I imagine it was archived by the maintainer who has archived all of his Github Repositories except for one named after his user account which states "Have taken up farming". So presumably he's decided to leave behind the tech projects he's worked on and focus on farming.
I don't know if it's the case in the USA but in Canada it's generally considered within IT that you are underpaid but in return have decent benefits, a pension, and a lot more job security than private sector. Especially as Canada has had multiple large IT companies that collapsed.
It is kind of annoying how often when using winget there might be two options the winget version which is the app and a msstore version that is from an unknown publisher just using the same name for the app.
Would you recommend using Bitwarden TOTP if you also have access to Yubikeys? I'm uncertain what I would like to transfer to as I'm a long time user and like Bitwarden though am working on trying to self host it and have yubikeys but manually scanning and naming twice to have the TOTP for something like discord or really any website which doesn't have near direct access to financials or private documents seems particularly annoying so if Bitwarden can act as the TOTP that seems like a solve 2 problems with one stone for lower security requirement accounts.
I guess I am a bit curious as to why this is being posted now since Fig has existed for a while. People talked about it and the fact that the founders of it used it for funding of Psychonauts 2. It definitely has had some success stories such as What the Golf? which is available on Apple Arcade already and I found quite fun. Outer Wilds and to a lesser extent Pillars of Eternity 2 are also games that seem to have been successful that used the platform.
It's interesting that Fig.co hasn't been much of a topic at all on HN; only 6 submissions from the domain over the years, only one with more than 20 upvotes (the current thread being the second fig.co submission to reach that many upvotes)
(Incidentally, a Docker-related tool called "Fig" got 160+ upvotes 6 years ago; didn't see any discussion threads about Fig.co when doing a search: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7132044)
It's also interesting that they might not have any nearly as big in the future, as interestingly Microsoft has purchased almost all of the developers (Obsidian, inXile, Double Fine) that had major Fig funded projects. (They did not purchase Fig itself though.) It's fascinating that most of the biggest dividends so far paid to Fig investors have been from Microsoft buy outs.
Xbox Game Studios has been on a really interesting developer growth and M&A spree the last couple of years, in response to allegations that the Xbox One did not have enough first/second party exclusive titles compared to the PS4. They've made it a big part of their E3 announcements both of the last two years. They've been honoring existing publishing agreements for the most part, so it'll be months to years before it's obvious how much Microsoft has changed the landscape. (It's why Gearbox still published Compulsion's We Happy Few and Obsidian's Outer Worlds, for two instances, and per-Fig requirements/expectations Psychonauts 2 won't be Xbox exclusive but will probably be Double Fine's last title to not launch Xbox exclusive.)
(It's also partly fascinating because inXile and Obsidian have bad blood between each other and now they are both owned by Microsoft. Microsoft has said they'll keep them separated.)
It's also interesting, as a platform, in that it allows users to actually invest, rather than "here, take some of my money and maybe I'll get a videogame in two years". Riskier, yes, but I think ultimately healthier for both fans and developers.
I think one of the examples this perhaps is most intriguing is when a crowdfund is so successful the company ends up turning around and bringing in a ton of cash after. In that scenario, one could see these early backers actually getting their investment back out... and still getting the game/end product.
I think it's a nice potential outcome. And in the case of failure, you still didn't get your video game and are out your investment... the same as a normal crowdfund.
Of course, if I recall, actual "investment" via Fig sits an order of magnitude above what most backers would even consider, which is why Fig still does normal crowdfunding too.
> "In that scenario, one could see these early backers actually getting their investment back out... and still getting the game/end product."
Doesn't strike me as an investment choice with good odds though. There aren't precise figures available but the consensus of statements from people who've worked in the games industry is broadly consistent: for the large publishers, of ten games developed, you can expect one to significantly profitable, another two to break even, with the remainder losing money. For small indies, the numbers are estimated to be one-tenth of that or worse.
Makes for fascinating reading if you want to know a bit more about how the sausage is made. A couple of the more interesting anecdotes I came across were at:
Yes, it's a big difference in price. I backed Pillars of Eternity 2 via fig and IIRC the backer tiers started at $10 whereas investors started at $1000/share.
If memory serves the shares were also just shares (with a copy of the game included obviously). If you spent $1000 as a backer instead of as an investor you got a whole lot more rewards for your money.
It's easy to talk about success stories but I think for a proper analysis, we need to look at the full picture. I'm not too familiar with Fig, but ever since Kickstarter, I've been burnt about investing into unreleased games.
I founded exactly 10 game projects from around when it blew up in 2011. I would say I've had roughly 1/3 success release, 1/3 still working a decade later or half-release, and 1/3 completely disappeared. And it's not like I backed random shady stuff either, one of them for example was CLANG, which literally had Gabe Newell in the intro video.
So yeah, I'd like to see statistics about all the projects, not just the handful of successful ones.
I finally got OW when it was on sale last month and it definitely lives up to the hype. I wonder had I seen its fundraising campaign on Fig.co (or any crowdfunding platform), if I would've smart enough to recognize its genius/creativity.
(I think I saw in a Reddit post that the game's structure and most of its planets were already set when the game was pitched years ago)
Does anyone know if Randy Pitchford has is a Stakeholder for Fig? I know he's a member of the "advisory board" and company also owns the rights to the Homeworld IP.
For a first, all the visual style that got changed between the concept art and models shown in the pitch; especially since the devs then spent close to a year on this without communicating with their backers. And especially since they most likely used their improved graphics to secure the deal with Microsoft, instead on focusing their effort on fulfilling their promises on gameplay features, many which are missing from the current game.
For me, I expected something more closer to the classic XCom games from the 90s. What I got feels more like a spin-off of the contemporary X-COM games, with interface, camera and general gameplay cloned 1:1.
I don't think the older games are necessarily better. But they are different and the pitch gave the impression that the intended product would be closer to X-Com than XCOM.
I know in my case it's because prior to finding out about being on the spectrum and having Aspergers I just thought it was everyone else who was defective. For some people on the spectrum including me, the biggest difference was that everyone else was some kind of weirdo who knew rules without being told them. As a kid, you are told to be careful on a road and that's why you are, you are told not to have your hands on a soccer ball but you aren't told make sure to lie to people when it comes to certain conditions. In a way, it's weirder than most people figure out without being told by anyone okay don't tell people that they are fat and don't ask questions about why someone is so certain that their religion is correct.
I had to be taught that but outside of that, most people who didn't spend too much time with me then think I am smarter than average and are willing to rely on me for help with some stuff. I am proud because Asperger's is related to how one's brain is wired if I was embarrassed or considered Asperger's to be defective it would take a toll on my mental health because then I would be thinking of myself of a defective thing and defective things are usually thought of as something that should be thrown out.
Isn't a major part of Aspergers the inability to see that the human mind is irrational by nature.
And sometimes the inability to see that the objective world that exists is not the same objective world that we see. Due to how the brain interprets sensory information from the objective world.
An example taken from your own text:
The reason that you are not supposed to tell a fat person that they are fat is cause by saying you are fat you are essentially pointing to that persons irrational behavior(eating to much).
The fat person does not want to think about their own overweight, it will lead to them start thinking about their own irrationality. Something that will then cause them to feel that they are a failed person, causing negative emotions.
If you work somewhere where that is the situation I would highly recommend trying to find a job that isn't as messed up. In the province of Ontario, employers are specifically needed to allow you to take your sick days for if you are feeling overwhelmed or something else is going on that is bad for your mental health.
Asperger's Syndrome isn't considered a mental illness it's considered a neurodevelopmental disorder. There are many people who are neurotypical who due to circumstances will have trouble with handling interactions with the outside world I don't see why being on the spectrum should be considered something worse than being a person who drinks alcohol and then insults someone.
Oh, I was thinking of the fact that someone who gets drunk at a gathering that is work adjacent who insults people and you don't get fired some of your co-workers might not like you but you can still move up the corporate ladder if it's just a not too often of a thing.
I am personally really lucky as I am pretty high functioning on the spectrum, I am studying to go into the tech industry and my parents are both very supportive and our family is upper middle class.
That's just to say results may vary but I know there are multiple organizations that have come to do stuff at my university to set up job opportunities for those on the spectrum. They also function to inform students on the spectrum of the labour laws in Ontario and what that means in terms of helping people on the spectrum work as well as they can.
Would it be possible to do a modified system where they instead of losing the universal income unemployment benefits. There could be a system where the benefits are lowered in proportion to the income earned from jobs, that allows for those who are able to and want to work but are only able to find low paying jobs to have benefits that do not discourage them from doing work.
> There could be a system where the benefits are lowered in proportion to the income earned from jobs
The thing you are referring to is called taxes. The more money you make the more taxes you pay and there comes a point that you're paying more in taxes than the amount of the basic income.
Phase outs are a pure scam. Their purpose is to conceal imposing higher marginal rates on low and middle income people so that higher income people can pay lower rates.
Does that have any negatives that basic income doesn't? To me it sounds like a direct subset of that UBI aims to achieve. So a solid stepping stone towards it.
Basic Income and Negative Income Tax are an in fact equivalent, in that you can achieve identical income functions with either just by choosing the right tax bands.
However, their framing leads to different expectations. For example consider a flat income tax of 25% on income less $20k (going negative below that so unemployed people get $5k credit). Raising the negative rate to 50% sounds kind of progressive, since you're giving more to poorer people, but frame it as Basic Income, and yes you're increasing the baseline from $5k to $10k, but you're also implementing a 50% regressive tax band up to $20k earned income.
Another point is that they'll tend to be implemented differently due to framing. Basic Income is likely to be part of the welfare system, and since it's unconditional, you can just register once and receive it in perpetuity. Negative Income Tax is likely part of the tax system, so to get it you potentially need to submit a tax return saying "Earnings: $0" every year, which makes it more embarrassing.
It still requires a level of means testing. People might hide sources of income in order to get more payments. On the other hand, since you aren't handing a check in the same amount to every person in the country, it wouldn't require as high an income tax rate to sustain.
I support a prorated version, but the common criticism is that it's more open to fraud and harder to implement. I still think a prorated[1], guaranteed minimum income is better than a basic income.
1) something like reducing that payment by $0.50 per $1 earned as an example.
It's just an unnecessary wrinkle. Taxing earned income is the same as doing what you propose, but incurs higher coordination costs. Also, using your example, it's regressive taxation unless the base rate is higher than 50%.
I don't think paying everyone is a good idea and will encourage inflation to make the program useless. I'm fine with regressive when talking money given to you.
