JasSmith @ JasSmith @sh.itjust.works

Posts

0

Comments

309

Joined

2 yr. ago

Pro consumer behaviour like refusing to sell the Deck in Australia because of our Consumer protection laws?

That didn’t really seem like a joke to me but thanks for clarifying. I guess conveying tone is difficult across text.

I’m not sure if you’ve seen them yet but Steam Decks aren’t PCs. They’re handhelds. They compete with handhelds like the Nintendo Switch. I understand there is category overlap with the Deck but to call it a PC is clearly silly.

Yes! And Chrome.

I highly doubt Newell is harbouring some kind of grudge. Several countries have ruled against Valve in more onerous ways.

I’m not sure where you got the notion that Japan is a larger market than Australia but the Japanese spend around US$26B/year on video games. Australia is around $US$2.6B. Australia isn’t even in the top 10% worldwide. Now factor in expensive shipping, distribution, and warranty support in Australia, and it seems fairly obviously why they haven’t expanded there yet.

Is that really why they don’t sell in Australia? I don’t believe your consumer protections laws are tougher than Europe. I can’t find any stated reason for not selling in AU. I suspect it’s just down to market size. They only recently started selling in Japan and they have 5x as many people.

The EU is a huge market. Microsoft, for example, is already building their own app store to take advantage of the DMA. Let’s hope that the change puts pressure on regulators in other regions.

The DMA requires Apple to provide access to all hardware and software features required to serve competing apps and services. Browser engines are explicitly mentioned several times, and these require JIT access. It’s going to be interesting to see how they implement that.

This would also mean they can put more invasive features in their app.

iOS apps will still be sandboxed. You have nothing to fear except whatever data you yourself enter into the app.

The EU isn't going to swap one closed proprietary service for another. If iMessage is included under the DMA as a core platform service, it will require Apple to permit interoperability. I.e. the creation of open APIs. Google, and anyone else, can choose to build connectors into their own apps.

They have proposed exactly that.

Have you seen recent benchmarks? Windows games actually run faster on Linux at this point.

On some games. This channel tested 20 of the most popular games last year. Several of the titles didn't run on Linux at all. Windows had an average win on 4K, and Linux had an average win on 1080p. This is much closer than it has been in years, but it's definitely not a clean sweep. As you explain, Linux also have major issues with anti-cheat which is used on some of the most popular games today. From experience, I also can't use my very expensive wheel and peddles because of a lack of drivers. So I can't make the move to Linux completely.

"We should halt all aid to terrorists and terrorist states." - very easy policy most people will agree on.

That and the sheer audacity to have a concert right next to Gaza was a recipe for disaster that Israel took advantage of for its own ambitions.

It's not like the Israeli government intentionally set up a music festival next door to Hamas to get participants killed. Your implication is incredibly nefarious. This was a privately run festival full of people who were advocating for Palestinian rights, set up more than 3km away from the border. How much of a buffer zone between Gaza and Israel are you suggesting there should be? 5km? 10km? For context, the width of Gaza is as narrow as 4.5km.

They’ve been mostly locked in place since 8th October. There’s no way for them to regroup and refortify with Israel dropping bombs on anything which looks like a terrorist. A ceasefire would let them regroup in civilian buildings, which I think we all want to avoid. They have to qualms with using children as human shields, so we need to keep the terrorists pinned down and get away from those children.

I don’t know how to make it any more simple for you. Which part confuses you?

I'll ask again -- to whom are you arguing against?

To repeat myself, I’m arguing that the top comment (and clearly you) doesn’t understand the paradox of tolerance. If you’re not going to read my comments before you reply, what are you hoping to achieve? You just come across as lacking even basic reading comprehension.

I thought I made it quite clear but I will simplify it further for you: the tolerance paradox is misused to justify violence against people with whom the aggressor disagrees. It should not be used that way as it was never intended to be used that way. The top level comment is a classic example of not understanding what Popper wrote.

Well, not entirely. We can move out to the wilderness and live off the land with very minimal interaction with civilization. We don’t because iPhones and medicine are too good to give up.

The “tolerance paradox” is a handy tool with which to justify violence by those on both sides. If I’m just fighting intolerance, then my actions are justified. It’s a common rally cry used by authoritarians to stamp out diversity and democracy. To really hammer the point home, the Nazis were the first to employ it. By blaming their issues on the “intolerance” of foreign states, they justified a global war. It is obviously the inspiration for Popper’s 1945 work, The Open Society and Its Enemies. Russia is currently using this fallacy to justify the war in Ukraine, claiming that the West is “intolerant” of Russia, and they need to defend themselves against this intolerance.

Here is a full quote from Popper on the subject if anyone is interested.

I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise

But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.

Popper’s argument is laid bare here. Tolerate up to the point of violence. That is, if one physically attacks us, we no longer have the burden of tolerance. Popper is commonly misquoted and intentionally misused to justify violence against disagreement, and that is clearly not his argument.

It’s been great watching the world re-learn why unions are important.