In a round about way? Maybe. But no.

The first commercially available variable refresh monitor came out like a decade ago, needing expensive bespoke hardware to drive it. Now? We are at a point we are reaching commodity level costs. And yet we still have piles and piles of bottom tier and crap tier products being shoved onto the market.

Sooner or later, the machines and production lines for making those monitors will need overhaul, and at that point - it would 100% make sense to just go to variable refresh.

The reality is, the benefactor is you - if you get a GPU upgrade: You get more frames. If you don't, variable refresh can still provide a smoother better game experience. This is especially true as frame generation, and upscaling techniques have gotten extremely good in the last few years.

you don't need to upgrade the GPU to benefit

I want to spell that out clearly: AMD doesn't need you to buy a new GPU to benefit. NVIDIA doesn't either. But it also means, if you buy a new monitor that is variable refresh today - when you upgrade your GPU, you get to really take advantage.

Where my perspective comes from

I did the monitor upgrade before a GPU upgrade a few years ago. Variable refresh is king. HDR when the content supports it is amazing - provided the monitor has decent HDR support (low end monitors... don't).

Given that I had my previous multi-monitor set up for over a decade, and went through 3 system builds with it - Your monitor is something that is going to hang around, and have more impact on your overall experience than you realize. Same with the keyboard and mouse. Unironically the part that you can likely get away with cheaping out the most on in your first build is... the GPU. Decent CPU will last a good 5-6 years at least these days. So get a decent monitor, get good peripherals - those will hang around when you upgrade the GPU. Then start that CPU - GPU - GPU upgrade cycle where it's CPU, then GPU, then GPU, then back to the CPU. The reality is, once you have a base system - storage carries over, PSU can cycle over a build, the case can be reused.

So I guess what I am saying is: Spend the money on the things liable to hang around the longest. It will lead to a better overall experience.

What Big Publishers think make good games:

• Big teams
• Lots of money
• Big marketing budget
• Lots of Back of the Box Features

What ACTUALLY makes a good game:

• Enjoyable Core Game-play
• Interesting Characters
• Well crafted story

This is ultimately why a relatively small team producing an Indie game can create a 10-20 hour expierience, sell it at like 20-40$, have a total of like 5 people work on it start to finish, basically have no marketing budget, fire off an early access when they have a reasonably complete product where they are largely doing core gameplay refinements, and doing bug fixes... and end up selling like 2 million copies. It's also why your first game will probably suck, so will the second one. But if you refine the process, get feedback, and figure out how to improve the process: You can do it.

The problem with big publishers is the executives look at the big newest game and go "WE NEED TO MAKE THAT" not understanding that players will play just about every genre IF IT IS GOOD. I mean, seriously until Baldur's Gate 3 came out a bunch of people were like CRPG's are dead... no, there just were not any good ones coming out.

How AI can make a game like Baldur's Gate 3 even better... and why EA (probably) won't figure it out*

A Company like Larian is passionate about the game world, the player expierience, the interactions, and creating a very systems (read: Game loop driven) driven game. The amount of interactions that happen in Baldur's Gate 3 that occure because the game is based on systems, and the pieces are present - enabling players to just experiment is incredible.

If you take something like UE5 with it's newer tools for filling in terrain, the lighting engine, and more - and hand that to a company like Larian you aren't going to get a lesser product. Instead - you might very well end up with Larian going "Alright, we need a mount system, and an improved interactive camp system where the party has hirlings and the members of the party in the camp are defending it". And suddenly the Shadowfell is a huge expansive place that is dark, dangerous, and explorable - not just with bespoke places, but just stuff team members slapped together, random encounters, and more. You might even go to a more Milestone experience system - just to enable the flow to feel better. You could have an AI trained to have relevant conversations about events going on, weather, and more - and it could be seeded and filled out so that you aren't really sure what will be said.

The reason a company like EA won't is at the end of the day - doing those things, needs time to figure out how to work it, how to catch errors, bug fix, improve training data, and a lot of testing to validate. EA just wants to shot gun out whatever seems popular and profitable at the time - instead of creating a unique experience that players will engage with. And that is because EA is ran by Marketing folk and MBA's instead of Game Dev's and Systems Designers.

Websites that are funded through ad's are not going to want you using an ad-blocker. And frankly, if you are not a paying customer, but taking up space - the business typically has right to have you removed. In physical stores it's obvious but, the online space is not much different.

What I would love to see is some sort of initiative where users can pay like 10-20$ a month, and say 90% of that divided between the websites they view based on engagement metrics on those websites. You could have some modifiers based on the type of website as well - obviously reading news has limited ways of verifying engagement, but we know that there is a high amount of time used per article. Overall this would result in less trackers being needed, websites could feasibly decouple from the ad-driven model entirely, and that might be the best outcome.

With the proposed model - yes, some companies are still going to hard paywall, some might have limited content available to this model and have a 1-5$ a month subscription on top for premium access, and other companies might stay exactly as they are - say like Wikipedia - but be less strained for donations.

This type of arrangement could feasibly end the need for ad's entirely. Though you could conceivably have an Ad-supported tier as well, whereby if the user is not subscribed to the service they get ads, and if they are they don't.

The real key to making the proposition as mentioned above work, is to require the payout method to be agreed to be a replacement to seeking ad-revenue for it's subscribed members. Overall it's likely (using quick napkin math) that this would provide more revenue per user anyways. It may also devalue web based advertising so hard that it absolutely kills it - and that would mean Content is king. We could end up in a realm where the likes of Youtube don't block content because some advertiser doesn't like certain topics. And as more news is consumed online, it may be able to kill the stranglehold the pharma industry has over the news media industry.

It's not. The fee was added to encourage people to join in with the Cineclub thing. The back end for seat selection existed before the online reservation fee did as far as I can recall.

It absolutely does.

https://www.computerworld.com/article/3712680/return-to-office-or-quit-ibm-tells-managers.html

IBM has a history of this kind of stuff - when they need to expand: Remote work schemes, and flexible work hours become more common. When they need to tighten the belt, the first step is a RTO. So long as you are willing some flexibility in the time line, and support employees in the move - it will lead to plenty of people quiting, a few people moving, then you do a small round of layoffs avoiding people who willingly moved closer to the office etc as these are people unlikely to have quick new opertunities and are more stuck with the company/loyal to it.

The Pandemic is not the first time IBM has done something like this, and it won't be the last.

Now, if we really get into the weeds - a lot of Companies that know this can be pulled off REALLY DO NOT want Remote work/hybrid work schedules to become industry norms, as once they do - these practices for ridding your company of say 1-2% of it's staff periodically stop being viable and you need to go for a more traditional layoff scheme.

Don't forget HR.

If people aren't in an office, around other people, their aren't really a lot of opportunities for random nonsense complaints to come out. And if they do, there are email messages, recorded video calls, and so on that can clarify reality far easier - meaning HR's job is made clearly irrelevant, and clearly demonstrates it is a mop job for a handful of busy bodies that cost the company more in efficiency, than they earn the company after accounting for their wage.

Does solving the problem have an immediate political benefit? I actually don't think it does.

Does letting the community argue about the issue have immediate political benefit? Well - it certainly will sweep other issues (read: scandals) under the rug.

So I'm going to say, the community 100% will be brought into it, the location will end up being unselected, and the issue will be kicked down the curb for the next time the government needs an issue to debate about and to distract people with.

When you have a firm, that is ran by accountants - odds are, you have a firm that is great at squeezing on line items, but lacks the long term vision to see how that squeeze will lead to deficits and higher cost in the long term.

The fastest way to plummet a successful company, is to take the Industry experts out of the position (I mean people who worked their way up through the industry, and learned management along the way by experts btw), and replace them with an MBA/ Accountant who got hired into their upper management position without really working in the industry prior to.

And I pretty much guarantee you, this is what happened.

Not all old designs were bad. And one has to understand that the USSR, UK, France, and the US all had a shared objective (by the way, these are the primary nations designing and creating nuclear reactors back in the 50's and 60's). And the goal? Plutonium for Nuclear Bombs. You can imagine how this changes design Parameters.

So now lets talk about the CANDU Reactor, designed in 1955 (or there abouts).

It's an oddity of the day - Designed for energy generation for civilian use, without the desire to actively produce Plutonium. Functionally speaking, complete fission of the material with the least degree of enrichment possible for efficient opperation was the design goal. And what you get is well, this.

Beyond this, because it is a Heavy Water Reactor (CANDU standing for Canada Deuterium Uranium), it's moderator is well, heavy water - which is interesting as two things: If it boils off, the neutron regulator (which is slowing down neutrons to encourage fission in the core) boils off. And Boiling water takes away a LOT of heat. Beyond this, heated water will naturally circulate so even if active pumps pushing the water through the system fail, natural circulation can occur until corrective action is taken.

Yes, there are newer designs that are probably safer. But don't just say "old designs bad" without understanding the design constraints created by the circumstances to which they were created. Look at also, all of the designs of the era. There is a reason pretty much everyone can name Chernobyl, 3 Mile Island, and Fukushima. And anyone with half a length of common sense would avoid putting a nuclear reactor on Japan - a place that has an active Valcano, is prone to tsunami's, and sits at the intersecting point of three tectonic plates... It's kind of a bad place for it. Not impossible to do safely, but when you use a reactor design that is basically set up for the production of plutonium by the very design constraints and such of the day: It's not surprising.

And then we can talk about SMR's.

Do you have any idea how much energy is used in the form of combustibles to heat homes, and power vehicles? It's absolutely massive. Beyond this - the energy density of Petrol is something like 25-45x that of batteries - meaning for the same weight of fuel as a battery, you can go MUCH further, even factoring in the lower efficiency of an ICE engine (20-30%) vs. Electric (something like 90%). However, Electric Vehicles also have higher ware and tare on roads, tires, breaks, bridges, etc. And that means a higher TCO (Total cost of Operation) outside of the vehicle itself.

You might say "Improve Public Transport" And I'm all for it - but that requires doubling the average population density in urban centres to START to be practical. And achieving that is a decades long (like closer to half a century, if not longer) undertaking that has a huge environmental cost do to the tare down of existing buildings.

What all this means: To replace combustibles, we don't just need a tripling of Nuclear - we need to increase it by an order of magnitude (10x it for clarity), 2 orders of magnitude increase of wind (100x), and we should aim for three orders of magnitude for solar (1000x). If you do that, AND improve average home insulation value, then we can start to get somewhere reasonable.

To be clear: We can do it.

1. Solar Roof Incentives for generally sunny cities (ex. Calgary)
2. Off Shore Wind
3. Dual Use Installations - So Parking Lots with Solar Covers for instance. Bonus points for onsight energy storage to buffer generation for charging cars.
4. SMR's for remote area's (think far northern area's where diesel generators are the norm, as it reduces the need to ship fuel)

You will note that Hydro isn't listed here - and for good reason: The environmental destruction, and long term upkeep is extremely impactful on the environment.

All of this, by the way, is something like a trillion dollar investment. And what is the Canadian Governments investment plan? 4-5 billion by 2035? If the Canadian Government wants to get serious - they need to start making the entire government beaurocracy far more lean, far more mean, and take the savings and throw it into everything that reduces power use, as well as renewable generation.

And finally: Start jacking up the minimum wage, start increasing labor protections, and the entire why? So that people can afford to invest into these things for themselves on a wide scale.

Well, ya. The Liberals are on the way out, so they can put into place policies and such that force future spending on things people want, that will have to get cancelled do to budgetary constraints. And if the future parties do plow forward with it, you can shit can on it and rally the people that don't want it into a frenzy, and sweep all of this up under a rug somewhere by the time you get to the next election.

Welcome to Flip Flop First Past the Post Politics when you have a defacto two party system.

The problem is many fronted.

1. Free trade: When you are competing with lower cost of production regions, with dirt cheap shipping do to the way you can basically register a ship any where with a port - you have a competition problem. In other words: Free trade benefited those with money - and acted to displace manufacturing jobs. Thing is - there are far fewer designers that you need.

2. Money Printing as a Stop Gap to Dissuade dissidence against Long Shot Downs: Reality is the lockdown scenario that kept service possitions from being filled and used, could have been far shorter with a far harder lock down early on to allow time to implement precautions. This would have lead to 1-2 months of lowered economic activity, instead of say a year of it.

3. No solid organized plan to account for inflation: Had a policy of increasing minimum wage WITH inflation do to the printing of money been implemented, we would have actually been alright. Yes money would have been devalued, but the buying power of the average Canadian would have kept up with inflation avoiding the problems we are seeing.

4. Extended time of low interest rates: This leads to high debt ratio's, which - if and when interest rates need to go up, tightens belts, and results in layoffs and so on. This in turn pinches the economy and can very easily kick off a spiral of lowered spending that degrades the economy with lower demand. The end result is a very difficult to control spiral downard that only starts several months OR LONGER after the offending change that is the trigger of it do to the lag time. What this means, is even if corrective action is taken - it's too late.

Of course - admitting a recession, would mean admitting the government did not just fail in one spot, but in basically everything. And we all know how well modern day politicians accept blame.