Jiggle_Physics @ Jiggle_Physics @sh.itjust.works

Posts

1

Comments

352

Joined

8 mo. ago

I would buy it just for the free kid-shippil

they aren't just turning the servers off, while there is part of the suit due to advertised promise vs what happened, the second point is they literally pushed an update that made running the software on your own, private, server, impossible. The point is that the game companies are making it so you are not able to do what you want with it. This is just one suit that is fighting for structures that protect you owning what you buy. It is multifaceted, from right to repair, to right to use software you purchase in any personal way you like. there is a broad, multi-industry, movement to make all products a "service". Software was one of the first, and currently the largest, set of industries that do this. From single player video games needing to contact a company server just to start, to features of your car, house, and appliances requiring continuous payment schemes, where they can just deny access, even though you paid for them. It has gone on for along time, and now the mainstream population is being affected, and some are fighting back.

I am clearly on the side of you own what you pay for. They don't owe you servers, updates, etc. They owe you being able to do those things, for your own purposes (ie not commercial), and not disabling everything when they no longer feel like putting resources into it.

Will they bill Texas for time employees spent on other projects, like they did with the DOD, and probably more than that?

Ahh the days when I would have two, maybe three, IBM clones on my desk, HAL 9000esque eye on the wall, and a tablet pc, surrounded by hundreds of books.

They will just have to stick to advertised timelines, and allow people to use that software, as they please, after they stop supporting it. I do not see how this is unfair.

I mean they started shutting it down 9 years ago, it isn't new, so it isn't really news now

Point was, this is about making it so they don't have the option to do this anymore, with the legal system.

They did, but that was 9 years ago, so you might not remember. However it was not as popular a movement yet, so they didn't get the same backlash as people are getting almost 10 years later, when everyone is sick of this. You are right, they can pull their own product if they want to, now. The goal is to make it so they can't just do that if they want to, anymore.

This is clearly some sort of native american origin horror

Everything needed to run the game online exists player side. There are many games where people run their own servers because of this, even in WoW. They are literally taking things to disable this ability from what they purchased.

I hope this is at least half a joke and it didn't get super bad for her, but yeah, people like this are everywhere, many don't even realize what they are doing.

Well, the boyfriend, in this example, would be socializing. Just expecting her to be there as an accessory

but yeah it is awkward to see

Correct, it is a pejorative used in two ways, either people racist against asians claiming anyone who isn't asian dating an asian, has yellow fever, or that person in fetishizing them. Just being attracted to a person is not the same thing.

this applies to other ethnic groups, hair colors, and many other things.

Yeah, if they want to claim digital piracy is theft, then them doing this stuff is just as they described

Finding a specific aspect of someone's appearance attractive, and fetishization, are not the same. A normal person could find melanin attractive, and be fine. When they are eschewing any interest in the person other than them having dark skin, you are fetishizing them. The person in this comment is pointing out how this fictional guy only dates asian women, and brings her around to be shown, rather than to enjoy the experience with in a deep way.

Usually these people will give it away through an accumulation of subtler behaviors, or they just kinda out-right say so.

These things are often subtle. Noticing the many ways they never really talk about/to you in any other way than that one aspect of you they fetishize. In this post there is the dating history, how she is just there, quietly, on his arm, because he isn't actually doing anything to interact with her outside of her being there to be his asian woman. You may say that it is her responsibility to socialize, and that can be true, but more often than not this is a learned behavior. They have come to understand he doesn't really want them being anything but his arm candy, and has a history of making things bad if she does otherwise.

A lot of this easily deniable, which is why so many people fall into it. A lot of abuse, and objectification, isn't going "hey, you are my asian fuck doll, don't try to have autonomy". Much like how racism can be expressed in a bunch of much more subtle ways, like women taking direct hold of their purse when a black man walks on the elevator, but the strange white men didn't illicit the same response. It could just be a shift of position, or a million other things that aren't racism. However, when you are a black man, and see it happen every time this situation comes up, you realize it is a response to you, and what makes you different from those she was around to that point is? You are black. Hell, people might not even be aware they are doing it.

There are some people that make it clear though, for reference see the incel community obsession with asian women.

I was expecting this to explode into violence

OP's dad is wolverine

Yes

I mean programming in methods of anti-perving the camera view have been common in games for decades now.

Hermes the giant killer?