net good, but it’s not a selfless donation. The timeline as well also means it can be clawed back at some point in time.
I’d probably rate it a 2/10 for “goodness” where anything greater than 0 is still good.
Many, if not most, donations have limits / requirements on what the money can be spent on. That's why it's such a big deal when someone doesn't make such a demand and says the grant is "unrestricted."
Just a thought, maybe a "tunnel vision" mask toggle? So I can focus on the center of the screen without all the peripheral noise. It doesn't have to be a significant loss, but dark edges and corners with a nice fade to the visible circle in the center. Whatever that equates to..
Oh that's not a bad idea, and easy enough to implement! I'll definitely get to it later today - I think because I play it on my phone the contrast is less obtrusive, but on a big desktop screen it's a bit boggling to look at
As others have stated this is not what the article/study states, also speed is related to a street drug with unknown dosage and control. While the prescribed pharmaceutical-grade medication is precise and well managed with slow release mechanism, making it vastly different from the street drug.
I'm on methylphenidate and if it were addictive I wouldn't forget to take them... well, probably pretty much ever, unless I misunderstand addiction. In reality I forget to take them once or twice a week.
I recently started using one of day-of-the-week pillboxes, so I can tell you this week it was Tuesday.
> Just look at the recent CVS Caremark forced switch from Zepbound (2nd Gen) to Wegovy (1st Gen) in July.
This is something I wasn't aware of, are you on 2nd gen Zepbound then?
My wife has been plateaued at an undesirable weight and has been wanting to try this, however, the VA refuses to support it regardless of the fact she fits their guidelines and requirements to receive it. They recently banned it due to costs.
I prefer her to use Zepbound if we can get it, the question is how? We refuse to use the alternative methods where the drug is hand made to be equivalent to them as that seems very sketchy.
you sound like me, I was a little younger though ... aimbots, wallhacks, esp, textures, radar, it was all intriguing and I hated encountering cheaters in CS 1.4 and 1.5. I also began dabbling in writing bots around this time, as POD Bot was awesome!
php had also been a thing of mine, I spent many months in DALnet and EFnet #php. Primarily around the time of v3 prior to v4's big launch...
Cost/pricing is similar enough to a salary, why is it not realistic to have these costs front facing? I can't see anything positive from the consumer perspective with hiding the numbers. The business side, there is always a reason to hide things.
I think demanding upfront pricing could hurt the customer. The company would be forced to overestimate their costs to cover the risk associated with unknown use-case details, making the enterprise price inflated. There would be a big "**" next to the price as well with a long list of conditions that need to be met.
The true costs are not front facing because it may not be clear which part of your product is going to be bearing most of the weight of the enterprise customers use-case until you know exactly what they are buying. Your costs may change a lot based on the nature and scale of what they are buying.
For example, you may be rate limited on a background service they use and the customer usecase will likely pish you over your limit. the next product tier from the background service vendor that's required to fulfill the enterprise company's use-case may cost way more and offer way more capacity than that company is going to use by itself. So you have to make a bet on how much cost to assign to that customer, and how much to assign to other/future customers given you buy that new tier and use it to change what you offer to other customers to try to make use of it. It may lower your cost overall if it supports a feature you can upsell relatively easily. Or it may be a service hardly used at all andyou really can't justify going up to that next tier unless this one enterprise customer pays for nearly all of the added cost
