🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@robotistry @seachanger

> You may not realize this, but it's a lot more "not healthy" to get covid and have a 1 in 10 chance of symptoms that affect your life for years than it is to get a cold or flu with a tiny chance of symptoms that affect your life for years.

Considering I am a research scientist who has worked on COVID for several years now I can assure you I know this. I also never said anything to the contrary.

COVID is worse than a cold or flu in terms of risk, yes.

Also few things about your statements that could use some clarification.

> you may not realize this, but it's a lot more "not healthy" to get covid and have a 1 in 10 chance of symptoms

Its important to note two things.. first off COVID hasnt been around long enough with enough studies to make conclusions like this conclusively. But even if you could its misleading.

Even if a study showed clearly a person who catches COVID has a 1 in 10 chance of perminant injury, that doesnt mean its a 1 in 10 chance every time you catch it. If you caught it and got out with relatively minimal complications chances are you will next time too. I have had covid 7 confirmed times so far without any problems.

> I'd rather spend less than a minute a day thinking about remembering my mask

This isnt the reality for most people who are bothered by masks. For many of us every minute with a mask on is extremely uncomfortable. When masks were mandatory I couldnt do any of the things I loved because I found it so uncomfortable. I wear glasses so I could never see, and breathing was very uncomfortable.

@malakai

Lawl :)

@antares Yes, a function which can freely be turned off on a per-post basis or account wide too.

Its almost like he is going out of his way to start a conversation... funny that.

I always enhoy the irony of someone complaining that a **stranger** had a comment on a post they made publicly.... to an internet full of strangers.

@seachanger

Sure, but i wasnt telling **you** how to live your life. Sadly a short-coming of english. I was using the plural you, not the singular you. It was a general statement not directed at you specifically but people as a whole.

@seachanger That does seem rather incomplete and not really doing the topic justice, I agree.

That said I do think acting like its an ordinary cold and flu season is pretty close to good advice. The only exception I'd state is to be extra careful around the elderly and those with compromised immune systems. If your visiting a nursing home, for example, mask up and be careful to wash your hands. But otherwise, live your life, its not healthy obsessing over what viruses or colds are out there, youll spend your whole life in fear and gain very little from it.

@LouisIngenthron

> The difference is that if a consumer has three built-with-Unity games installed on their system, Unity would get one royalty if they were the seller, but they get three royalties if the developers are the sellers....

Thats not how the libraries I've had to purchase in the past worked. If my product bundled the library I had to pay for each install by my users, typically. Usually there are different pricing structures, one to get a license that allows you to develop, and the second as a royalty attached to the final product.

> Then they get three more royalties when that player needs a new computer and reinstalls those games, even though the developers did not get additional revenue.

This is a very valid concern IMO. Obviously you shouldnt have to pay if a system is wiped and the game reinstalled.

> Unity has always charged a per-seat subscription for the use of the editor software. As long as they have been a company, rights to redistribute the runtime was offered free to anyone who had a valid license to the editor. Because the editor is built on the runtime and is useless without it.

I think precedence alone here is a good reason for you to be upset. You invested in this product and developed your systems on it. You did so with the expectation of a certain pricing model and now you are locked in.

While you have a right to be upset, and I'd even say you are right to discourage people from using the product this goes back to what I said before... **you** screwed up in picking a non-open-source library to begin with. Honestly it is **negligent** for any developer to code against a proprietary library because you will always be locked in and at the whim of the developer. Sure you can get upset when they use that leverage, and you may be right to be upset. But in the end this is exactly why it was a bad idea to ever go with a product that didnt provide you with garuntees against this very thing.

> No other game engine that I know of charges per-install, and very few APIs do.

There are a few, but you are right that this is a bit unusual for a game engine specifically as the models usually want to encourage adoption. Like i said, its a stupid model, but not an unexpected one.

> This also opens up channels for abuse. Don't like a game company? You don't have to review bomb them anymore, you can just start a campaign to reinstall their game over and over to financially ruin them.

Well the presumption is the cost the developer paid is just passed onto the buyer. So presumably if the engine is charging the dev per-install then the dev would charge the user per-install.

> Plus you have to wonder what kind of spyware is being included to tally these charges up.

See my comment about the negligence of using proprietary libraries.

> The whole thing is ugly top-to-bottom.

I mean yea, but thats what you get when you go proprietary. Its why the vast majority of software refuses to include a proprietary library if it can help it. It is always ugly in the end, intentional or otherwise.