Personally I'd say both are true. They won the generation, but they did so by not bothering to fight directly with Playstation and Xbox. By basically ignoring them and having a distinct identity they won.
A. Sony has an amazing marketing strategy where they can paint their #1 competitor as not even a competitor.
B. Xbox has a terrible product direction, where they are trying (failing) to beat Sony at being Sony instead of looking at the gaming industry and trying to create a product people want.
I wouldn't say A because Nintendo hasn't bothered trying to compete with them. If they bothered and Sony still managed to be considered a separate category I would agree, but Nintendo appears to not care about them.
However I do think B is true. The only time they were able to go toe to toe with Sony was most of the 360 era when Sony got cocky and built a machine that was too complicated to work with relative to the value developers got out of that effort. Once Sony stopped doing that they've dominated Xbox (mind you the whiff on being too early proclaiming the digital era made it far far worse).
The market penetration of the switch makes it harder for Sony to expand into the family/casual gaming space. That forces Sony to stick to the AAA lane (which is where their focus is) limiting their growth opportunities.
If the switch had been a failure, then a lot of households that currently have a switch (only) would have bought a different console and that would likely have been a PS5 (even if they held on to their previous generation console, and waited a couple of years until the PS5 price dropped below $500)
I have a PS4 and a Switch at home. The kids play the switch and occasionally play on the PS4. I can't justify buying a PS5 because there's only so much
gaming time available, and family gaming is covered by the switch and my personal gaming is good enough on my PC. Take the switch out of the equation and that changes.
PS5 is winning the AAA console lane, no doubt. But Sony could have been making more money if they could also own a significant portion of the family console lane.
I don't know that the Playstation 5 really plays in that market when the cheapest version is $450, so nearly $200 more expensive than the switch. Keeping the price down is part of how Nintendo owns that market, on top of their first party game lineup and the like.
The PlayStation also doesn't play most games on Steam. Exclusive games don't mean the platforms aren't competitors — back in the day platform exclusivity was even more of the norm than it is today, and yet the SNES and the Sega Genesis were clearly competitors, as were the original PlayStation and the N64.
I really wish more tutorial makers would do the "teach one thing". Like I dabble in gamedev, and most people who create content for it generate 45 minute to many hour long tutorials that are end to end, instead of teaching "this is how you deal with navigation" "this is how you handle movement" etc. Means people who want to learn stuff are stuck interacting with a massive block of stuff which makes extricating out the part they need and planting it in their own project wildly harder.
I won't disagree with that. I will say pip and venv ending up being a massive chain is entirely unsurprising because Python environment management is a mess to begin with. But then there are a lot of gnarly topics that can be hard to find useful information on.
One thing that doesn't help all this is more and more tutorials going on Youtube (I admit I've made a couple, which were topic focused) is that so many people just want an entire soup to nuts answer instead of the tools to piece together their own solution from the parts, which makes gaining traction and getting that information to people a lot harder.
But without a general change in how people look at learning I dunno what fixes that problem.
For me it depends. Sometimes I find value in making a function for a block of work I can give its own name to, because that can make the flow more obvious when looking at what the function does at a high level. But arbitrarily breaking up a function just because is silly and pointless.
Plus, laying the list of tasks out in order sometimes makes it obvious how to split it up eventually. If you try to split it up the first time you write it, you get a bunch of meaningless splits, but if you write a 300 line function, and let it simmer for a few weeks, usually you can spot commonalities later.
That's also true, though in this case I'm not necessarily worried about commonalities, just changing the way it reads to focus on the higher level ideas making up the large function.
But revisiting code after a time, either just because you slept on it or you've written more adjacent code, is almost always worth some time to try and improve the readability of the code (so long as you don't sacrifice performance unnecessarily).
Define that function directly in the place where it is used (e.g. as a lambda, if nesting of function definitions is not allowed). Keeps the locality and makes it obvious that you could just have put a comment instead.
What are the odds any electronic data store, tape or SSD or anything in between, could last that long?
I guess some random store keeps getting moved from one storage device to another by accident, but beyond that I'm not sure if it is reasonably possible.
> invalid DMCA takedowns do open you up to lawsuits
Invalid takedowns don’t open you up to anything. The only risk to takedowns is misrepresenting the purported owner but that’s not the case here and the risk would be from Funko not Itch.
Much of the reason for DMCA abuse is that beyond the notice being assumed legitimate there is basically no risk to the complaining party until they dispute a counter-notification.
Not that this is relevant in this case, as it was not a DMCA takedown. A takedown notice would have been addressed to Itch.
.NET 9 has so much good stuff in it. Thing that I randomly realized I wanted only to find out it works in 9 is dictionary access with "related" types (so like if you have a ReadOnlySpan<char> you can use that to find a value from a string in the dictionary via a value type created off the dict).
I feel like that argument is the new version of Trickle Down Economics.
In a sane world where people are not greedy? Yeah it could make sense because without the constraints of limited capital you can do whatever you want and it lets you be bold.
In the world we actually live in it does not work that way.
I ended up using multiple versions of basic because the various boot discs we had came with different versions. Off the top of my head I remember BASIC, BASICA, and QBASIC. Not that I remember the differences between the flavors any more.
