How is saying it's not the same game mechanics "judging it by different standards"? That right there is the problem: this idea that everything modern is better. Not everything needs all the same features tacked on.

Exactly. Eventually what we see now as cutting edge will become "bare minimum" or even "obsolete" hardware one day. Eventually the camera on your cell phone will by default be taking such high resolution pictures that anything less that a TB of onboard storage will seem quaint.

If you want to search and index it, you don't want to do that on tapes. It's doable, but difficult. And what benefits tapes gain in reliability/long term storage, a RAID system would negate. Cheaper large SSDs make these kinds of systems more economical to the average person.

The issue is, every time we make a great leap in storage medium, we tend to use that new storage for BIGGER files. Higher quality media and all that. Back in the day, the average movie file was measured in the MB. Now it's GB. Think about an old floppy with 1.4 MB of data and how many text files you stored on it. You couldn't ever imagine needing more space. Then came pictures and music files. Video files. Then higher resolution picture and video files. Suddenly even your text documents aren't just raw .txt files, but Word documents and interactive PDFs.

As storage improves, what we expect to be able to carry around with us or have in our home computer changes. I'm currently running a home server with 18TB of storage. An amount that I would have never dreamed of possessing 20 years ago, and yet here I am debating when I grab that 24TB drive because I can already see me running out of space in a few months.

This is all to say that I really don't think there will ever be a maximum amount a user could need. Give them that maximum and in a week they'll have figured out a way to use it to capacity. I think video games and cartridge/disk size limitations and then the transition to digital games and balloning game size shows my point.

Open world while still needing to go through the temples in a certain order. Various gadgets were required to progress, but crafty players often got around this. Pokemon would also be called "open world", but could you just walk up to the Elite 4 from the beginning? Nope, had to get them badges first.

There's "open to exploration" open world and "here's a giant map, go wild"(a la Fallout/Skyrim). I prefered a Zelda with more guidance. Even Wind Waker, arguably the most open world, still had a progression the game tried to keep you on.

To me, they would be perfect games if they weren't Zelda. That is to say, they are great games, just not what I expect from a Zelda game. Something I'd expect from Bethesda moreso(style, not gameplay lmao).

I feel like Wind Waker was the right balance between freedom and linear story.

Unpopular opinion: open world ruined Zelda. I thought I'd love the concept. But actually give it to me? Ughhh.... Spend forever doing side quests because you don't know if the equipment will only be good now or if youll need it down the road.... No real guidance so you can end up just meandering around.....

I liked the more structured narrative. Don't get me wrong - it's cool to play Link and just do whatever you want. But for a story game, a more defined linear path is more engaging imo.

I see your logic and had the same thought, but then wouldn't a "No stopping at anytime"/"No parking" sign accomplish the same thing? "No Loitering" sign as well. If the point is for the cop to be able to point to a sign, those already exist and are much more broad and easy to use(or misuse, depending on your perspective). Like others said, an absolute minimum speed limit seems destined to harm pedestrians. Plus, you can see it's before a stoplight. So not even logical.

I'm betting this is a fake sign.

Some dude was ranting somewhere recently about GitHub and "I just want the damn exe, not a bunch of stupid code". It became a bit of a meme.

I'm so sick of this revisionist bs. Plenty of us were outraged then and warned of EXACTLY this. Y'all reaped what you sowed. Now micro transactions and paid early access are the norm. We screamed and yelled to "vote with your wallets", and by god, you did. "It's just a few bucks" is the most common one I hear. Well, now EVERYTHING is "just a few bucks".

You won.

As it stands now, you can download all of Wikipedia for offline viewing. It's not restricted in any way. And since Wikipedia is looking for objective truth, not opinions, I'm not sure what benefit federation would do. You want it centralized, not broken up. What happens when two instances decide that their version is the only correct one?

I just don't see any benefit. This feels like when everyone was slapping "blockchain" on things because it was the current buzzword. What is Wikipedia failing at currently that decentralizing it would make better?

Bed sores are caused more by lack of care than long hair. It's an excuse. A properly attended person won't have an increased risk from long hair. If it was truly a concern, it could be put up in a bun/ponytail etc.