That's super interesting. I was not raised Jewish at all, but I've heard an expression "making a fence around the Tora." At least as it was explained to me, the idea is that we don't really know what the exact line is for what we're supposed to do, so we're just going not even get close to the line so we know we're definitely okay.
To me, that seems like the complete opposite of what you describe. Do you know if that's a different interpretation/sect/denomination or if I'm misunderstanding and those loopholes are the fence around the Tora?
Somewhat related, I've always disliked the RAW for 5e for weapon swapping. Burning your action to swap is pretty outrageous, and having players drop weapons so they can only draw has just been annoying to track in my experience. One free swap per turn's always felt better to me, surprised that's not how it's written in the rules.
That's an interesting idea to me, particularly regarding preservation of games of bankrupted companies. I'd still be in favor of a central registrar as opposed to NFTs, just because of the huge inefficiencies and environmental impact of that (essentially useless) computation.
There would need to be some governing authority dictating that companies need to honor the download of games not purchased from them (essentially the government of each country that has this as a law). It would make sense to me that that same government could host a service to keep track of the transactions. Or, more likely, the government just mandates the companies to play nice and exchange purchase data with each other. Sure, in some sense you're letting the wolves run the henhouse, but it also isn't that different from a game company refusing to give you a game you purchased from them. They could do that, but you would take legal action against them. Same thing here.
I fully acknowledge that it's a grey area, but I've personally always considered resale of digital goods (goods which can be obtained purely digitally, even if sold in a physical medium) to be unethical, although legal. If I'm going to pay money to it, I want the money to go to the person who created it, not to someone else who happened to purchase it or, worse, some company that provides no value other than encouraging those transactions.
To me, resale on physical goods is ethical because there are two core differences with those which could be acquired purely digitally. Physical goods degrade with use, providing reduced value compared to new goods. And it is better for unwanted physical goods to continue to provide value for someone than for it to enter a landfill.
Why would they discount the game when the used market is an option.
I think the key part there is that when they disconnect a game they still get (almost) pure profit off that sale. For a used game, they're only getting some percentage of it if the person selling is getting a cut or majority. I think the creator would always prefer sales and avoid the used market at any cost, since it provides them no value and actively hurts their more lucrative sales.
Not really, though. NFTs only benefit is to distribute trust/authority. In this case there still needs to be some central authority who will actually honor it and provide the game at the end (either Steam or the game's creator or something else). It is far more energy efficient for that central authority to also track who has what without performing useless work.
The ethics get muddier for your average person, though. Piracy is (to a good chunk of people) clearly wrong: there is something someone made that most people had to pay for and you're getting it for free. That's not how things are supposed to work.
With this, you are still paying money for the game, it's just cheaper, but games are cheaper when they're on sale, too. I think a much larger group of people will make use of "used" digital games without giving a ton of thought to the fact that the game creator is getting less than those who are fine with pirating games. On top of that, ethics aside, one of those activities is illegal and the other potentially legal, which does affect how people make decisions as well.
Nothing in reality suggests that total annexation of Ukraine was the goal
Wait, I'm confused, were you looking for "is" or "suggests?" Because I sent you an article all about "suggests." And, follow-up question, did you think 'You are unironically sharing a quote riddled with "may"s and "seem"s from United States Military Academy' is not smug and was a genuinely civil question?
Since it seems you might not be great at this whole "communicating" thing, I'll be explicit: Yes, those questions were rhetorical. No, you've given me nothing to suggest I should care what your response is.
No, I didn't read the entirety of the comments you've made, I read your comment and the one you replied to. As a general rule, I (and I'd assume most people) read down a thread before replying, and don't first look through all of everyone's comment histories
And you are making a statement that seems to suggest absolute knowledge of a country's intentions are possible with a leader with a lack of credibility and long history of lying on the world stage.
Gee, this is fun. Or were you making some point? Were you expecting some report about their magic mind-reading device?
Considering Russia denied their intent to invade as they were conducting it, I don't know that their statements should be considered truth regarding their plans and goals. But here's Westpoint's take on the matter:
Initially, the Russian regime may have regarded its invasion of Ukraine as a “regional conflict” with “important” military-political goals, and its classification as a “special military operation” may have been genuine. Indeed, it seems that the Kremlin’s ambitious political objective was to install a new, pro-Russian government in Kyiv by lightning action.
I'll actually use Bing's AI/LLM on occasion. I get frustrated in some of the conversations that come talk about the limitations of AI in generating false information that can be tracked when Bing's does cite it's sources if you want to fact check.
Oh shit, I thought you had forgotten a "/s" at the end, but reading your other comments this is actually what you believe and how you talk. So... yeah, I'm not going to take someone who cites "people who understand things really well" as a source at face value.
I get the sentiment, but don't really agree. Humans' inputs are also from what already exists, and music is generally inspired from other music which is why "genres" even exist. AI's not there yet, but the statement "real creativity comes solely from humans" Needs Citation. Humans are a bunch of chemical reactions and firing synapses, nothing out of the realm of the possible for a computer.
I'm not sure I agree with the power usage argument. Even for streaming services, all the ones I'm familiar with will cache songs you listen to frequently on your device (which they're financially incentivized to do to reduce bandwidth) and isn't consuming any more power than buy-once-own-forever. And if you're comparing to physical media I'd assume it is far better, since you're saving all the energy to acquire materials to create the media, write to it, package it, and ship it.
That's super interesting. I was not raised Jewish at all, but I've heard an expression "making a fence around the Tora." At least as it was explained to me, the idea is that we don't really know what the exact line is for what we're supposed to do, so we're just going not even get close to the line so we know we're definitely okay.
To me, that seems like the complete opposite of what you describe. Do you know if that's a different interpretation/sect/denomination or if I'm misunderstanding and those loopholes are the fence around the Tora?