I don't think you realize the severity of his lies over Fable, and Fable 2.
Back when it was Project Mayhem (can't recall exact name) he promised very life accurate features, graphic engines that would redefine presentation, and gameplay mechanics that still do not exist today.
He didn't say, "We are toying with the idea," or something like that. He said, each blade of grass would sway in the wind. That you could free roam maps like never before.
Among the features not delivered in Fable 1,2 or 3:
- When you die or age, you can play as your child to advance the plot.
- You can workout to increase your strength. Not working over time makes you weaker.
- You can roam freely thorughout the world.
- You can steal anything.
- You can break anything.
- You can use any object as weapon.
This list goes on for pages that I do not care to relive.
What did fable II feature? A dog? What the hell is that? How is this related to the core concept? Peter is the result of giving a 5 year old a gaming company. All the grandest coolest plans in the world and in the end having neither the resources, discipline or skill to carry it out.
But it is okay, because people are willing to accept an inferior product, and really just forget all the lies he tells. Just like your comments.
Isn't this supposed to be capitalism where this type of behavior gets you punished?
I'd rather shove a stake in my eye than take his advice on how to be successful. I could learn more about how to be successful interviewing a child about a lemonade stand. They atleast would have interesting comments on sales techniques, that don't rely on your audience not minding being abused.
I hardly think a guy that LIES about what his product is doing and has success merely because people decided to buy the product regardless. It is almost like he owes his success to the low self-worth of gamers that they would still play a game that is lacking NEARLY ALL the features that were promised.
You can listen to what he has to say, but in my mind, he is a liar and uses his costumers gullibility to his advantage. That is the only secret to his success, and really it is not repeatable in most industries. And if it were, I wouldn't recommend using it because it is insanely immoral, not to mention that living on lies is just a horrible way to go through life.
This is very anecdotal naturally. But I am a dyslexic and it was really a struggle for me as a little kid. I don't like reading very much because it is a frustrating endeavor. I like information, I like thinking, and I guess I have favored smaller condensed pieces when reading. Perhaps why I love this website
I can attest though that upon seeing the paragraph written at the end of the video that the text was much easier to read. I was really quite blown away with it. I'm all for this, and really hope it can get spread around.
I don't think you can make someone who is not a reader become one. But I think like anyone who can't do something by a limitation when it is removed you have a new found respect for what you didn't have. It may not be a big market, but trust me there is a market here.
I'm going to download all of these on every part of my system that I can tonight.
I'm not the brightest guy in the world. But I can tell you that human companionship often comes in forms that you do not expect.
I wouldn't look only for technical people to talk to and hang out with. While I'm sure that shared interest can create a strong bond between you, there is more to life and the soul than computers.
I'd like to recommend three books to you that really changed my perspective on how to deal with people. Arguably any value I have in communicating with people comes from the lessons of, or derived from using, these books.
1) Life Would Be Easier if it Weren't for Other People
2) How to Succeed With Women
3) The Demon Haunted World, Science as a Candle in the Dark
The first is the most important, how you convey yourself to others and how they convey themselves to you. However, the book focuses on the dysfunctional aspects of communication. This book has made my more worth living in every single way.
2) How to Succeed with Women. You didn't mention whether or not you have a girlfriend. This of this like Cosmo with useful advice for me. Basically, it is how women look at dating and how men often don't even come close to thinking about what they want.
I don't picture people with technical skills being deterred by this. I don't think that the people who want to get access to free information will use this.
I do think this is a response to the regime of the Arab Spring, and I think that it will most mostly ineffective.
It might be worth noting the reason this sounds pointless because the breathe of information that has to be controlled is beyond the resources of the regime. It may seem to be full of idealistic rhetoric because it is put together by the a idealistic regime.
It will be interesting to see if they can pull of a 'Chinese' like wall or if this will be a very weak barrier like most regimes put up. Only time will tell.
I wouldn't take the threat lightly. If one government can do it, so can another.
This seems awesome. They neglect to mention how to power any circuits and what components you could and how. If this could be perfected though, Electrical Engineers would slowly take over the world... with circuits....
It is sort of a catch 22 for her to say how silly it is to have a co-founder when you are young and unproven. If you are capable of doing it yourself, then yes, of course you should. However, many people who are capable of doing themselves may not be ready to handle all of the aspects, especially if it is their first time out.
There are a few lessons that I have taken from browsing HackerNews over the last year. Two of them come to mind.
The first is that it is not simple to do everything involved in creating a startup. Even if you know what you are doing.
There are factors to hinder great products and great people, from reaching the consumer.
The second is that there is no shortage of great ideas for startups. The real bottle neck seems to be the execution of great ideas.
If you are capable of doing it by yourself, but you take on a partner, you do lose out financially or you could create complications. But no one ever said it had to be your last startup. You can always take on of the great new ideas and branch out again.
Even if it is a disaster, you will discover that you can do it alone.
Or the other scenario, you discover that you work well together. Now, you have have too much brain power, time, energy and money. These resources are incredibly useful at expanding your startup, starting a second, or just making life easier.
I like her cynicism about everything she reads. That is just a normal part of rationality. Even if it is aimed against the mighty Paul Graham. However, I have to disagree with her assertions. I believe teams are greater than the sum of their parts, even if team member can do all work alone.
It is amazing how many young people can succeed in technical fields at a young age.
Most great physicists make some of their incredible discoveries when they are young.
Mark Zuckerburg was in college when facebook was created. Same with Napster and dozens of others.
Maybe, there is something special about that age. It is when you can actually use the brainpower, business intelligence, ext. If you have the goods, they seem to show around that age.
It seemed like he had an incredible product he could have sold for more in my opinion.
For contractual projects wouldn't it make sense to know the value of what is going to be produced (more or less) and then negotiate the percentage of it.
Is there anything akin to an agent for a programmer in this situation? In all seriousness, it might not be a bad idea for a business.
Assuming that you can add value to the talent by increasing contractual payoffs, and/or your organization could develop a reputation for excellence and potentially be sought out to find talent for certain jobs.
I'm picturing a mixture of a consultant, and a technical programming.
Shows that poorer households on average have more children.
However, it also shows that that population is shrinking in unison. Relatively.
However, addition graphs on the website show how many dysfunctional households there are in poor communities. Which have been growing, so I stand by the original argument.
I agree with you that given the percentage changes in the way we view money, there has to be massive social change in thought.
I also agree that people filter what the news tells them.
However, I disagree that the two are related. I don't believe the news media causes people to spend more because they aren't having some sort satisfaction.
Other causes seem more likely to me.
1) People believe that their income will continually increase over their lifetime.
2) The increase in the number of advertisements over the last 50 years.
3)People have an accustomed lifestyle, but are making less money. Therefore, instead of cutting back they go into a little bit of debt. Which becomes alot of debt.
Am I the only one that seems to think that this can be used for racketeering, money laundering, ext.
Also, balancing a dual currency economy by arbitrage? Interesting concept? Or doomed to be abused? Or both?