But I think this also goes the other way as well. Even the most reclusive dev hermit can get some people to try out their game, and people love a hidden gem, and love talking about it. It makes it quite impractical for a genuinely great game to remain just undiscovered.
During peak Covid, Vampire Survivors blew up as the hot game. It is a pedestrian dual stick shooter. There are hundreds of examples which do the same thing, possibly better.
Getting a hit game requires decent fundamentals and a heap of luck.
No it's not. I'd highly recommend playing it - it's a phenomenal game. It's not a dual stuck shooter, you can literally play it with one hand. The entire schtick of the game is that it auto fires, so all the player takes care of is mobility. It was inspired by the exactly one other game that seems to have created the genre - Magic Survival. But Magic Survival was a mobile game so it was full of ads, spam, microtransactions, and all the other sort of stuff that enshittifies everything on mobile.
But the dev nonetheless thought it was a great and underserved idea. So he cleaned up the concept, got rid of the ads and other mobile crap, brought it to PC, and made $millions. His idea was then widely cloned, but games are much closer to art than commodities - so one can't expect clones to do as well as the 'original work' when they're being sold in the exact same gallery. That said, some of the clones also did extremely well when they meaningfully iterated upon the concept instead of just outright mimicking it. For instance Halls of Torment is another great game in the genre.
i mean even historically i've never heard of an amazing game that was undiscovered for ages and then blew up. maybe there's one currently festering somewhere, but i highly doubt it
All its mass is already on the water so it's not displacing anything. It probably made some splashes but it seems like a fairly round object rotating rather than smashing into anything
I've been to this area and being close to a road does not mean human contact. I drove on that road for nine hours and saw a handful of people/buildings.
"Towns" on a map might literally be a single home up there. It's as remote as can be even alongside utility roads.
I think this highlights most how separated actual os' are from practical ai today (even while terminal apps live in them). If apple owned CC I could do this right in the macos gui. Instead apple ai is half baked and claude code gui is half baked.
It's similar to needing aol to get online in the 90s/00s. Eventually this will become built in and become invisible in a sense.
I'm glad someone is working on this because it's been annoying having to sacrifice process to gain capability.
Quickly press the power button 5 times if you have an android phone and see what happens. This has got to be the absolutely worst idea ever and it's enabled by default!
It asks you in first-time set up if you want it. 'Yes' might be the default selected option, but it's not like opting out requires you knowing about it and going looking for it.
Do you really have faith this would be disabled by choice if you tried it on a random android phone? If they haven't already disabled it in rage after finding it on accident, I'm pretty sure that person would be terrified upon you making them aware. The first-time setup process isn't consistent across devices and never will be.
You can try to argue this down and reason about it all you want, but it's still a bad default regardless of how it's presented to the user. It's also bad design because it conflicts with similar defaults such as the shortcut to open the camera (press power button twice), silencing an incoming call (press once), etc. People may also press multiple times when the phone seems unresponsive.
You'd expect the resurgence of bad defaults to be motivated by marketing or something, but this one is just outright stupidity.
There's a part of me that is fairly convinced this was added as an afterthought after much internal whining by someone at google with a checklist insisting that android must support some easily accessible emergency feature. This was then deliberately chosen to make the feature look bad, and the users are victims of office politics.
I don't know, I'm just saying that's how I know about it, seeing it in setup and disabling it. I've no particular interest or stake in 'arguing it down and reasoning about it'.
do not have the money to invest in developing a camera system that is sovereignly owned by the city
That would render the city liable for handling the data which is already politically volatile. In America, if it's a commercial entity doing it then there is no liability and you can just fold the company if something bad happens.
And in reality, it's a handwave. The city will refer you to Flock, and then Flock will cancel the contract, but leave the cameras up, so now there's no customer. Funny that.
