Nintendo has been actively taking down YouTube videos that feature its games being emulated or modded, which has sparked significant discussion and concern within the gaming community.
Nintendo has been actively taking down YouTube videos that feature its games being emulated or modded, which has sparked significant discussion and concern within the gaming community.
I saw a review where it was said that you can only play steam games, but I just looked it up and apparently you can play all the other games as well by simply adding them or launching other launchers…
Steam invest’s into the gaming community? Do you have any source for that so that I can read about that?
They’re pretty much the entire reason gaming on Linux is as active as it is today.
deleted by creator
I’m not AwesomeLowlander but you asked for something that can be googled in literally 5 to 10 seconds:
Yes, maybe it just takes 5 seconds. But it’s not my turn to Google things people claim here, especially because I nicely asked for sources ( to inform myself about it ).
Anyway, I’ll not respond here anymore
It always it. That’s basic media savviness. Asking for things that take 5 secs to google is rude.
In the same stroke though the onus to supply backing to any given position or assertion is on the one claiming facts. Else one can go around claiming anything they want and just yell at others to “google it”.
This one is easily found out through a simple search and all but burden of proof isn’t on the one asking for proof, it’s on the one making the assertion. If they want to verify the proof, then that’s on them of course.
Source, please?
I know you don’t give a flying fuck. Have it anyways. 😘
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
https://www.logicalfallacies.org/burden-of-proof.html
https://assets.cambridge.org/97811070/46627/frontmatter/9781107046627_frontmatter.pdf
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/burden_of_proof
Valve supporting gaming on Linux is common knowledge here. For very niche knowledge or hard to google terms, I’d agree but there’s a limit. One cannot expect to cite sources for every single bit of common knowledge.
The amount of work required to ask for a source is similar to googling it directly, maybe asking is even more work because usually selecting the claim and then right-click --> “Search web for XYZ” works just fine.
Yeah I agree they should have just looked it up because it’s easy to check. Just was disagreeing that it’s their responsibility to prove it. Their responsibilities are verifying and they failed. It was a stupid pedantic point and I probably shouldn’t have bothered. Sorry if I ruffled feathers. Typed before I thought.