

This isn’t about deriving meaning necessarily, but recognizing what word a word is. Take the example statement “the technique is ubiquitous across the nation.”
What you’re describing is using context clues to determine that ‘ubiquitous’ is an adjective to describe the technique and maybe that it has to do with how much it exists across the nation.
The technique described above is a counterpart to phonics. If you had never seen the word ‘ubiquitous’ before you could still phonetically parse out yoo(maybe “uh”)-bih-qui-tuss. With three-cueing, if ‘ubiquitous’ is a brand new word for you, you might pronounce it ‘all’ because that’s the word you already know that might make sense in that sentence. My understanding is that you’re not recognizing that those are two distinct but similar words, you’re just trained to guess at what the sentence is trying to say.













They tolerate those because they open when someone runs their game through Steam. How many people purchase through those platforms though? And what does that have to do with what I’m saying?
In a hypothetical situation where someone develops a service better than Steam, why is it entitlement to think people should use that better service? In the article I read (the one in the post we’re on), the guy that used to work at Epic says that people wouldn’t use the better service because they are enamored with Steam. I think they wouldn’t because they’re likely very invested in Steam already. The comment I responded to is talking about shitting on Linux and other things that are not in the article, they appear to be responding to the company that the guy in the article no longer works at and the guy that owns the company that, again, the person in the articles does not work at. Why respond to those things here and not in a post about those things?