It is probably just a question of price per unit. Adding a button would increase the cost drastically. If you want security, you just don't go with a RFID tag. You go with a smartcard protected by a PIN. Security-minded people are not the market segment for RFID tags. And if people are forced to use a RFID tag in a security context, they can protect the tag with a shield.
X_Cli
You can ask them in lemmy.ml/c/veganism We are open to people asking honest questions.
Yes, I knew about that and I find this an excellent feature! This is the reason why I'm asking about the "by default" behavior and not about "disabling score for everyone". I like that this is optional. I'm asking the community their thoughts about having scores hidden by default ;)
Maybe they just like link aggregators and the classification by communities? I don't use score-based sorting algorithms, precisely because I do not like how people vote on Lemmy.
I did not know that there are such options in Lemmy admin interface. That's very good! Thank you for the information
Edit: According to the admin documentation, one can indeed disable downvotes but I don't think one can hide scores for all users by default.
I checked and you are correct about beehaw. Thank you for the pointer. I'll probably subscribe to their communities :)
Again, very good argumentation. Thank you. Your comments are much appreciated.
Some people may say “having access to candy crush has made me happier” but what’s actually increased there happiness isn’t access to a video game but distraction from the world around them as an example. That can be accomplished through several means and none of them require exposing oneself to potential manipulation for profit by a company.
That particular argument gives me much to think about. 👍
The world is objectively worse because of free to play video games.
That was not my argument. I did not say it was all pink and that nobody suffered from f2p. I talked about the overall happiness. The same utilitarian approach can be used when talking about vaccines. Some people die because they took a vaccine shot. However the overall population is better because of the vaccine.
I'm not saying that f2p games are comparable to vaccine. I'm just trying to make clear that my argument is utilitarian, and that I'm not disregarding people having issues because of f2p games.
I respect your argumentation, but I believe you slightly twisted mine. By "people with income", I wanted to say "people with enough income to spend some on recreational activities".
Concerning the "insane potential for returns", I'm sorry to say that the company that I worked for and for which I developed a f2p game was a small company of 5 employees that never took off all that much. It is a business model. It is not a miraculous business model.
by your assessment its fine to exploit people for profit if they have an income
That's the basic concept of a salary. I would agree that there are unfair salaries, sure. That's when we can start talking about exploitation. I'm ok with salaries. I'm not ok with exploitation.
Thank you for your answer.
Diablo Immor(t)al is a pretty terrible case when it comes to trying to squeeze as much money as possible from people. We, players, are harassed by the notifications for paying features. And it is not just a "pay to skip"/"pay to fast" system: it is also a pay to win game for the competitive scene. That's bad.
On the other hand, it has at least 120 hours of free content...
My arguments are not in defense of Diablo Immor(t)al, though. They are in defense of Free to play in general, with reserves.
I don't get the downvotes on this message. I can understand why the other posts might be NOK for some people, but this one? Please explain it to me.
Artists need an income. Are we all in an agreement on this? You would not ask for a musician to play a full concert every night for free, right? Why would it be fair to ask a developer to develop a game for free? Do they not deserve a salary? And where would the money come from if not from people having money to spend on games?
Well, that's not entirely wrong: the website owner is responsible for contracting with Cloudflare in the first place.