Peruvian_Skies @ Peruvian_Skies @sh.itjust.works

Posts

4

Comments

222

Joined

1 yr. ago

EULAs don't have to say "you own this forever" because it's implicit. Just like when you buy bananas at the grocer you aren't forced to sign a EULA that says you can eat the banana or make a smoothie with it but can't use it to make nuclear weapons or commit war crimes.

Let's break this down: a product is an object that is delivered to a buyer. A service is an action or group of actions that is performed for the buyer. If I have to keep running my servers for your game client to connect to, push updates or offer tech support, I am providing a service because it requires me to keep doing something for the thing to work. If, on the other hand, all I do is give you some code you can run entirely on your machine - and it doesn't matter if I give it to you on a CD, a floppy, via digital download or if I print it out as a big book for you to type yourself into a hex editor - then our transaction is finished when I deliver it to you and you pay me. There isn't anything to license because now you own that copy of the code. My participation in what you do with it is finished, just like the grocer's is finished when you leave his store with the bananas.

Do you understand now?

If the importance of women's issues like reproductive freedom were overrepresented relative to other issues, this would definitely account for at least part of this difference. But "importance" itself is already a very subjective concept. It's hard to put numbers on these things and create a scoring system that's actually useful.

Congratulations, you have successfully redefined imprtant words in a way that makes your understanding of them fundamentally incomoatible with other people's, rendering clear communication impossible.

I don't know why this was your goal, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming it was intentional, because the only alternative is that you are less intelligent than a particularly dense house plant.

No, crimes exist for whoever isn't in power. There are several crimes that can only be committed by rich people, such as those related to banking and the stock market, formation of cartels* and monopolistic/anti-competitive practices, etc. But conveniently the criminals are only prosecuted when they are the political or commercial opponents of whoever happens to be in charge at the time.

*Not the drug kind, the "a small group of companies with a combined market majority conspires to fix prices while pretending to compete with each other" kind

Yes, "liberal" and "conservative" are relative, not absolute terms. There's a concept known as the Overton Window which describes exactly this shift of what is considered the "center" and what is considered a radical left/right position in any given society at any given time.

The idea that people should vote for their representatives, for example, was once considered an extremist take that could ruin civilization itself if implemented. The Overton Window shifted and nowadays even most Fascists will at least pretend in public to agree with it.

Great observation! This is called the Overton Window

I could be wrong but it seems like before, licenses for games you owned but hadn't downloaded were already loaded o to your account when you logged in. So in your example, if user 2 bought a game and didn't download it on that console, then user 1 bought and downloaded it and took the PS5 offline, user 2 could still play it because his license was already there. Now, user 2 has to go online to grab the license first.

Seems like it will have a minimal impact.

It's not like you were subtle about it. But being understandable doesn't make it right. "Chickens build laser boxes" is also perfectly understandable.

What they don't seem to understand is that Reddit employees don't create value, the users create value. And mods are users. The more they make things shitty for users, the more quickly the company will go bankrupt. I distinctly remember stories about killing golden geese and milking cows to death but the MBA crowd must not have been told those growing up.

Hoe many Joes, Tims and Donalds do you know, and how many Kamalas? In the USA, it's a name that stands out. I'm sure you intend to imply that it's patronizing in some way, but there are oerfectly legitimate reasons to call her by her first name and you're not doing yourself any favors by just assuming that none of them apply here.

Thanks.

Vertical tabs? I've been using an extension for that so I didn't even notice. Is that already on the main release or still on the nightlies?

Sorry for asking here but a DDG search just turns out a bunch of pages telling you how to get them with extensions, which I already do.

It puts the lotion in the basket.

It doesn't really make any sense since first and second person pronouns aren't gendered. When I refer to "you" it means "whoever I'm talking to" without implying anything about the person or persons other than that I intend my message for them. There's just no reason to change that. Not "no good reason" but "no reason".

I don't know what he looks like. Maybe he's a bear, maybe he's a twink.

So he could have ripped her apart with his claws but not with a knife? Seems a little nitpicky. What if he had just gotten his nails done?

privacy these days is really hard to achieve

Which is exactly why claims like this should be backed with evidence.

Unsourced claims like this do absolutely no good to anyone, ever. Which means that either right before typing this comment, you though to yourself "time to be a bad person for no good reason" or you're a shill for some surveillance agency with an interest in scaring people away from privacy enhancing solutions.

Can you provide examples?

Jcouch Dfucker Vance