Underground 2 Revived runs Need for Speed Underground 2 in Chrome and Firefox via WebAssembly, with thousands of players free roaming Bayview online again.
Been there too. I think it was Warner Brothers (at the time) that had a hissy fit about a review of a game. They didn’t like the review: they wanted advertising rather than editorial. We told them to talk to the sales department.
Yeah whenever I link to a science article I always include a link to the paper that it is written about if it is open access in my lemmy posts and yet in the damn popscience articles I am linking to from reputable websites they hide the links to the actual research as if to condescend you or send the message it isn’t for you… even when the research is OPEN ACCESS.
Why is it hidden in a blue link in the body of the article amid 40 other tangentially relevant blue links? …or why is the link put as a fineprint at the bottom of the article rather than being emphasized as the thing the article is talking about???
It is pathetic and it pisses me off. It is one of the reasons I am so motivated to link directly to open access research when covering it in a general news context.
longer bit on my perspective about public science advocacy
I don’t know who someone reading my post is, they could be a dog, a PHD, a bot, a farmer… who knows why should I assume they wouldn’t be interested in taking a glance at the actual paper? Do you even know yourself well enough to know you aren’t the kind of person that might be interested in the actual science until we design media so that the link to papers is displayed clearly and naturally, not to pressure anyone into it but rather as a trap to lure in and grab onto curious minds and send them on a journey?!
I genuinely think this changes how people perceive science in general when they can peak in, flip through a couple of current scientific papers, ask a couple of questions and be like “cool, I never thought about that!” and then move on. The status quo of Elsevier slapping you with a $45 price tag to read an article you might find useless or indecipherable is just insulting and in my opinion pushes the general public towards feeling fundamentally seperated from science. I also find it insufferable when scientists and writers claim the average person isn’t going to read a complex scientific paper to which again I reiterate I don’t like to assume I know who the people will be that read my posts/links, I have no idea! Maybe they don’t know either, so why not? Don’t we all win just a tiny bit if someone checks out a scientific paper just briefly out of mild curiousity? I think we do…
Why do “news” sites always forget to put links to external resources?
Because you might click the link and leave the news site.
Source: worked in the industry, literally told this.
Publisher relations is another reason. I don’t think EA appreciates this.
Been there too. I think it was Warner Brothers (at the time) that had a hissy fit about a review of a game. They didn’t like the review: they wanted advertising rather than editorial. We told them to talk to the sales department.
Do you remember which game it was?
A very early Harry Potter game, 2001. Surprise, it was EA.
Yeah whenever I link to a science article I always include a link to the paper that it is written about if it is open access in my lemmy posts and yet in the damn popscience articles I am linking to from reputable websites they hide the links to the actual research as if to condescend you or send the message it isn’t for you… even when the research is OPEN ACCESS.
Why is it hidden in a blue link in the body of the article amid 40 other tangentially relevant blue links? …or why is the link put as a fineprint at the bottom of the article rather than being emphasized as the thing the article is talking about???
It is pathetic and it pisses me off. It is one of the reasons I am so motivated to link directly to open access research when covering it in a general news context.
longer bit on my perspective about public science advocacy
I don’t know who someone reading my post is, they could be a dog, a PHD, a bot, a farmer… who knows why should I assume they wouldn’t be interested in taking a glance at the actual paper? Do you even know yourself well enough to know you aren’t the kind of person that might be interested in the actual science until we design media so that the link to papers is displayed clearly and naturally, not to pressure anyone into it but rather as a trap to lure in and grab onto curious minds and send them on a journey?!
I genuinely think this changes how people perceive science in general when they can peak in, flip through a couple of current scientific papers, ask a couple of questions and be like “cool, I never thought about that!” and then move on. The status quo of Elsevier slapping you with a $45 price tag to read an article you might find useless or indecipherable is just insulting and in my opinion pushes the general public towards feeling fundamentally seperated from science. I also find it insufferable when scientists and writers claim the average person isn’t going to read a complex scientific paper to which again I reiterate I don’t like to assume I know who the people will be that read my posts/links, I have no idea! Maybe they don’t know either, so why not? Don’t we all win just a tiny bit if someone checks out a scientific paper just briefly out of mild curiousity? I think we do…
Agreed on the slop part. There’s a Twitter post embedded with a link to the site in the article.