psycotica0

That's what it says, so it must be true

Agreed!

I have never played a game with random strangers ever. But! My brother and sister both live hours away from me (and each other), and we keep in touch by playing online co-op games every week.

I have a group of friends that I have mostly kept in touch with by playing online games too.

So I agree with what I think you meant, but I'm very glad online multiplayer exists in some form.

Along with the others I'd also mention Outer Wilds and Viewfinder

You should look up IPFS! It's trying to be kinda like that.

It'll always be slower than a CDN, though, partly because CDNs pay big money to be that fast, but also anything p2p is always going to have some overhead while the swarm tries to find something. It's just a more complicated problem that necessarily has more layers.

But that doesn't mean it's not possible for it to be "fast enough"

Knowing the folks at IA I'm sure they would love a backup. They would love a community. I'm sure they don't want to be the only ones doing this. But dang, they've got like 99 Petabytes of data. I don't know about you, but my NAS doesn't have that laying around...

a spokesperson for the honeyseller, Vladimir Dmitriev

Listen, obviously people with names like that can be totally normal and great people. For sure. But this name, connected financially to this candidate, at this time. Guys... It's not a good look...

I'm not the person you're replying to, and I don't have any videos, but I do love dumping explanation on people! So here's some terms:

File System: This is the way data is laid out in terms of actual bytes on the drive. It's in charge of things like where to look to find the name of this file, or how to "last modified" date is stored, or how do I find out which files are in this folder. NTFS is a filesystem, whereas ext4 is probably the file system your linux machine is using. FAT is the older Windows one that's still used on, like, SD Cards and stuff. That having been said File System is sometimes also used to refer to the particular data on a particular partition of a disk, like "the filesystem will allow" which really means the data on your NTFS partition. Filesystem is often abbreviated "fs", and is in fact the "FS" of "NTFS"

Mounting: In unix systems, such as Linux, file systems are "mounted" to a place in the folder hierarchy. Everything in unix lives somewhere under the "root" folder /, so mounting is basically saying "Okay, you want to see the files in this filesystem. Where should I put them?", and if you say /home/user/stuff then the file "one.txt" at the root of your filesystem will now be visible at /home/user/stuff/one.txt", and if you mounted it at /mnt/things it would be /mnt/things/one.txt. The term mount is used like "attach" to mean "where do you want me to hang this new directory hierarchy on your existing one".

fstab: There are a few ways to mount things in modern linux. The classic is the mount command which looks something like mount /dev/sda1 /home/user/stuff which would take the device with the name /dev/sda1 and mounts it to the given path. Devices in linux usually live in /dev, and in this case are often given names like sda1 to represent the first hard drive (a), and the first partition of that drive (1). But, there are other ways! You can also click on the partition in your file browser and it will mount the disk for you, often auto-creating a mount path and cleaning it up when you're done, so you don't even have to think about it. Another way is fstab, which is a kind of config file that controls mounting devices. In here you can give default options for how you want drives to be mounted, and can even specify that you'd like some devices to be automatically mounted by the system on startup. This is actually an important part of how unix systems start, and how the root filesystem and other important ones get going. If you wanted your NTFS drive to always be available at a permanent location, you would edit this file to set that up. If this is something you wanted only periodically, then just clicking may be fine.

Permissions: Virtually all unix filesystems store the permissions of files and directories as a "user" and "group" that owns the files, and then a set of whether or not the owner can "read" "write" and "execute" the file, whether other members of the group can, and then whether everyone else can. If two people were on the same computer, these would allow a person to be able to see their own documents, but not see the documents by other users. Or maybe they can see them but can't make changes. And it also prevents random users of a system from changing important system configuration, when those config files are owned by the administrative user (called root by convention). Some config files will be read-only to normal users, and some contain secrets and so are permissioned so normal users can't even see them. But! NFTS doesn't follow these same conventions, so when mounting an NTFS drive on unix the driver has to produce a set of permissions that are unix-compatible, but it doesn't have anything to work off on the disk. So the person above was saying by default it assumes the safest option is to make all files owned by the user root, and so if the permissions are the only the owner can write the files, and the owner is root, this will mean it's effectively "read-only" to you. The terms uid and gid stand for "user ID" and "group ID", which are the numbers that represent a user in the data. User names are basically a convenience that allows us to give a name to a uid, but it's more efficient to store one number everywhere on disk for owner rather than a name.

So putting it all together, what they're suggesting is that you can use the /etc/fstab file, which has a very particular format, to specify default options when mounting your drive. These options include setting the uid option and gid option to your user's uid and gid, so that when the filesystem is mounted, it will appear that all the files are owned by you, so you'll have full permissions on them. They've assumed your uid and gid will be 1000 because that's a common convention, but if you're comfortable you can run the id command on the command line to output your actual uid and gid (you can ignore all the other groups your user is in for now)

They also mentioned that when mounting you can specify if you want to mount the filesystem as "read-only" or "read-write", etc. If you mount the whole filesystem read-only, then the write permissions stored on the individual files are ignored, basically. So if you were mounting with a command, or through fstab, you should make sure the rw option is present to clarify that you're looking for "read write" permissions on your mount.

That having been said, it's possible none of that is relevant to you if you're mounting the fs by just clicking in your file browser. One way to tell is if you right-click on some file you aren't allowed to edit and look at the properties there should be a Permissions tab thing. And it will list the owner of the file and what access you have. If those permissions are already set to be owned by you, then this uid thing is already taken care of for you by the file browser. In that case it might be something more fundamental to the NTFS filesystem, like the locks other people are talking about.

So those are some words and their meanings! Probably more than you wanted to know, but that's okay. I liked typing it

I think I may have contracted some kind of brain worm, because the other day I needed to do some photo manipulation and couldn't get krita to do what I wanted, but I went into gimp and just knocked it out. I've hated gimp for years, but I guess I've used it enough that I've figured out how it works... and now I don't hate it anymore...

I think I may need help.

Oh, but I always use it in single window mode ever since that came out. The multiple windows floating panel thing drove me nuts!

I mean, I can't speak to OP in particular, but there were definitely lots of years where people made shit for free, sold nothing, and didn't consider it a job.

Like, there was no real mechanism for stick figure martial arts animations to make any money at all. Newgrounds or Ebaum's World must have made some money from ads, but I don't think any of that was profit-shared with the creators back in those days. Some of the creators were straight up anonymous because they didn't even think to put their names on their stuff.

Obviously celebrities and ads and stuff still existed on the earth at the time, but it didn't spread to the internet in a big way until later.

At least that's how I remember it...

I don't know about this particular title, but I feel like Kickstarter games get a bit of a bad rap for taking a long time or not making it to release. But that's because the whole point of a Kickstarter game is that we, the public, are acting as the publisher. Putting up money in advance, making an investment, hoping for a great game.

And just like with traditional publishers, sometimes games take years and years to make, and some of your investments crumble and don't make it.

It's just that we the public rarely hear about a traditionally published game until it's already been in development for a while. Until it seems likely to succeed. We're not used to taking pitches while a game studio figures their shit out. And even then, some traditionally published games crash and burn too!

And that's all ignoring the fact that a bunch of crowdfunded games are typically by greener devs who maybe don't know how things are done. But what I'm saying is that even the normal game industry has long lead times and has some burn outs, it's just that normally an entire community hasn't built up around them, because they haven't even been announced yet.

I guess is what I'm saying is that publishing is hard and risky, and crowdfunding is collective publishing, not advanced purchasing. That doesn't immediately mean that anyone who tries and fails is a scam artist. Most of them probably spent that money trying their best for as long as they could, and nothing great came out the other side. That's just what business ventures look like, unfortunately.

As a cyclist in a city that's building bike lanes (don't know if it's yours), there's sometimes issues with cycle lanes that aren't obvious to people who don't use them. The most common is that they don't connect to each other. So a driver may feel like there's bike lanes here and there and everywhere but they don't see people using them. But actually there's a bike lane for 2 blocks over here, then nothing for 3 blocks, then that street over there has a bike lane, but it doesn't make it all the way to the intersection with this street. So it ends up being less like a network and more like a loose bag, and if I'm going to have to be up and down off the sidewalk anyway, I may as well stay up there.

But! There's a magic tipping point! At some point there's enough lane that it actually connects to something. Then that connection becomes a path, and then soon that path becomes a route! And now suddenly you can actually get somewhere entirely in those bike lanes. I've seen the number of people biking, and using the bike lanes, shoot up after this inflection point, because now it's a real option.

Either that or the "bike lane" is just a white line next to high speed traffic. Those don't make anyone feel safe, and most people would prefer having the curb there for their safety, so they mount the sidewalk for protection.