Soon!

Article super interessant !

ceux qui nient la réalité même du changement climatique, et qui ne représentent que 2 % de la population ; et ceux qui considèrent que c’est un phénomène naturel comme il y en a toujours eu (30 %).

Face à ces croyances, il convient de noter que 62 % des Français sont convaincus de la réalité du changement climatique et que celui-ci est lié aux activités humaines. Dans le même temps, l’opinion a évolué vers une meilleure connaissance des causes de ce phénomène. En 2001, 49 % des Français ne savaient pas se prononcer sur les vraies causes du désordre du climat. Ils ne sont plus que 15 % en 2024.

On observe également que les Français ont toujours majoritairement fait confiance aux scientifiques : 71 % considèrent qu’ils évaluent correctement les risques du changement climatique. Ils étaient déjà 72 % en 2011.

Quand 79 % de ceux qui se classent « très à gauche » sont convaincus du caractère anthropique du changement climatique, ils sont seulement 49 % parmi ceux qui se classent « à droite ».

Notre baromètre révèle cette année une adhésion particulièrement forte des Français pour des mesures politiques, notamment fiscales et réglementaires.

Ce qui est surtout marqué, c’est que c’est devenu un sujet politique majeur, qu’il n’y a que très peu de climatoscépticisme ‘véritable’ (déni de la présence du changement climatique). La situation n’est pas parfaite, mais clairement on s’en sort pas si mal.

Par exemple, la taxation du transport aérien pour favoriser le train : 70 % de Français y sont favorables, soit 6 points de plus par rapport à 2023, et 23 points de plus en 10 ans ;

l’augmentation des prix des produits à fort impact environnemental : 60 % y sont favorables, soit 7 points de plus qu’en 2023.

Pour 7 Français sur 10, la priorité économique du gouvernement devrait être de soutenir exclusivement les activités qui préservent l’environnement, plutôt que de soutenir tous les secteurs de l’économie au risque de conséquences négatives sur l’environnement.

Aujourd’hui, la priorité n’est donc pas de convaincre les Français des causes anthropiques du changement climatique ou de la nécessité d’une action collective, mais de porter des mesures à la hauteur des enjeux, aussi bien à l’échelle de l’État que des collectivités et des entreprises, permettant de faire évoluer massivement les modes de production et les modes de vie.

C’est pas possible d’être plus clair là.

Makes sense. They don’t get money from ads, so they have little to loose by banning them apart from annoying some publishers, but from what we saw in the past, what will they do? Leave Steam?

Classic killing two birds with one stone: get more revenue from sales, and make customers happier.

Psh. I doubt anyone here would have blamed you for playing on emulators regardless.

Sous la pression de la FNSEA, et des forestiers, qui accusent notamment les grands cervidés de détruire le forêt et bouffer l’herbe des troupeaux, le préfet a fixé des quotas aux chasseurs avant l’ouverture de la saison il y a quelques mois : éliminer 2000 grands cerfs, 350 chamois, 165 daims et 10.000 chevreuils.

Pas question d’y toucher, Gilles Kaszuk ne mâche pas ses mots : “Ce serait une erreur, un viol, un crime de prélever des animaux dans le mois de février à venir”. Pourquoi ? Parce que comme l’explique le manifeste écrit par les chasseurs haut-rhinois, ils constatent, avec les naturalistes, les promeneurs, « la diminution notoire de la grande faune », perturbée par le changement climatique mais aussi le retour des grands prédateurs, lynx et loups, la “surfréquentation” de la montagne avec motards et quads m’a-t-il expliqué, et, surtout, le modèle agricole dominant.

J’ai pas les mots. La FNSEA qui fait pression pour eliminer encore plus de diversité pour surtout jamais remettre en question leur modèle.

Travail forcé ET travail d’enfant, ils ont fait le doublé !

Have they? I couldn’t find any information about that online. As for the rest, yeah, likely poached (or, like Mistral, not very pro-open source (◡︵◡) )

Nah, I’ve heard they stopped development. People use LocalCDN as a drop in replacement. However, by itself, it doesn’t change much when it comes to ads and tracking.

(2025 is “The year of the Windows 11 PC refresh,” allegedly)

Wait. Since when has Microsoft’s Windows team been drinking from the same copium jars as us Linux users have for years?

That’s hilarious.

They can probably try, but much like this case, it’s very unlikely it will get anywhere.

Sure, but that’s tangential to their market position relative to their competitors. CS2 loot boxes are a problem, but they’re not responsible for Steam being the biggest PC game store.

You are completely right. What I meant, is that since PC Gaming is only considered a subset of PC & Console gaming market (as opposed to, say, Mobile gaming), if it were to grow in share within said market, it will likely attract the eyes of regulators who could improve the current situation.

Sorry if I wasn’t clear before.

Username does NOT check out. You give too many.

You can block the main mastodon instances if you find it THAT horrible. No more hashtags in your feed then.

Regulation isn’t just about breaking them up. I was more thinking along the line of applying the DMA and DSA to Steam proper, which would only lead to benefits for us. The presence of the speculation casino that is the Steam Market into the hands of kids without any regulation is nuts, and that’s not saying anything about the current hypertoxic state of the Steam Community forums. That’s not okay, and Valve seems reluctant to fix that (the former becausr it brings them a metric ton of money, and the latter probably to avoid pissing off the gamergate libertarian crowd). Regulation could force them to do so.

I’m not sure. The courts intends for Google to sell Chrome, not Chromium. Even if they gave guarentees that Chromium will become independant, the coourt’s likely to tell them to sell Chrome anyway (as they could still apply monopolistic practices like service bundling without control over Chromium, not to mention they could ‘fork’ LF’s Chromium later to make their own).

The way I see it, this is more Google being scared shitless about Chrome’s new owner being shitty, promote their own services instead of Google’s, and disrespect web standards (or depecreates the ‘standards’ Google implemented in Chromium without the approval of other browers, or standard bodies). That could cause MASSIVE issues for them, and the loss of business that could cause would be tremendous, in a way that’s far worse than giving up control on Chromium.

To me, his seems more like the nuclear option of Google saying that if they can’t own Chromiulm, then nobody can as a way to cut their losses.

Stephen Shankland’s report from 2020 notes a number of people suggesting that Chromium as a whole could be moved out of Google entirely and into an independent foundation, such as the Linux Foundation. That’s not what is happening now, but it’s another step toward larger organization outside of the web’s dominant browser and advertising provider (though Google is still one of the supporters).

One can only hope this is the first step toward a larger trend. LF stewardship of the Chromium project wouldn’t be perfect, but it’s still much better than the current situation of it being controlled by one company, be it Google or whoever they’ll forced to sell Chrome to.

That’s a good point. The number of Switches sold does nearly match Steam’s MAU.

Every Switch is handheld, but how many people are they capturing, or will they soon capture, that care very little about Nintendo games and just want to play games handheld?

Every Switch owner I know has bought at least one Nintendo game over its lifetime, and often several. According to the best selling Switch games list, it’s safe to assume at least one in every two Switch owner has bought Nintendo games for it. Is it due to the marketing and advertisement coming from the fact they own the platform, or that they’re still the kings of both casual and family friendly couch gaming? I suppose indie is strongly catching up, at least on the former but the latter might be more difficult.

I have a feeling that the “port everything to the Switch” crowd won’t really exist anymore in a world where that game already plays on a similarly-priced PC handheld without having to beg the developers first.

Wouldn’t that be nice? Given that PS and Xbox exclusives now all make their way onto PC to the point we barely have to ask anymore. Though if we were to reach that point, I’d seriously worry about the centralisation of the Steam market. Hopefully regulation will catch up soon.

Nintendo’s unbeatable advantage will always be its first-party games, but the Switch 2 — a device rumored to be a fairly light improvement over its predecessor — doesn’t quite feel like it’ll be as culturally dominant as the Switch was in 2017.

That remains to be seen. Back in 2016-2017, every gaming media was skeptical that the Switch would be anywhere near as much of a success like the DS or the GameBoy had been, or if it was going to be another failure like the Wii U.

Why buy a game on PS5 when you can get it on Steam and have access to it on any number of devices?

That has been one of the arguments for PC gaming in a long time, but it never quite reached the console players’ mindset. Not to mention that, despite its dominance in game distribution, Valve and the Steam brand are nowhere near as recognizable as any of the other ‘big 3’. The Steam Deck may have sold a few million copies (four or five from what I hear?), but it’s nowhere near the hundreds of millions of Switches, even in sale pace nowadays. I can’t see it take less than a decade for that mindset to start changing change and competitors and regulation to get interested, and even that’s an optimistic estimate.

Still, it’s good to hear the platform exlusivity walls are finally breaking down.

That’s some title gore and a half. They apologized for baning people who were flagged as cheaters for using ‘compatibility layers’ (clearly Wine/Proton) and unbanned them.

I’d argue it’s not useless, rather, it would remove any financial incentive for these companies to sink who knows how much into training AI. By putting them on the public domain, they would loose their competitve advantage over other cloud providers who could exploit it all the same, all the while not disturbing the current usage of AI.

Now, I do agree that destroying it would be even better, but I fear something like that would face too much force back by the parts of civil society who do use AI.

Wait, wasn’t he the one who mandated musicians should not be credited for their tracks in Falcom games?

Does that mean that this policy could be repelled?