squaresinger @ squaresinger @lemmy.world

Posts

4

Comments

581

Joined

4 mo. ago

Yes, he's heard that from a reliable source on facebook and/or his drunk buddy.

His buddy is also able to make up any statistic he could need right on the spot.

Sure, starving is a much better way to go.

Now we only need someone to make a Linux handheld with an Nvidia GPU and then we'll finally get some decent drivers for gaming laptops (which, sadly, are pretty much Nvidia-only).

I use a toilet for that.

As I said, it doesn't protect, it changes who can see the data.

Your ISP might not be able to see it, but your VPN provider will instead. VPN providers are hardly ever under any kind of regulation, except those run by secret services, of which there are many.

And there are more than enough VPNs that sell customer data while claiming to be amazing for your privacy.

You keep ignoring the question. The question is not "is it legal" but "should it be legal".

Because petitions are about changing laws. They are the process through which the population can ask for a law change.

I have no idea why you keep bringing up copyright. Copyright is not a magical "get out of jail free" card that excempts you from following the law. It literally has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, same as whether this is legal right now or not. Your comments are constantly offtopic.

1: that's offtopic. Neither does anyone advocate for buyers purchasing the copyright, nor does the copyrhight give the copyright owner unmitigated power to do whatever they want (aka disregard laws).

What the petition asks for is that people actually own their licensed copy and that ownership of the copy is treated the same as ownership of any other copy of any IP. For example, if you own a book, you too own a licensed copy of the book. This means that e.g. the copyright owner cannot legally stop you from reselling the copy (and believe me, they tried. But laws were enacted to stop that).

The owner of a book also doesn't have the right to unilaterally revoke your license to the book. They legally cannot put fine print somewhere into the book that dicdates that you have to return the book when they ask you to or anything like that.

The petition asks the same for games:

• Publishers need to be legally stopped from limiting the buyers from using the copy they bought.

2: That is discussed in the petition as well. I recommend that you read the petition before commenting about it.

That is pure madness!

Isn't that the same statement twice?

Problem is that you now have no new experiences at all anymore, only the old ones remain.

It's hard to test the whole system with all special tests manually. At least if your project is more than a static website or something similarly trivial.

That's why auto tests are there to increase your testing coverage, so that one change won't break your system in unexpected ways, especially if you do system-wide changes like upgrading your framework or core systems to a new version.

Tests can be messed up just like anything else can be messed up. Doesn't mean that the concept itself is flawed.

If you only do things that people cannot mess up, then you'll quickly end up not doing anything at all.

The biggest benefit to me that testing has is when refactoring. If I have decent test coverage and I change something major, tests help me to see if I accidentally broke something on the way, which is especially helpful if I am touching ancient code written by someone who left the company years ago.

Capturing the rules as documentation (especially external documentation like confluence) is a great way to make sure nobody ever reads it. Or even finds it.

Beware that a VPN doesn't protect your privacy, it just changes who has access to your data.

And enable network filtering and set a good adblock hosts file.

Hard to put a yes or no on this.

Yes, really really yes, if it's done right and it works well for the game.

No, really really no, if it's done wrong and it doesn't work well for games.

I watched a let's play and the beginning was incredibly cool and then the grind hit. It became even too boring to just watch next to work.

I read it like that first and thought it was one of these illegal apps to track your partner without them knowing.

That's probably part of the reason why the evidence of persistence hunting being used as an actual hunting technique, compared to ambush hunting or trapping is incredibly slim. And that's the reason why there's really no scientific consensus that persistence hunting was a major thing at all.

Contrary to modern-day physics, the "persistence hunting" thing is very much not a scientific consensus. It's more of a fringe idea supported by hardly any science that somehow made it into popular science.

There's about as much credible evidence to that theory as there is to the theory that eating chocolate helps with losing weight.