Ross Scott

Windflow: I'll bring this up for the next videochat. I think it's a complicated situation, though of course I like players having the option to play the game how they want.

This is a blog post. To read the original post, please click here » Here's the latest videochat, many topics discussed! Also in this video is a followup to the Ross Rants: Robot Jobs video from not long ago if you want to hear more about that (it starts at 6:07). As for the highlights, the next Game Dungeon will hopefully be out in a few days, then I'll be working on the Planetside 2 Recruitment video. I also hope to make a huge dent in emails and getting other projects underway this month. It's possible I'll have an additional Game Dungeon this month, but I can't say for certain yet. More stuff coming either way! COMMENTS

I promise it's actually just a coincidence.

This is a blog post. To read the original post, please click here » Back by popular demand! Moon Gaming returns in another episode. You may want to check this one out, even if you weren't a fan of the original, as this one happened to deal with many of the criticisms of the previous one. Also, the next videochat is at 4pm EST on April 3rd at twitch.tv/rossbroadcast COMMENTS

This is a blog post. To read the original post, please click here » I was on the GOGcast a couple weeks ago where we talked about various topics, but games dying in particular. For those that don't know, GOG.com is an online store that sells games without any DRM. They're also known for getting a lot of older titles runnable again on modern systems. Anyway, the format is structured a lot like the Co-Optional podcast I was on earlier. I think there was a lot of good discussion, although we may have gone in circles a little too much talking about games being killed, but it's obviously something I can get carried away on. More videos coming before too long! COMMENTS

This is a blog post. To read the original post, please click here » Well I have some minor bad news. First, I ran into some complications with the next Game Dungeon and it's going to have to be delayed several days. My plan is to get it released shortly after the next videochat. Second, I received so many varied comments on the Robot Jobs video, I was going to create a followup video to that. Unfortunately the footage to that got screwed up, so I decided to scrap it. I'll try and address some of the bigger followup comments I had when I do the videochat on April 3, however. Speaking of the videochat, if you have questions for the next videochat, you can post them in the comments below. COMMENTS

The blurring is on my end, the coloring is Youtube's doing. Well the upside is if a problem is severe enough, it can't be ignored. In a way, that's less dangerous than chipping away at rights, livelihood, working conditions, etc. small bits at a time.

That article is over a year old. Since then we've seen levels of air pollution in Beijing 40x the safe limit: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/07/beijing-pollution-red-alert-smog-engulfs-capital According to this one, air pollution is killing 4000 people a day in China, accounting for 17% of all deaths: http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/18/china-air-pollution-far-worse-than-thought-study.html To me, that's a totally unacceptable cost of doing business and means we should rethink how we're doing everything. It actually HAS improved overall in 2015, but only by about 6% since 2014, which I still think is insane for what's essentially a state of emergency. China is a massive country, of course it won't be all polluted. But pollution levels in key industrial areas are simply atrocious. I think it's largely the result of our manufacturing base being moved there. We had godawful pollution in the Rust Belt previously, and LA was known for very bad levels as well. I think it has less to do with us cleaning it up, and more with us outsourcing it. I am very aware that Western demand contributes to this. I would scale down everything I did if I thought that would impact things, but I'm just an individual, this would have to be a macro-level effort. I think the only sane way to reduce pollution will be to reduce resource use across the board, though that's not something our culture is accustomed to. I also think you're framing the situation in a dishonest manner. I don't consider trade restrictions based on practices that would be illegal in our country because of how harmful they are to the environment to be "bullying." Furthermore, you're implying that 1.4 billion Chinese living in poverty is entirely the USA's responsibility with signing a trade agreement with them. Why is the fate of that many Chinese suddenly the USA's responsibility? Furthermore, calling it unethical, feels more like a blackmail tactic in discussing this. It reminds me of Congress calling awful legislation something positive. Like the Patriot Act taking away a massive amount of rights. Surely, you're a patriot and not anti-American, regardless of what's written in that act? I see this tactic as the same thing. I feel that entire framing is disingenuous. It's looking at one single element to a very complex problem and taking a "you're either part of the help, or part of the problem" attitude and is a way to shut down discussion and is not a process that leads to finding better solutions. If a modification was made to the agreement that we would agree to trade IF more stringent environmental laws were enforced, would that suddenly jeopardize the entire population of China, or more likely, would they still agree, but then the companies running these would make less profits because they would have to invest more money in cleanup and pollution control? Now your point about how other countries would move in is certainly a possibility, however, I think that's saying the environment is screwed either way, and better to make money off and be part of the problem than not. I think leading by example would be the better approach, even if that doesn't maximize profit. The economy would have to be shored up in other ways, which again, why this is a very complex problem. The thing is, implying that not moving forward with trade that I believe will exacerbate the pollution situation I feel is extremely short sighted. You framed what I said as caring more about the environment than the people, which again, I find disingenuous and it's trying to make me look like the villain, when in reality I think what we're doing would not be a "solution" at all, except for the short term and would make things worse in the long term. Say we sign it and see prosperity among the Chinese people for a few years. How many are going to die from cancer because of the increased industry? How many will be dead 20, or 40 years from now because of long-term damage to environment? Furthermore, does this establish a precedent that it's just okay to pollute for profit, making laws in the future more lax, leading to even more deaths from it? Of course I don't want the Chinese people to suffer from it, but I think we're borrowing against the future if environmental factors aren't considered. I care about humanity as a whole, not just for today. Taking out a payday loan to pay for groceries and rent today is great for the short term, but creates far more problems in the long term, I see a lack of concern for the environment to be the same thing. Anyway, I feel like this could go on for ages and you likely have many varied points, but I can't debate this sort of thing any further with the tactics you're using, sorry. Specifically, presenting what I consider 2 flawed approaches to a complex situation, then saying I'm unethical and don't care about people if I'm against option A. I think it's ironic that you're calling me being wary of legislation that I think will harm the environment as "bullying", all things considered. Anyway, you're free to discuss this more of course, but I think I'm done with discussing this with you, since I need more of a rational discourse to finding out the truth of the matter. Your accusatory approach is not how to win me over on anything.

Somebody emailed me this with the same argument. I'm just going to copy / paste my response here: If the bottom line for a company drops, that's no guarantee that leads to price savings passed on to the consumer. That typically only happens in highly competitive markets. Sometimes that is the case, in other oligopoly situations, it's clearly not. ISPs are an easy target. Here in Europe, I can get 5Mbps internet for $5 as there is lots of competition. In the USA, I've never lived anywhere I could get broadband for less than $40, despite massive subsidies from the government to fund it. While Google fiber has disrupted this somewhat, for many years (and still in many other places), companies have essentially agreed to keep prices at a set range in order to optimize profits. Competition, while good for the consumer, isn't good for profits. Large corporations prefer not to compete when they have that option. The music industry is another example. CDs were initially more expensive than cassettes when they came out because they involved initial increased production costs and a more attractive product. Eventually production costs collapsed (CDs are far cheaper to produce than cassettes once outfitted), however, the prices never came down. Also, digital copies of new videogames tend to cost the exact same price as physical copies, despite lower costs. Printer ink cartridges cost far, far more to purchase than they do to produce, but again, companies have collectively agreed to keep them higher in order to maximize profits. No one is undercutting one another. While it's certainly a possibility, I think there's no reason to ASSUME prices will drop if the fast food industry switched over to robotic cooks. Not only will the companies be eager to recoup their initial investment costs, but if similar deals are struck across fast food companies (or the first one to automate establishes the standards), they could remain the same. Maybe more attention could be paid to packaging and presentation (or nicer building furnishings) of the meal to try justify it in the minds of the consumer. After all, the public is already used to the current prices. Why rock the boat? Alternately, say if McDonald's automates first. Burger King might see the opportunity to undercut them by 10% once they automate later, however, they're unlikely to do so. Price wars are often not in corporations' best interests if agreements can be struck instead. It could be far more profitable for BK to continue competing with McDonald's charging similarly inflated prices than it would be to try and undercut them. It could be a losing strategy in the long term and lower profits in the short term. Either way, it means a lot of risk, another thing corporations don't like. That's sometimes true, however, money velocity in the USA is currently at an all time low (or close to it). In scenarios like that, the money is not getting invested as much as it being hoarded.

See this is a good example of "one side of the story." It's long, but I recommend reading this article. HSBC had a whistleblower against it, a long trail of evidence spanning a decade, and a DOJ scared to bring criminal charges. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/gangster-bankers-too-big-to-jail-20130214?page=4 Here's a few highlights: "They violated every goddamn law in the book," says Jack Blum, an attorney and former Senate investigator who headed a major bribery investigation against Lockheed in the 1970s that led to the passage of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. "They took every imaginable form of illegal and illicit business." Anyway, this goes on and on and your article doesn't address half of what's mentioned. This is at the core of why I sometimes need multiple sources on some topics. As for the TPP, I'll let someone else tackle that. I will say though that you said every economist thinks free-trade is great, but it also treats the environment as an externality. China's current pollution would currently be criminal in the USA. I personally think we should reduce trade as much as possible with countries that don't enforce environmental laws, otherwise they have no profit incentive to reduce the pollution. My understanding is while there are a few weak provisions, the TPP would in reality curb pollution no more than something like NAFTA did.

That was more in response to this quote: It was an attempt to show they ARE eating up more money. As for the rest of your points, you probably won't like this, but I'll make this as simple as I can: I think it IS fair to look at median wages (and benefits) over average since that gives a clearer picture as to what's happening. Similarly, looking at the bottom 70% represents the majority of people. There was a headline not long ago about the middle class shrinking as more people are being pushed towards lower or upper class, so we're seeing an increased stratification of society. Increased benefits for those who are already middle-upper or upper class doesn't stabilize a society. I'm not an expert on this. It could be all this is wrong and you're 100% right, however, as a layman, I'm seeing both sides present good-SOUNDING information and it's difficult for me to discern the difference for who has legitimate points and who doesn't (or if it's a mixture of both). Typically in situations like this I try to look at competing experts and see who seems to have the more well-reasoned argument. We currently don't have that here, so I'm kind of lost. As such, I'm unable to properly debate this with you. I think I might be able to get a firmer grasp of it, but it would take me many hours and I have to make more videos. Again, even if the points raised by that article are completely bogus, they're presented in such a way that I can tell the difference between valid information v. misinformation (this is going to get its own rant topic later on). So I hope I'm clear here: I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying both sides of this debate are arguing at a level above me, so I can't tell the truth from the myth. In these situations, just seeing the argument from one side isn't enough for me, I need to have it distilled down from both to something I can understand. To put in another way, pretend you want to know what flavor jelly donuts are: Person 1: They're clearly raspberry, the manufacturer states it, plus it's the sensible solution under the Law of Brookerberg. Person 2: It's orange, the raspberry data is manufactured, orange has been supported by the Quantuf theory. (I look up law of brookerberg and it talks about using raspberries more efficiently in pastry use. The Quantuf theory talks about the number of oranges in relation to the amount of donuts in circulation. I leave still not knowing what the fuck is going on). That's where I am with this. I will say though, I have LOADS of personal anecdotes about people being harder pressed financially (though that's hardly quantifiable), however I am seeing other trends to suggest that there is wealth extraction occurring (besides the stuff I mentioned): -HSBC (too big to jail) got off with a slap on the wrist for laundering money for Al Qaeda and other criminal organizations for over a decade. The DOJ let them off the hook, NOBODY goes to jail. To me this screams of regulatory capture. -Our biggest employers are places like Wal-Mart, McDonald's, Kroger, Home Depot, Target; not places known for their amazing wages. -We bailed out the banks and other companies, despite protest to congress from the American people. The vote initially didn't pass, but Henry Paulson and friends managed to get it through anyway. -Areas in the rust belt are almost 3rd world status in terms of poverty, with Detroit having water cut off to people, the water recent scandal in Flint, etc. -Lobbying has grown to the tens of millions. This suggest policies that favor those with a lot of money to spend, as opposed to average workers. -The TPP appears absolutely monstrous and is not something that would benefit average workers. I think this is another indicator of the power shift we're seeing. -My understanding is our money velocity is at a current low, which is not something associated with average workers having discretionary income. -I mentioned earlier how we need about 3.6 trillion to maintain current infrastructure. That level of neglect also does not suggest a healthy economy where there is plenty of money to take care of these things. Anyway, I tend to notice small trends like that which add up to a picture in my brain, and on a personal level, prior to the beg-a-thon, I would have been in trouble myself, despite my output remaining semi-constant over the years. Anyway, if things are getting better, I think I need a lot more evidence of that than what I've seen and I apologize I'm not on a level to fully grasp your arguments regarding the benefit wages. But hey, good news! The next Game Dungeon won't be on economics at all. You know, I said "I don't know the answer", in the video, but I think some people hear what they want to. Anyway, as for it being overly-leftist, my answer to everyone is the same on this: If you don't like those ideas, fine, suggest an ALTERNATE solution. That's kind of the point of this, I don't know the solution, but I can predict where we're going if we do NOTHING. I'm going to disagree and say "this is not happening" is not a solution. Even if you don't believe it, pretend it IS happening, what would you suggest then? I have to correct you here. As someone who has worked on hundreds of systems before, I think what you mean is precise machinery (specifically integrated circuits) is MANUFACTURED only in a very clean environment. Once it's made, it can operate in any number of conditions, depending on its design. As for your points: 1. I have less data on this, but I think it will vary a lot from field to field. My understanding is the amount of people getting displaced will greatly outnumber the new opportunties, creating a negative net effect. 2. This will start step by step. Robots are unlikely to replace sweatshop tier labor anytime soon, but a fast food cook? I can EASILY see how they could be gone. 3. Fast food jobs and trucking jobs are both service occupations. That's 15 million jobs right there. Again, I was never suggesting ALL jobs will be replaced, but a large enough number to cause a disruption, 4. I always assumed there would be some overseeing. Say a McDonald's has 12 people working a shift. If you had a fully automated kitchen, you could cut that number down to 3-4. So again, not ALL jobs being lost, but enough that it causes big waves.

It could be I'm wrong then on that point. Wouldn't the articles about the new jobs we're getting paying less still hold up however? I'm kind of tired and I sense this is something that could go on for pages with no real resolution, so I'll try and keep it simple: -I'm not trying to intentionally misrepresent anything (unless it's obvious and funny), I'm just working with the best data I could find. I'm not an expert on this. -Even if your graph is accurate, I think there are MANY other indicators that a lot of wealth is flowing towards the top, way too many for a video not focused on that. Here's a sample one: http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/09/10/some-95-of-2009-2012-income-gains-went-to-wealthiest-1/ -There's a direct rebuttal to the data you're mentioning: http://www.epi.org/blog/compensationproductivity-link-broken-vast/ I think this is the point that stands out for me. I operate under the assumption that anyone willing to work who has their survival threatened by not being able to (either through circumstance or ability) is exposing a problem in our whole system, not the individual.

About 3.6 Trillion worth. http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/ I received so many comments regarding this video, I may make a short follow-up video next month covering all the stuff needing clarification or unaddressed points. Sorry about the real unemployment thing, the main thing I was after is we normally don't count the following: -People underemployed (who want to work full time, but can only get part time) -People who are looking, but haven't been hired in over 6 months -Discouraged workers (who want to work, but have essentially given up) I wasn't thinking of people age 16, nor retirees. EDIT: Feel free to help me out with some data covering a more realistic scenario of the employment situation based on that. The point is the official rate isn't very representative.

This is a blog post. To read the original post, please click here » Here's a video I meant to have out this time last month! This one got delayed for various reasons. I almost had to scrap all of it due to an error with the camera while recording. For whatever reason, my camera likes to re-enable auto-focus in between shots after setting in manually. There is no way to permanently turn it off. I forgot to triple-check that it was still off, and thus a whole lot of the footage ended up too blurry to use. I ended up being able to salvage enough of it to complete the video. I cleaned it up the best I could, but it does mean the visual quality on this is definitely lower than average. I figured people would rather see a lower-definition video rather than none at all, so here it is. As for the topic, I don't plan on restricting Ross Rants to just gaming topics, I'm thinking I may alternate back and forth. This is one that's been on my mind for a while, it's certainly a litmus test for how humanity will deal with its approaching problems. In retrospect, it's not very rant-y, but I think I'll more than make that up on the next one I have planned. Also I can't tell you how badly I wanted to use the to Short Circuit in this video (which I consider the best robot-themed music ever made), but I was concerned it would trip up the copyright police and something that would probably cost thousands to license. Anyway, expect some more videos soon, it will be a few days, but I'm going try and get the next Game Dungeon out ASAP! COMMENTS

This is a blog post. To read the original post, please click here » This is short notice, but I've been invited to the GOGCast, a podcast hosted by GOG.com. It will be live tomorrow (March 17th) at 5PM EST at http://www.twitch.tv/gogcom. It will get hosted on Youtube later, I'll make another post when that happens. Also expect a new video in a couple days! EDIT: For those in Europe, this will be 10PM CET due to daylight savings time in America. COMMENTS

When I do a dedicated video to this topic in a few months, I hope to be able to contact the EFF, plus I'll reach out to every popular Youtuber I'm able to in hopes that I can spread the message. I also hope to set up a homepage where people can get data on just how many games have been killed and which ones are currently at risk. I'm going to be lazy and copy / paste what I wrote on Youtube: " I think what you may not realize is that EULAs are not legal documents. They can say anything. They are attempts of the parent company to protect themselves in the event of a dispute, but they don't supersede the law. In Europe, it's entirely possible they are in violation of consumer laws in many countries, and perhaps simply no one has bothered to call attention to it. Raising awareness about EULAs won't stop companies from continuing to write draconian ones, nor will it stop the average gamer from ignoring them. Companies like EA need incentive to change anything. That has to either come from relentless complaints from their fanbase, or actual legal action. In the USA, I think there is no legal protection for consumers in this manner, but in some European countries, there could be. If not having an end-of-life plan for their games means EA has to give up their entire European market, that could be enough of an incentive for them to stop killing games. "

This is a blog post. To read the original post, please click here » Back from the world of offline! Here's the monthly videochat from Sunday. I would have had this out sooner, but my internet went down while I was doing the chat and I didn't have any internet for 3 days afterward. My ISP got bought out by another provider and that caused a disruption to the service. Normally my internet connection is pretty good, at least the timing wasn't so bad as I was trying to wrap up the chat when I got disconnected. I think I rambled in this chat more than usual, but it's mostly like the others. Some announcements worth reading about are that I do intend to have an online meetup with fans in Planetside 2 and will have details on that later (hopefully this month), also more is discussed about companies killing games. I had the thought that this practice might actually be illegal in Europe, depending on the consumer protection laws in place for the various countries. If so, maybe some action could be taken to make EA feel actual legal or financial ramifications as what they're doing may actually violate consumer law in some countries, but no one has actually called them out on it yet. If that's the case, maybe we can do something on that front. If anyone knows more about consumer law in any European countries, you're welcome to email me about it. That's all for now, I'm running behind, but more videos coming this month! COMMENTS

Because I'm not sure where that option is No, I don't. I had to jettison most of what I owned when I moved to Europe. I even gave away almost all my discs and just made disc images of them instead since I had to cut down the weight on the plane.