Yesn’t?

Like, the whole point of a public traded company is that anyone can come in and give money to the company and, in turn, they get money when the company is doing well, so the money you’ve paid is, hopefully, not lost.

I don’t know about you, but on paper, that sounds like bonds and basically every type of debt in existence.

The difference is the perpetual ownership of the company by shareholders. Consider someone who lent a company 20k, they now have an asset that grew immensely in value, it gives them money quarterly/yearly/whatever, AND they have decision power on the company, despite the fact that they have earned 100x what they lent.

Just changing the idea of stock to be something with an expiration date would remove most of the weirdness of the system, but at that point it isn’t really a public-traded company, is it?

Even then you can just add a higher interest rate. You absolutely don’t need to held the company hostage until the heat death of the universe.

The issue is the perpetual ownership.

If I lend you money, you only own me the money I’ve lended+interest. I’m not going to have a stake on your future businesses, nor have any decision power over you, it isn’t in my power to make sure you squeeze the most money possible over your job. You pay the money back and we are done.

Even if a social network loses 99,99% of the user base due to charging to use it, those left are the ones that see no problem paying to use it, so they are more likely to eat up some insane pricing, which would help recoup losses from a smaller user base. Basically whales.

I think the only way to try to kill a social network is by going full scorched earth on it. Remove all your comments, or change them to be an annoying copy pasted comment about why you’re getting off the platform. And even then I don’t think it is helpful, I did that with Reddit but was forced to leave technical posts intact because I feared I might prevent someone from solving their issue.

This website provides a better explanation and use cases than anything I could write. Some of the highlights:

• Newer games that run too slow at the resolution you would like them to run at (you can render games at 720p and play at 4k)
• Very old games insisting on running in a tiny (like 320x200) window (ie. xrick).
• Games and applications who insist on running full-screen with no option to make them appear in a window if a window is what you want for a particular game or application (many scene demos will only run full screen at your current resolution).
• Running older, non-widescreens games that do not support borderless fullscreen on Intel graphics with a desktop/external display (this is because Intel graphics do not support the --set “scaling mode” “Preserve aspect” xrandr argument on desktop/external displays)

Interestingly, Gamescope also provides a way to independently set max frame rate for the game when it is focused and unfocused, you could set it up to something really low when unfocused. Also interesting is the upscale options, you could use integer scaling for those old games, or force FSR on any title (although results can be mixed because the game UI will also be upscaled).

Gamescope becomes a very interesting option when you use it on a machine that doesn’t have easy access to a keyboard and mouse, like a handheld, a “consolized” PC or even a “normal” PC that double duties as a “console” (playing games on a couch, despite using a desk for normal usage)

Like, I remember a friend of mine saying he had trouble running Sonic Generations on Windows because depending on what he was doing, he was either playing it on a monitor or on a TV. The Game for some reason detects that change and throws a fit, asking the user to reconfigure its graphical settings. Gamescope can lie to the game and force the game to see an arbitrary resolution.