lukecooperatus

Why is that impossible? Create the post in !reddeadredemption@lemmy.ml, or !gta6@lemmy.ml or !fortnite@lemmy.ml (those are the games OP keeps harping on) or whatever game they're interested in.

I guess if there's no existing community, that's an issue. Create one, then. Post the hyper-specific question into that new community, and then go post an announcement of the community in the broader games communities and let people interested naturally filter in.

I'm not a Lemmy expert by any means, I'm just suggesting ways to engage with people that seems to me like it'd be more constructive and likely to be appreciated. 🤷

I looked at the comments on a few of your posts, and people are telling you exactly why they are annoyed by them.

Your posts come off as low effort spam, almost like you're treating Lemmy communities like a Discord chat room. Also, you post very similar kinds of things about the same couple of games on the daily, and people probably get tired of seeing samey stuff in their feed.

I've noticed that you're making hyper specific posts ("what do you think about X mission in rdr") in a general gaming community. Try posting those hyper specific questions in the communities for the actual game you're asking about, where people who want to nerd out about some random mission are more likely to be.

It's cool that you're trying to engage people though, I think you just need to get some more practice at reading the crowd here. Lurk more, maybe. Lemmy isn't the other site, we don't necessarily resonate with all the same kinds of content here.

OnlyOffice can also be integrated with NextCloud or WordPress or a bunch of other stuff. I believe it can also be used standalone. Personally, I found it's interface much more polished and usable than Collabora, though it's been a couple years since I compared.

Next up: Discord!

Good question.. it's not on my playlist but it's probably actually cozy. I just don't tend to watch that one often because it makes me feel sad.

My top 3 favorite cozy episodes are Data's Day, Déjà Q, and Manhunt. Horny Lwaxana is an inspiration; her reactions to her daughter's slut shaming comments are so priceless to me.

Yeah, I often fall asleep to a TNG playlist where I've selected all the most cozy episodes (e.g., no Borg or "4 lights!" because those are amazing but stressful) but being jolted wide awake by that jarringly loud intro music is less fun than nodding off to Picard romancing Lwaxana with Shakespeare quotes.

I think you underestimate how oblivious many users are when it comes to using software.

Your statement did leave some wiggle room to quibble over what exactly "very popular" means, though I don't see how popularity is a useful metric when we're talking about free software which doesn't rely on user purchases for revenue. Ultimately it comes down to how funding the development of each software is accomplished, and whether that can be done effectively without selling out.

However, if we must compare funding strategies based on popularity, then we can. I'm not sure where you got your usage numbers from, but I'll use your percentage to normalize for the number of employees paid through the funding strategies of both examples to compare the effectiveness of the approaches:

• Mozilla Corporation and Mozilla Foundation together have roughly 840 employees as of 2020 (the latest numbers available on Wikipedia). I'm not sure how they split up who does what for developing the software, but I seriously doubt the vast majority of those 840 employees are developers.
• Blender Foundation has a team of 31 people (as of 2022). Most of them are developers/engineers/designers directly involved with improving the software.

For purposes of discussion, I'll assume that you are correct that Blender has 2% of the popularity of Firefox. Normalizing that for comparison, 2% of 840 Mozilla employees is 16.8 employees (round down because you can't have 0.8 of a person).

In other words, if Firefox were only 2% as popular as it is now (thus making it equally as popular as you say Blender is), Mozilla would be paying 16 developers with it's funding strategy.

Conversely, Blender is able to pay 31 developers using their funding strategy. This means that, even when accounting for popularity, Blender's funding strategy is 2x more effective than Mozilla's at paying developers to work on their software.

Again, I don't agree that popularity is an important metric to compare here, but even when we do so, it's clear that it is entirely possible to fund software without resorting to tired old capitalistic funding models that result in the increasingly objectionable violations of user privacy that Mozilla engages in lately. They could choose to do things differently, and we ought not to excuse them for their failure of imagination about how to fund their business more ethically. Especially when perfectly workable alternative funding models are right there in public view for anyone to emulate.

it's simply not possible for something to get very popular without being taken over by a corporation

Please don't excuse unethical and exploitative behavior by pretending that it's unavoidable.

There are examples of other funding models available; for example, what the Blender Foundation does. It turns out, if a FOSS effort focuses on their community, makes users feel involved and important, asks in good faith for contributions and suggestions, treats people with respect, maintains funding and organizational transparency, and has consistent ethical standards.. it can work out very well for them. No selling out required. No data harvesting required. No shady deals with Google required.

It's better than Season 8, which is of course just about the lowest bar in existence, but worth noting when talking GoT.

The plot was kind of just a borderline uninteresting version of Downton Abbey with way more blood and incest, but the characters felt correct for the world and the acting and production was on point. Definitely worth a watch, but just don't expect it to be anything on the level of Seasons 1-4 of the original show.

You got all that when you didn't even finish the first episode? Damn, you are a tough audience.

I thought the show was pretty decent. It wasn't literally perfect, but it was entertaining and beautifully shot. Some of the acting was kinda underwhelming, but some others did a great job IMO.

Especially Morfydd Clark, Joseph Mawle, and Ismael Cruz Córdova as Galadriel, Adar, and Arondir, respectively. Sophia Nomvete as Disa gave one of my favorite performances yet of a Dwarven character, and I enjoyed her scenes immensely.

I'll probably rewatch that show more often than I will the Hobbit movies, which makes it a solid entry by my reckoning, and it's okay that it wasn't perfect.

Three Body Problem?