conciselyverbose @ conciselyverbose @sh.itjust.works

Posts

0

Comments

1,869

Joined

1 yr. ago

You're missing the point. I'm saying that there are contrived situations where there are privileges that are not access that you could suspend without the word "ban" making sense.

Any case where you block access to anything for any length of time can correctly be defined as a ban.

A temporary ban is a ban. Nowhere in your definition is length of time, because a ban can be for any length of time.

You could suspend specific privileges within a club, without suspending all access. That's the only case where suspension would make sense where ban would be odd.

You can't "suspend" access when access is available to the general public. You suspend a privilege that's not the default. It doesn't make sense to suspend something that is the default. Taking away access requires proactively preventing it, not removing a membership.

lol throw a colon after TIL and it's good enough.

They're not synonymous.

You don't suspend a customer from a bar, temporarily or permanently. Suspension implies membership, or access being limited. Your membership to a club can be suspended. Your access to Walmart can't be. You're banned from the store, whether for a year or a lifetime. As there's no barrier to entry, it doesn't make sense to suspend the privilege of access.

This is all ignoring that banning a person from a limited access club is also perfectly fine, because the definition of ban is applicable either way. There aren't really many situations where suspension would be valid but ban wouldn't. Maybe some small subset of privileges could be suspended where "ban" is a little weird, because general access is still permitted.

But temporary ban makes perfect sense. (Ignoring that it's been standard terminology for 30 years.)

lol I use video of my TV to blow up my brother's phone with sports highlights all the time. If you crop them they don't look that bad.

A lower bar to win a civil case doesn't entitle you to a fishing expedition. Courts have (correctly) thrown out bullshit subpoenas of people actively admitting to infringing activity, with the plaintiff promising not to pursue the infringers themselves, as part of a suit against the ISPs.

Online posts aren't grounds to compel information except in very specific circumstances.

I'm not talking about downloading.

You can say that you distribute content all you want. It is not actionable unless they can directly connect you to actual evidence of actual distribution. Forum bullshitting is not evidence.

It's a virtual certainty, because you control the information.

The lack of imports has nothing to do with the new places not wanting it and everything to do with the old place holding your data hostage. Having a clean, formally defined source of your data is all it takes to make building an import from a popular network trivial.

You're ignoring transaction costs.

Also $15/month is batshit insane.

Yes, your content. That's the only thing anyone ever claimed you keep and the only part that would make any sense to have value. It makes it incredibly simple to make that history available elsewhere, and it's incredibly likely that a future platform that emerges will facilitate that process, just like all the book platforms let you import from goodreads.

If the format is clearly defined, that's literally all that matters for data to be useful. In the event they shut down, it only takes a single solo developer to make it trivial to browse your content.

Physical data is difficult to preserve. Digital in open, clearly defined formats is not.

The data absolutely is valuable.

Having your content means having your content.

No, there isn't. Admission is unconditionally not grounds to gain information.

The literally only way there's any grounds to give them a single bit of information is in response to a direct, clear, action facilitating distribution of specific content Nintendo owns. They could provide direct evidence that they have pirated every piece of content Nintendo has ever made and it would not be excusable for Nintendo to even ask for their information.

The actual difference is that you can add it after the fact. The original digital edition never promised you'd ever be able to add a drive.

They still listed it as starting at $399

It's not really new though. They launched with a digital only PS5, too, for the same reason (to create a lower price to entry for the same hardware). If they'd just priced it at $800 with the disk drive included, would people be happier?

The reality is that their margins aren't high. The PS4 Pro might not have had the same premium, but it was using very old tech that they were able to get prices down over time on. Their chip costs haven't gone down this generation because of the world around them. The Pro is still a high end chip on a manufacturing process with lots of demand. It wasn't going to cost less. It couldn't.

Its akin to google reader and rss. People could export their rss feeds when google shut down google reader, but without an rss reader, it didn't matter. That data had no usable context.

And much like a big RSS reader shutting down, being able to have the core data in a documented format that can be worked with makes it far easier for the community to build the tools they need to work with it and extract things they need from that blob of data.

You might not be able to easily jump to another social media platform, but you still have access to all your posts and history, and that has a lot of inherent value either way.

Talking is irrelevant. It's debatable whether they're actually entitled to even compel the sub to be closed, as they didn't allow links to anything infringing, and discussion is protected. I just ignored that because I don't care.

Nothing there says anything that indicates there is any effort to restrict the information gathering to people actively distributing anything on the relevant platforms. Trying to demand the personal information of participants in discussions without direct, explicit proof that that account actually distributed pirated content makes them bad people. It is not excusable behavior.

To shut it down, sure. To get information on accounts simply for posting there? They can fuck off.

Any time Nintendo is involved in a legal case, you can pretty safely assume they're probably wrong.

Open absolutely cannot mean a lot of things, and there is no possible legitimate definition of open that could ever in any context be used to describe Windows, with the sole exception of "open to bad actors".

It's a locked down, restrictive, broken pile of shit.