Mondez

Not really, because it doesn't guarantee any specific individual in that population has any of the populations likely traits, it's only useful in aggregate for things like prioritising screening for certain genetic conditions for people of particular back ground. It's useless to determine if someone will be an excellent sprinter or a fighter pilot because ultimately you still have to test every individual anyhow and it doesn't really tell you anything about the "tree" of human evolution which is really a bunch of thick branches all tightly fused together into an indistinguishable single branch.

It's because there aren't distinct populations like you perhaps imagine them being, it's more like a smeared colour pallet where one area might be a bit more red or a bit more blue but it's hard to say a specific area is pure blue. The distinct features or populations exist as statistical probabilities based on likely ancestry for a given area. Any given individual in a population probably doesn't express all the "unique" features, but over the total population those features are most prevalent.

Regarding Neanderthals and denisovian populations, they were probably more like what we'd call subspecies in other animals than truly distinct species from modern humans, isolated long enough to build up some unique genetic markers but not quite long enough to be fully separate.

Doesn't matter if not everyone is traveling far to reproduce, it only takes a few people to introduce a blob of diversity into an otherwise isolated population and suddenly all their ancestors become contributors to that areas gene pool. Without repeated introductions it won't form a large part but it will form part. For example most people have direct neanderthal and denisovian ancestors and it's not estimated that pairing between modern humans and those populations were all that regular an event and yet their genes are everywhere.

It's worth noting that distinct lineages only really happen where there is reproductive isolation and that especially in the modern world no one has a "pure" lineage. Instead you have genetic composition that might have a larger influence from one ancestral population over an other.

Doesn't Anna's Archive mirror libgen amongst other things?

But there are games that have the same problems today, they just look better because they have higher resolution assets but as still riddled with bugs and control issues.

Maximising their return on investment presumably figuring that the increased fee will bring in more money despite some customers cancelling.

Better by which objective metric? Amount of content? Total size of game code and data? Got to disagree with you otherwise.

I'd argue that is true of any generation, a few games are must plays and endure as such, then there are many that are just okay even at the time and then a bunch of crap it's hardly worth playing.

Yeah, that isn't how economics work, they increased the price because they believe it will be a more profitable price point. I guess they could argue they lost the price sensitive customers to piracy and are just giving up on that segment and focusing on the people who just pay whatever?

Tell that to console manufacturers. Or Apple for that matter.

Technicality of usage rights is very relevant, framing as a purchase where it actually isn't is dishonest and the fact that they make more money being dishonest doesn't make it right. Other than that you used an awful lot of words to basically agree with me.