Armok_the_bunny @ Armok_the_bunny @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

218

Joined

2 yr. ago

Perpetual licences have their place, like I'm reasonably confident under the hood you have a perpetual licences for the OS your phone runs on. The point isn't to get a piece of software that will be updated and supported forever, it's to get something that works, fits your needs, and that you know can't just be revoked at the whim of another. Problem is that last one is becoming increasingly untrue.

I mean fuck AT&T, but fuck needless consolidation, pointless service bundling, and revocation of perpetual licences even more.

I for one would be fine with a digital ID to be used for even age verification, so long as it is only used for verification and is completely detached from any other form of identification. Honestly I'm getting kinda sick of rumors of Russian and Chinese trolls, true or not, as well as AI commenters influencing genuine discourse.

Au contraire, the devil absolutely needs an advocate, to make sure he's being called out on the right bullshit and not just whatever accusation is thrown his way.

Be called out for saying something controversial best I can tell, the term I think originated on Twitter to refer to a comment getting a lot more retweets than likes.

It's the argument a lot of politicians are making, that once platforms start curating user generated content they become responsible for it despite section 230. I think it's bullshit, but it is the argument being made.

I'm pretty sure that exists and is just called unlisted, or if you only want them to be available to yourself private.

The rule could create some perverse incentives, such as discouraging some startup founders from taking their companies public.

Honestly good, companies going public creates perverse incentives for those companies to screw over their customers and the economy at large out of a drive for quarterly gains.

It's uncommon, but certainly not unheard of.

IIRC it's technically proper to still use that title for former presidents, but very few actually do out of justified distaste for the man himself, along with the fact that it's definitely not a good idea to say anything that might imply you think he's still actually the president.

I agree that doing this and nothing else isn't enough, but it will help and there isn't any other one thing that would solve the problem either. Problems like this require a wide array of answers each of which only help a little but taken together are the solution.

Isn't that because Microsoft either pays system integrators to only install Windows or threatens that they will stop providing relatively cheap Windows keys if they provide the option to start with Linux? I could have sworn I'd heard that somewhere.

So just because this one thing won't solve the problem on its own we shouldn't do it. More housing, and especially more affordable housing will help by virtue of creating more supply, and the alternative is building less new housing which has the exact same problem as what you bring up with building more. On top of that corporations and landlords and Airbnb "investors" don't purchase all the housing that is available right now, so even if the rate at which that occurred stayed the same in absolute terms this would mean a lot more housing becoming available to actual residents.

That's not the kind of data they're looking for, if you post it somewhere publicly available they already have that without a warrant or anything. The kind of data to be worried about is the kind that those companies collect about where you travel and when, and what kind of people you talk to through email or private messages. Even if you don't think there's anything incriminating in there, law enforcement loves to collect evidence that they think can be used to pin any crime on anybody, even if they don't know what that crime is exactly.

Hey hey, there are a bunch of completed indie porn games that are also really good. If you want some examples I can certainly provide.

Reading the article does make it sound like it's either that, or having google allow other app stores to be downloaded via the play store and give them the same level of access to other apps that the play store gets, I assume for things like automatic updates.

I mean, that's kinda exactly what I said, Apple taking a 30% cut of any transaction that occurs on their devices/on apps downloaded from their store makes no sense, though I will add that Patreon takes a 8 - 12% cut depending on how much support they give the creator. As far as Steam goes, to my knowledge they don't take a cut out of in game purchases, only purchases that occur strictly on their platform. (Also I don't think they charge everyone the 30%)

30% is a reasonably cut for transactions that take place in your store, the main complaint I see about Apple and their store and the cut they take is that they want 30% of any money that goes through any of their devices at all, not just their app store. Relevant here, they are charging the 30% fee for people's memberships to creators on the platform, a process that is wholly separate from Apple's ecosystem unless the user is using apple pay to pay for it.

Wait really, they're adding Red Rescue Team!? Didn't Nintendo just release the remake of that game recently.

Oh no, it was four years ago, it feels like it was more recent than that.

What even was the argument against the law?