Okay, now I’m extremely confused. How is being aware of the Pareto principle and mentioning it in situations where it applies “political inaction”? And more to the point, how does referencing it in response to reports about game revenue distribution in any way related to a person’s willingness to donate to steamdb?
Alright yeah, I agree with all that, but what does that have to do with the users that responded to reports about how game revenues are distributed by accurately associating it with the Pareto principle?
Theoretically even if the donation needs were met, it would be a small percent of users providing the majority of donations. So I don’t really see how acknowledging the existence of the principle changes whether it’s surprising that no one helped out.
Wait, you link three examples where Lemmy users point out that the Pareto principle explains data showing the way that engagement and revenue are distributed between games on Steam. I’m failing to see how that’s relevant to whether people would be willing to assist or take over the steamdb project. Obviously we can see in hindsight that they didn’t, but how do these links address whether that’s surprising?
And then use this to play it on your Android device: https://gamenative.app/
The price might not be worth it, but would be really funny if Valve just delisted the claimed games in the UK and notified the publishers that they need to remove the claimed music or resolve the licensing issue if they want their game back up. Instead of one tidy lawsuit, suddenly these guys are being contacted by the angry lawyers of hundreds of orgs they have existing contracts with.
Or just revise the law to state that international copyrights will only be enforced if they are held by Canadian trading partners in good standing, and that the only prosecutable violations of those copyrights are those which have taken place during the most recent contiguous period that that partner has been in good standing.
That way we don’t need to keep updating the law every time a trading partner starts/stops acting up, and other trading partners won’t need to worry about impacts to their IP. It will simply be baked in that every time a trading partner unilaterally breaks a trade agreement with us they will in effect be granting amnesty to every Canadian citizen who ever breached their copyright in the past and creating an open season on their IP within Canada until they can reach a new mutually acceptable trade agreement. Honestly this should be a standard practice for many countries.
To oversimplify, it’s a metaphor about what it’s like to go through life relying only on your senses and not using reason to question or analyze the deeper meanings behind your surface impressions. The story goes on to discuss a prisoner who escapes the cave and gets a taste of true reality, that prisoner is meant to represent a philosopher. When the escaped prisoner returns and tells the others of what he’s seen, they reject his claims saying how absurd it would be to believe that there’s anything more than just the shadows. I think in this day and age it’s easy to guess what that interaction represents, but Plato had a particular bone to pick about this since his mentor had essentially been executed for questioning various things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave?wprov=sfla1
Yeah, sure, gamers are politically ignorant and fail to achieve their goals.
But what does any of this have to do with the Pareto principle?