I quite like many games with "poor" graphics. Perhaps not exclusively, but you're seriously missing out if you only go for realistic-looking or detailed games. Give a few of those indie games a try, you might be surprised.
Edit: Oh, and terminal games are cool! Usually not very performant though.
They've been working on GIMP 3.0 for over a decade, which has non-destructive editing, as well as an upgrade to the UI toolkit (although actual UI changes are still to-do). They don't want it to be this way, development has just been insanely slow. Mostly due to lack of developers and donations, although that has been changing recently.
They planned to have GIMP 3.0 out by May, but with so many delays it might be a few months yet.
I think that's more what the people excited about AI think it it is, many of the people who fear it don't really fear its intelligence as much as how it's abused. Personally, I don't even like the machine learning algorithms in social media, despite them being a thing for a long time now.
I thought some Wayland compositors already supported 10 bit per channel colour?
I think it should be clarified that GIMP's structure isn't able to make use of donations to GIMP as a single entity. Edit: or at least wasn't, I hear they can now.
I agree that Krita is more promising though, I switched to Krita years ago and have never looked back.
From what I understand, GIMP fell behind because it refused corporate donations while Krita accepted them. This lead to GIMP reducing in scope as the 1-3 part-time* developers (at least when I last really looked into it) realised they'd never catch up, leading to people donating less as they weren't satisfied with GIMP's simultaneous underpromising and underdelivering. Meanwhile Krita managed to receive enough money to hire a team of full time developers for several years, leading to better software, to more donations. It's like the poverty trap, but with software.
Since I use Ubuntu Touch, I'm a bit frustrated with the state of government apps only supporting Android and IOS. Recently managed to finally run Android apps on it, but they still don't all work perfectly. I understand that it's not something most people know about let alone use, but I fear that if any government app becomes essential that we lock in the existing duopoly, at least in Australia. At least if it was open source it could perhaps be ported over.
I also forgot: houses became more expensive during the majority of the pandemic, while borders were closed. There was a short period with a fall, but only because they shot up sharply in the beginning.
I don't buy the idea that immigration is the cause of the housing crisis, any more than young Australians buying their first home. I'm not even sure if it's the investors either. They all may be sources of demand pressure, but I think there's a sort of blockage in Australia's housing market, and I would pin the blame of high housing costs on that blockage.
We live in an economy that assumes that the basic ideas of supply and demand lead to capital investment into production, leading to more supply. In housing, the way it's expected to react to increased immigration is as follows:
Except as we all know, it doesn't do that, at least with housing. In particular, I think steps 3, 4 and 5 don't follow in the modern Australian market. I think the key to solving the housing crisis, short of the government building it all themselves, is to figure out why 3, 4 and 5 don't follow, and to change things so that they do.
It might look like decreasing immigration would at least alleviate demand pressure, but that's just kicking the can down the road. There isn't enough housing supply for demand caused by our natural birth rate, and so we're accumulating demand pressure anyway. I view it as a distraction from discussing real solutions, that allow housing prices to not just increase more slowly, but fall.
I guess we just have different perspectives on how things currently are then, I view it as already the case that structural discrimination is at play, and that it's very embedded into Australian government and society.
A referendum isn’t needed to consult with people.
While that does seem to be mostly correct, I think it's also complicated. As I'm sure many people have said, previous consultative bodies have been abolished several times, and could only consult with the executive branch. This constitutional change will also enable representations be made to the legislative branch.
Could they have just tried to do so without a constitutional change? Probably. Yet they aren't without reason for putting it in the constitution either.
And people shouldn’t be included/excluded from consultation just because of their race/culture/heritage.
People are right now, but perhaps not in ways explicitly stated by law. If we were a new country with a clean slate I might think this voice wouldn't be necessary. Not only do we have a history of excluding people based on race, but I can see in the community that we still do so, and that will continue unless put a stop to.
I understand the unease of putting a specifically indigenous voice in there, but from what I understand even if parliament gives it the most power possible, it will still be less powerful than a traditional lobby group, only able to table discussions and research. Discussions I think should have happened decades ago.
It's not a perfect solution, I don't think I've met anybody who truly thinks that. But my opinion is that it would provide overall more help than harm, especially considering that I think the government's inability to listen is structural, and not just individual fault.
I think this is a false dichotomy and an over-simplistic view of the game industry. Remember, there are far more indie games than AAA, so of course they're going to earn less, there are more to choose from. Plus, if an indie game does too well, it often stops being indie. Most of the money for AAA games is from the same few people paying thousands of dollars in many small purchases too.
Anecdotally, most people's favourite games are, or at least started off as indie games. However, most people's least favourite are going to be indie as well. I think the thing with indie games is that they vary a lot, often exploring things that many publishers simply aren't willing to. This allows them to find and fill a niche perfectly that a publisher can never fill. The main thing is that people see this and start making their own indie games, leading to market saturation pretty quickly.
Plus, the vast majority of people still don't have 4K monitors. It may be the future, but you seem to think that's where we are now when we just aren't.