I can understand OP’s confusion, though.

For move and copy it’s pretty certain which is the ‘from’ and which is the ‘to’ - the order intuitively makes sense.

For symlinks it’s more ambiguous based on your personal mental model.

For example, if you think about symlinks from the perspective of the original file before a link is created, then the original file represents the ‘from’ and the link is the ‘to’ (CORRECT)

But if you are thinking from the perspective of using a link after it’s created, then you can easily imagine the symlink as the ‘from’ - because that’s where you start when you follow it, and the target file/dir as the ‘to’ - because that’s where you arrive after following it. (INCORRECT)

So I totally get the ambiguity.

Makes sense, thanks

Why?

Genuine question. I haven’t really used peertube.

This is the way it should be.

I already gave the whole damn week to my job. If I sleep all weekend just so I’m rested and ready for Monday, then I’m basically giving them my whole weekend, too!

No. The weekend is MINE.

Exactly according to plan.

When someone buys a used physical game, publishers don’t get any of that money, and the publishers want that money.

Digital-only is how they get it.

I mean, the root cause here, if you look at the bigger picture, is that EVERYTHING is getting more expensive and EVERYONE is getting poorer.

Nobody would expect supermarket prices in a pub, it’s obviously going to be more, and that’s expected. It’s not that people don’t want to go out, it’s that they can’t afford to go out the amount they’d like, because the working class is broke.

I do agree that swapping the VAT around would be fair, because booze is only a component of a supermarket’s business while it’s a mainstay of a pub’s business, but that’s not the main reason people aren’t going out anymore. People are drinking less and less even at home, too, especially younger generations.

The food is one thing but the drinks are all good, and great prices. They have guest ales from local-area breweries too, rather than only having nationally available stuff.

So I honestly can’t complain about the drink.

The article basically answers its own questions in the conclusion that we’ve pretty much reached the ‘final form’ for consoles - Just like with phones.

In the early 2000’s phones were all manner of wild designs with weird shapes and crazy functionality, but now we’ve settled on the ubiquitous black rectangle of the smartphone. So too now has the console settled on this, a single screen with buttons on the sides.

We saw the lead-up to this long ago with Nintendo’s own evolving line of handhelds, and Sony’s PSP and Vita, and now we’ve seen it on the PC side too with the Steam Deck.

Even Sony are trying to move into making their main console a handheld - the only reason Nintendo were able to get there first is they were willing to do their classic move, and go with a low-power device without much grunt, and rely on the fun-factor of the games to make it good.

Imagine if next cycle Nintendo came out with a dual screen beast, a-la the DS. These days, more and more games on consoles are cross-platform and work on all systems, with few exclusives. That doesn’t work so well if your system has super unique hardware and deviates too far from the single black rectangle. They’d be shooting themselves in the foot.

I think if Nintendo do something truly off-the-wall again, it will only be because there has been some new tech shift in the market and Nintendo jump in to get first mover advantage. Like a new type of VR that works super seamlessly, or something none of us have though of yet.

But for now here we are. The ubiquitous black rectangle has arrived.

Even at $100 it’s a pretty reasonable time/compensation ratio, assuming you only have to spend like 10 minutes on actual performance time.

Of course there is potentially travel time and the overhead of communicating ahead of time to set up the prank.

May not be worth it if you have a full time job already.

Okay yes sometimes it’s the developer lol.

I guess my point is that the software dev process is a team effort and preventing copy paste is not normally done “just for funsies”, or intentionally to frustrate the user, or because it’s standard developer practice - there’s normally a motivating cause, and it just so happens that the developer in this case happens to be the same person who has to do support for end users, and that’s where the requirement had come from.

The reason preventing copy-paste is a go-to-hell crime (even if there are reasons) is because there are much better ways for a business to solve whatever problem motivated them disabling it. In this example for instance, send an email the user can click that proves ownership. Much less user-hostile than having them type it twice without copy-paste.

To be fair, this was probably not the programmer’s fault, but rather the Product Owner or User Experience Designer that decided it should be so.

Often these things are well-intentioned, but misguided.

Preventing pasting of password for example might have been done with the thought “If we make the user confirm their password by typing it manually a second time, they will be less likely to create their account with a wrong password” - nice idea, but shortsighted. Preventing paste may mean password managers don’t work, or your 70 year old grandmother can’t paste it in from whatever Word document she keeps all her passwords in.

And someone might argue “people shouldn’t be keeping their password in a word doc!” and that might be true, but it’s not the role of UX to enforce best practice.

I think modern UX is getting better, because the recognition is now that the role of UX is to allow the user to work in the way which suits them, recognising that not all users work the same way or have the same needs. Preventing copy-paste is a roadblock, and you shouldn’t do it.

So yeah, any site that stops me copying or pasting in 2025 can certainly go to hell.