what if, by giving the lesser evil more energy and making them a greater evil, you give them the ability to put you in prison camps when the original greater evil could not?
You haven't explained how that is supposed to work though. Why couldn't the greater evil do this, what's stopping them? And you truly think that every political party has the very same goals underneath? Let's take an extreme example: Germany 1932. You think if the SPD (social democrats) had won the election instead of the NSDAP, it would have been just as bad? You think they would have also slaughtered all the Jews and started WW2, because they were secretly just as evil? That doesn't sound reasonable or realistic to me. There's more to politics than whether a party is capitalist or socialist. Nuances exist.
How far capitalists and the state are willing to go is as far as they think they can get away with.
I don't agree with this, but going along with it for the sake of the argument: By letting the greater evil get into power, you are showing them that they can get away with way more than if it were the lesser.
So let's say you didn't vote for the lesser evil and the greater evil has narrowly won. The greater evil takes away your right to vote and puts you into a prison camp. What have you gained, a sense of moral superiority? Was that worth it?
It'll likely be like 2020, you can play offline but it'll be a much less detailed version of the planet. They pretty much have to use streaming for the high-detail environments, as nobody would have the disk space for it otherwise.
As little as possible. The only things I always take with me are my phone and my keys. I generally look at the weather report and only take an umbrella with me if there's a chance of rain. I only take my wallet if I'm going somewhere where I might buy something etc.
I don't agree with it starting the wrong conversation. Something does need to be done about companies denying access to a game you bought and that's the conversation it starts. If this proposal lands on the EU negotiation table, I can guarantee you that the games industry will lobby against it, and heavily. There is no chance the EU will just go "OK sounds good, make it so!". Heck, the chances are higher that if they pass an actual law, it will be so watered down that it won't do anything at all. But then at least we tried.
I've watched his first video, but I really don't agree with many of his points. He only barely acknowledges this being a proposal and then gets lost in the details. He's clearly against any measures that have the slightest potential to be a disadvantage for game developers, which I guess is understandable from his perspective as a developer. But he doesn't seem to particularly care about the consumer's rights, basically saying the problem is solved as soon as the publisher makes it clear at purchase that people are only buying a temporary license. He's also trying to discredit supporters of the initiative by saying they don't know how the industry works, despite quite a few people in the industry supporting the initiative as well.
Really doesn't matter whether the proposal as it is in the petition is completely realistic or not. The point is to get this topic into the EU parliament. It'll be their job to work out a solution that works for both consumers and developers.
My parents, yes absolutely. They are responsible for me growing up to be a tolerant, left-leaning person in a mostly conservative rural area. Being boomers, they might not be up to date with all the current LGBT terms or things like that, but they definitely have/had an open mind and don't judge people.
My paternal grandparents (born in the 1910s and 1920s) were very religious. My dad had to suffer a very strict upbringing under them. He was not allowed to read comics, watch TV, read sci-fi novels etc (though he did all of these things in secret). I only knew them as a child when they were already in their 80s and they were nice to me, but from what I've heard from my dad not necessarily nice people, and definitely not tolerant.
My maternal grandma (never knew my grandpa) rarely ever talked about politics or society or anything. She was a very down-to-earth person. That said, she definitely held some bigoted views in the form of prejudice against foreigners. She had major reservations when some Turkish people moved in next door. She eventually became friends with them though, so she managed to overcome her prejudice. I'd say she was a nice person.
At this point? Yes, it's pretty much just grifters and gullible people falling for them. For early adopters of crypto, not necessarily. A lot of random tech nerds got rich just investing a few dollars into bitcoin. I put 200€ into Ethereum back in highschool and while it didn't make me rich, it did turn into a few thousand at least. These days I stay as far away as possible from anything related to crypto though.
I find his content incredibly annoying to watch. Especially the editing style with all its rapid cuts as well as the constant shouting. It's made for people with no attention span.
It's nice that he donates to some good causes, but multi-millionaires shouldn't exist in the first place, and donations from rich people won't fix the world.
I don't see the point of this. Why would a mouse need constant software updates? I could plug in a 20 year old mouse and it would work just fine on my PC, no updates needed.
Bromite is abandoned and unsafe to use, the latest release is like 2 years old. Use Cromite for an up to date fork or better yet something not Chromium based like Mull.
Depends. I almost always buy clothes and shoes in actual stores, as shopping for them online is a wasteful hassle. There are also some shops that I enjoy visiting, like second-hand stores or Asian supermarkets, where it's interesting to just browse and buy interesting things I wasn't specifically looking for.
On the other hand, I always buy stuff like electronics online. Electronics stores are more expensive and have a way smaller selection, so I don't bother with them. Generally if I'm looking for something specific, buying it online is just more convenient.
Smoking. Millions of euros of taxpayer money spent every year on those lung cancer patients which could be well spent elsewhere. It's also an activity that negatively affects not just the smoker but everyone around them.
The "vulnerability" here was basically just having Kernel level access, which CrowdStrike is intended to have. If hackers had that, they've already won anyway. The difficulty lies in actually getting that level of access. So no, it doesn't change a thing for hackers.
You haven't explained how that is supposed to work though. Why couldn't the greater evil do this, what's stopping them? And you truly think that every political party has the very same goals underneath? Let's take an extreme example: Germany 1932. You think if the SPD (social democrats) had won the election instead of the NSDAP, it would have been just as bad? You think they would have also slaughtered all the Jews and started WW2, because they were secretly just as evil? That doesn't sound reasonable or realistic to me. There's more to politics than whether a party is capitalist or socialist. Nuances exist.