In an ideal world, the penalties you describe are suitable. Though, gaming industry aside, for the executive level of most any corporation, being a scapegoat and handed a golden parachute is the worst case scenario for them leaving. In many cases floating across the street right into another executive position.
Jail time isn’t a likely outcome. It just isn’t the world we live in, unfortunately.
I see what you’re getting at but this would be difficult for a publisher to stick with in the event the game does horribly. Requiring them to keep their word to the date advertised would end up with them only guaranteeing a week, or send ramifications through all industries requiring truth in advertising.
A middle ground would be simply to legislate that when games require online connectivity for any reason, the appropriate software is released to allow a locally run server to enable online function at the time the company decides to decommission their servers. Then require them to hold these files in an accessible manner for at least as long as the servers had been active for.
That would be difficult in the event the company goes out of business, but I’m sure this would be a difficult thing to explain to most politicians so maybe not so simple after all.
I think I explained what I was talking about rather well. Trying to view a piece of media in its highest release format isn’t something that’s always feasible. Anything even a few years old can to difficult to source. Ask anyone rebuilding a library after a drive failure. It’s even worse if what you’re trying to get had low viewership - it means an even smaller pool of people bothering to host the data.
While I’m sure this is a niche situation within a niche situation, hosting your own media library locally allows offline playback. Quite nice in during a thunderstorm. Not an option with what you’ve described as your methods, but again, definitely an uncommon use case.
Time and time again, media will be removed from public viewing for nearly any reason. Online streaming services have what you want to watch only so long as their license to it is valid. Once it expires, it’s gone off that platform - and not always to another one. Or the media gets edited to remove or alter something the owners don’t want to promote.
This is even true for the varying methods of sailing. Not everything will be available indefinitely. Certainly not at zero effort. While not being as simple as signing up for a service and watching a low bitrate copy of something within thirty seconds, it’s not rocket science. You can get Jellyfin running with a small library in half an hour.
Ultimately, do what suits you. A local media server works for some. Others will have everything in a single folder and view it through VLC. It’s pretty irrelevant though when the vast majority just pay a subscription to one or multiple of the streaming companies that continue to serve watered down libraries at ever increasing prices.
I gave xManager a go, and while it doesn’t have ads interrupting your listening, it does still have all the Spotify pop up ads trying to get you to upgrade to premium. It’s fine when listening, but selecting what you’re listening to is still irritating.
When shirts are worn less than a dozen times on average before they get tossed in the landfill, those branded shirt companies should be paying you.
Convenient video from today about this exact topic.
Unfortunately, like most issues we face, this is not a stand alone problem. I’ll concede, over the length of ownership of the car, a brand new electric vehicle is more environmentally friendly than keeping your current combustion engine vehicle.
However, we don’t live in a society where the majority can make that choice independent of other factors. EVs are more expensive across the board.
Even if the purchasing cost of an off-the-lot EV were equivalent to continued use of an older ICE across two years - most people can not afford it.
I see buses as a good method of figuring out routes when first implementing a transit system similar to how some developments leave out walking paths to see where people typically walk and install them afterwards.
Generally though, trams can allow for more passengers transported per trip and per operator than a bus. Good for high and low traffic areas with dedicated transit lanes.
Don’t get me wrong - trams certainly don’t replace buses. Multiple forms of transit are best practice of course. I just don’t see the need for only buses or mostly buses.
As a minor detail, tires are one of the top polluters of both microplastics and noise levels in cities, and it would be nice to lower the amount of them being disintegrated in the process of moving people from place to place - be in from buses, or the larger culprit, private vehicles.
For further than bike distance, it’s confounding why cities don’t have a tram system.
If something is being moved from one place to another, and back again, you would of course look for more efficient ways to move that thing. Use a box.
When there’s dozens of those things making the same trip, put them together in the same transport method. It’s not complicated. Factories don’t have people moving one product at a time to the next station. They have conveyor belts or similar to accomplish the task.
When needed, sure, have an electric car that someone could drive. But it’s not necessary for a good portion of the population.
I can’t say I’ve seen any people ‘forcing’ others to go out and replace a perfectly functional combustion car with an electric one - the manufacturers maybe. Most of the conversation I see is focused on the lack of low cost options when it’s time to purchase a brand new vehicle. Gas and electric both.
Once you move away from the brand new discussion, it seems pretty well agreed that keeping what you’ve got is the best option environmentally and financially. Buying used being a close second.
Freedom is important. But when the industry only offers you trucks and SUVs, where’s your choice?
Agreed. The whole idea of these huge payouts could be eliminated and replaced with what exists for everyone else - severance pay. Calculated off a regulated minimum formula, based primarily on how long the person served the company.
I also agree with you that the top and bottom salaries should have a correlation. The C suite making the salary of a shelf stocker in one day should not happen. I think I could accept that the top gets somewhere around 10 or 20 times higher salary. Even 100x would be an improvement to the way it is now.
Like you point out, between stock options and whatever else, an executive salary could be a few hundred thousand, even if their total compensation is tens of millions. In fantasy land it would be nice if, once a company grows to a certain point, say a billion dollars in value, if it were required to convert to an employee owned cooperative entity.
It’s a shame things are the way they are. Maybe one day we won’t have politicians that can be bought. That’s a different discussion altogether.