If we are going in the details, maybe tax credit should be over a small fraction of benefits for that game. You'd only get back a bit of what you paid.

The problem is that you can barely reach consensus that tax-money is spent on elderly homes and child-care, as the a critical mass of your taxpayers are not yet old and don't have children.

Once you try to establish that tax-payers money is being spent to preserve art, you inevitably cause a unsolvable political discussion on what art actually is. At best, the budget will be drained uncontrollably with the system being abused by players gaming the system, at worst the ruling political party will define what art is and only provide funding for the most boring forms of art.

-

To be a bit constructive: Instead of a dedicated credit/payout, it would make more sense to establish a mandate in a region (i.e. US, EU) that public funding or tax-credits for ANY company can only be made on the premise that the output created by the company becomes partially owned by the public (and the citizens of this region), which requires it to provide value even without the company's involvement.

This would apply for any form of financial incentive given to company offices in a region, regardless whether it's hardware, software or services.

But I wouldn't hold my breath on that ever being properly mandated/executed...

We already got plenty of game archives / abandonware stuff with VM, emulators or other compatibility solutions. There is no hard blocker except will to allow this broadly. If there is a tax credit, editors might think about this from the beginning, for newer games.

For sure you can always find exceptions and loophole, just like an expert can probably find issues around oil paintings preservation.

It doesn't mean that should stay there, as-is, forever. Like most failover solutions, it gives you a bit of time during an incident to come with a proper solution for the future.

Having it not fully waterproof (and maybe they also took that into account) has probably been seen as an improvement over totally crushed by rocks and bricks.

Only page view? That's not really useful and you already got that with backend logs.

With true analytics, understanding typical session helps you optimising users workflow, making sure relevant features are easily discovered at the right place.

It really helps when you want to work on user experience. You may need metrics such as LCP, INP and CLS with details per type of page, ability to drill down data and get that in real time.

ROI of such script depends on what you do with the data. If that's vanity or not even looked at, you are emitting CO2 for nothing.

>optimising users workflow, making sure relevant features are easily discovered >work on user experience

These are qualitative improvements which are extremely unlikely to stem from quantitative metrics, especially when the sample size is not significant (which it is for the vast majority of pages in existence).

You can group similar pages for this. When you work on ecommerce: plp, pdp, hp, search, cart, checkout

That can apply to most businesses.

They can set offers however they like and you are free to not accept.

If the algorithm detects that you are likely to accept for little money and short you with lower offers compared to other users, is it still morally fine?

This runs into both the ideals and the limitations of the Free Market.

Ideally, there's incentive for people to collectively reach the most efficient solution through aggregated laziness and greed.

In practice, people only have so much bandwidth and shortcuts will be taken, options will be overlooked, and people will exploit or be exploited due to the blinders either put on willingly or forced on them--on top of our natural capacity for observing reality no matter how much information is provided.

Other than the algorithmic aspect, isn't that basically exactly how the employment market works?

Unsure, but why would they do that? Why risk paying more by making a higher offer elsewhere before making a lower offer?

Look to two-tailed tests when a flipside doesn't make sense.

Consider what risk might exist if you fear overpaying so much that you make a lowball offer yet someone feels compelled to accept. The product or service might be "done" but in a way that screws you over in the long run as well.

Trust is earned, and it flows both ways.

Sure, this is how negotiate and hiring have always worked.

Some companies underpaying part of their staff for the same job doesn't make it moral. In some cases, it tends to correlate with genetics which makes it even more questionable. A black box algorithm may unknowingly introduce such bias.

Anyway what is moral depends on your personal values, not the law nor how things are done, it's expected to disagree.

Transport company gets some money and ticket man gets a share. There is no incentive for them to be human.

You should scan on the device before it goes on the network. P2P networking or not, the app should include a scanner.

Even if you use an open-source clone without scanner, your contacts most likely will use an app with builtin scanner. Your communications will be scanned on their end.

At that point I'm wondering why we don't also open and scan regular mail at the post office before delivery.

> At that point I'm wondering why we don't also open and scan regular mail at the post office before delivery.

We do open and scan some percentage of regular mail at the post office. It's difficult to find exact sources because the USPS only seems to easily admit to doing it for postage reasons, but it's fairly well known that they search for drugs, bombs, etc. Mail is subject to X-ray scanning and being opened under suspicion of a variety of things happening. When they can't open it themselves, they're also allowed to request permission from the recipient (you can refuse, but then they can go to a judge).

X-Raying import of goods is one thing. What I'm thinking about is more opening letters to read writings and check pictures, without explicit permission nor judge involved.

This is exactly what parent is describing. If you’re on a suspicious person list, or happen to cross paths with one, your mail is likely going to be scanned. I can’t find the source now, but also once read the NSA can intercept a package, modify the contents and send it’s on its way without even a delay in the tracking.

It took a bit of time but we are finally reaching sovietic dream of mass surveillance. We just need extremist to be in power (oh wait!) so it can be enabled for other purposes and we'll get full powered Stasi.

Well the police aren’t going anywhere and they are the ones pushing for this tirelessly. This is everything to them to make their power (and politicians) absolute. They will have dirt on everyone if you can’t have private conversations at all. Even if it’s not illegal they will find something immoral to destroy your life. Allowing police (the government) to become nearly omniscient is a very very bad idea.

Well they do keep electing communists in Europe so it makes sense the Soviet dream state is near completion.

This has more to do with totalitarism than communism. ChatControl is getting support from parties labelled as both left and right.

Which countries in europe are run by the far right right now. Most governments are still decidetly center-left even if people are finally standing up to them with their votes.

> The entire EU emits around the same as India alone.

With only a third of India's population. Don't worry there is still a lot to do in Europe.

> With only a third of India's population.

Therein lies the rub.

The current reality is that US and EU per capita emissions are rather flat ATM whereas those of India and China are on the rise.

There is work to do all about, the EU and US could certainly come down per capita (but by how much) and India and China ideally should be capped (but by whom and how) at less per capita than the EU|US currently .. ideally new technology will achieve that while allowing "modern" expectations of consumption.

The future reality is even should that all come to pass we're still looking at a global net increase in emmissions when ideally we very much want a global reduction.

However we as humans in the world get there it's hardly useful to foster international bickering when we all stand to gain through cooperation.

Throwing such statement with no beginning of proof is ridiculous.

Even *if* that happened, as long as you provide nothing tangible, you should keep that for yourself.