Vinnyboiler

She could just be mouthing off Ruby's browsing history...

It is misleading. It is 30% of the entire revenue of the game. And it is objective whether Valve deserves 30% of that revenue. It's also true that games aren't locked to the Steam platform and can absolutely make money outside of Valve's influence. History has shown though that it is less profitable then being inside the Steam ecosystem.

The efficiency is doing it so effectively that on an open platform competitors can create there own store, pay for AAA games to appear on their store, take the smallest of pay cuts, pass it on to the consumer, and still have customers prefer to pay more to be in the Steam ecosystem. I'm against monopolies but Valve's is absolutely efficient.

I do want to read articles that change my beliefs and I'm willing to listen to any take that goes against the wider narrative, but nothing that was said here really challenges anything being said on most tech news sites.

Yeah news sites might not always have full understanding of the semantics but the wider piont of Google's Manifest V3 restricting uBlock Origin capabilties and not offering an adequate solution is still very valid.

As a non-American this name still sounds really wierd to me. I just mentally picture meat juice on cookies.

Has anyone tested this on a Steam Deck yet and can report it's performance?

They recently got a new CEO a month ago because Linus the owner realized he was unfit for that purpose. It should have been dealt with years ago but I wonder if some benefit of the doubt can be given here seeing as the company was in a state of transition and probably would of cleaned up the work culture in private.

Or not because Linus still owns the company and the buck stops at the absolute top. He put his friend in high positions so it would cause a uncomfortable position when someone who wasn't his friend lower down the ladder were to speak out. He has also consistently showed toxic masculinity in the way he acts and has spread it within the fabric in the company,

I have no strong opinion one way or another, but please tell me if I'm being unfair here on either side here. I think the company can still clean itself up and has shown actions before it was publicly known to address it, and I also think the company has misogyny in it's corporate structure and DNA which will constantly be problematic.

It's been repeatedly proven that large companies get a impenetrable wall of armour based on fear of speaking out due to fear of retribution or breaking an important connection. Once that wall is broken it allows grievances to finally pass though.

I can't honestly see how any other company can single-handedly stop Google if they go though with this. Google has the ability to strong arm this proposal by having Youtube and Google search dependent on Web Environment Integrity. There are enough alternative to web search but I can't see how anyone can fight Google's dominance in video hosting to stop them.

You would almost have to have every other major website intentionally break on Chrome to even the playing field, and if Google still don't back down you are left with a divided internet.

People don't and that's OK because there's enough people who does care to fragment off and start something new. That's the whole point of the internet. The reason Reddit got as big as it did was because it had a wide enough net to attract everyone, now they are deciding to focus on just the ones that matter to them and that allows an alternative to exist.

Reminds me of that Left 4 Dead wall.