I prefer to think that sounds like the average Cuban citizen is more interested in a quiet life and improving their standard of living more than complaining about political issues.
Please note in case you haven't been never in Cuba that Cubans are known for always says aloud what we thinks in any corner either in political or any other matters.
By gum! Still with that story about the Cuban secret police in 2016...
I'm Cuban and I'm now in Cuba, university professor, not affiliated to any political organization, and I check HN almost all days and personally I do not feel limited in any way, only by its high cost. In the same way private internet access is not illegal, is just nonexistent as option because most Cubans cannot afford the current costs of Internet infrastructure at home.
"Secret police" may have been the wrong term. The point is that the society is closely monitored by the authoritarian government and there is "widespread abuses of political rights and civil liberties". You and the author seem to imply that the problem is they need to lay more pipe, when the real problem is the authoritarian government is forbidding internet access in order prevent an Arab Spring in their country. This is a perfect example of why Obama's Cuba policy is such a fail. He could have easily negotiated freer internet access in exchange for U.S. trade agreements, but he did not, and the Cuban people are suffering as a result.
Given that freer internet access could be highly politically destabilising for the current regime I seriously doubt that Obama could "have easily negotiated freer internet access". The opposite would seem far more likely.
The Cuban people were already suffering - the US' new policy can start to change that. Nothing else will.
The math is simple, the Cuban average salary is around $20/month, current public internet rate is $2/hour. So, at least you receive an extra money, either from a family remittance, personal business or in my case from working as a freelance (BTW using Internet), you can't pay for much access time.
What about Unreal 4? I read that they support HTML5 pretty decently by using Emscripten. I really do not know what is their current status on that subject.
It's a push to call the Unreal 4 support decent. Unity at least have it as part of their product feature set. Unreal seem to do it only as a demonstration piece.
The problem with taking a engine like Unity or Unreal and compiling to javascript is that 1) they end up with very large blobs of javascript (Unity is around 5MB of JS for the webplayer alone) 2) It is impossible to optimize, debug or inspect any of that code in the target setting. Neither of these engines have ever demonstrated code running on mobile browsers for good reasons, they can't.
Meanwhile, engines designed specifically for the web, for example, PlayCanvas [https://playcanvas.com] let you create content that works on every device, down to the likes of the iPhone 4S and comes in much smaller download sizes. e.g.
All of which work on mobile browsers. The future of Web 3D is not compilation of desktop game engines. It's engine's designed to be web (and mobile) first.
If you can compile it, runs runs horribly horribly slowly. Sometimes the compiles work... some times not. Some things work, others not, but obviously thats not documented anywhere, its just trial and error.
Dont bother. Its lightyears worse than unity, and thats saying something.
