you can’t use most open source code “however you like” either
Alright, sure my language was overly broad. "The licensing is restrictive in a way which makes it clearly not open source." would have been a better choice.
...the main restriction with unreal engine is that you can’t mix it with copyleft licenses and you can’t use it commercially.
So, it's not open source.
...but you can do what most people want to do, modify, extend, fix, learn. that’s the most relevant thing for what we are talking about here
That still doesn't make it open source, mainly because you are missing one of biggest aspects, distribution.
It's why I still have Google Fi. When I switched it was because both Verizon and T-Mobile had pissed me off and I wanted to try something new. Haven't had any issues in the years since and I'll likely keep it up until the moment Google gives me a reason to switch.
keep in mind that unreal engine is also open source.
The Unreal Engine is not open source by any reasonable definition of open source. Being "source available" is not the same as open source, as you can't use the code whoever you like.
ISPs are one of those industries where you are likely going to be choosing the lesser of evils. And as much as Google sucks, I would choose them if the alternative was Comcast.
Long are the days that devs would need to write their own tools and even engines to put the game running. Some (like Naughty Dog) would even hack the hardware in order to bypass limitations of it.
Re-using engines has been around for basically as long as game development has existed. This idea of some mythical age when game development was more "pure" is a fantasy. What has changed is that expectations on AAA titles has grown to the point where it's extremely difficult to roll your own engine if you are committed to many, many years of work.
Not to mention, it certainly doesn't guarantee that the engine performs well. Look at Starfield or Baldur's Gate 3. Both have noticeable issues with performance, and both are built on in-house engines by their respective studios.
I guess it depends on how much you trust a company (both now and in the future) to do something they shouldn't with this kind of setup, whether on purpose or though incompetence.
Personally, I don't software silently installing unrelated services to my machine just in case the company decides they want to have it running on my machine in the future.
Within a system you can bring up the "scanner tool" view in the ship to then point yourself to a planet and travel that way.
But to to travel to various systems, yes you'll need to use a menu. But then I'm not sure how you would expect to fly between systems without some form of menu to select where you want to go.
That's surprising to hear. Netflix has always been a step above, Hulu is decently behind. The rest are pretty rough from my perspective, but slowly getting better over time. Amazon was definitely miserable to use for a long time and I don't think had anything but a basic "fast-forward/rewind" functionality with no thumbnails for quite a while.
The Peacock app and streaming has been hit or miss on plenty of occasions.
I think the worse is the Disney app that makes it difficult to just replay a movie that's already been watched. It likes to resume at the end of the credits of the episode you want to watch rather than realize I want to watch the whole episode not just the final 10 seconds of credits. Or that switching between an episode when watching something from your "Previously Watched" list means finding the series on an entirely separate list in the UI.
It's hard to block mergers based on a company involved being a monopoly if none of the companies involved are monopolies or will become monopolies.
Regulators have to come up with a different set of rules to block "large but not monopolistic mergers" without also just effectively protecting the actual leader in a given industry from competition.