then_three_more @ then_three_more @lemmy.world

Posts

3

Comments

614

Joined

1 yr. ago

I've never played the game, it was a couple episodes in that I noticed that it was based on an exiting IP rather than being completely new.

I entered into an agreement with a car manufacturer to be able to sell their cars in the UK. After I had people place orders (and pay) for a bunch of them the manufacturer decided that they were no longer supplying cars to the UK. Forcing me to issue my customers with refunds.

I've not watched either, but this is probably the relevant extract from the wall of text that the UK gov put up.

If consumers are led to believe that a game will remain playable indefinitely for certain systems, despite the end of physical support, the CPRs may require that the game remains technically feasible (for example, available offline) to play under those circumstances.

Where does the red wood fit in on this?

It's the old arguments about how piracy is stealing and hurts the artists.

And how do you repay them? By snatching it from the digital high seas, denying them the reward they rightfully deserve. It's like slapping a Deathclaw in the face and expecting it to thank you.

1. They've already been paid so you're not snatching anything from them.
2. You kind of assume that if someone hadn't pirated it then they'd have paid to see it. The reality I'd they'd probably not have watched it at all. I haven't watched the fall out show yet. Therefore I must also be "denying them the reward they rightfully deserve"
3. The use of steaming was in the rise and piracy falling all through the 2010s. Why? Corporations were offering a good service at a good point. Over the last few years they've been making the services progressively worse and the price point progressively worse. The market has reacted and piracy has increased. Again you've fallen into thinking that if people didn't have the option to pirate they'd pay for the service to get the content, I however think that many just wouldn't consume the content at all.

Honestly, it's my favourite Star Trek film.

That's impressive given how much the price of lots of things has gone up.

Is that a Master and Commander reference?

OK, but why not eat less beef and more chicken and herring?

In my country at least beef consumption peaked around 2012 (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/oct/24/uk-meat-consumption-lowest-level-since-record-began-data-reveal)

I think post WW2 there was a drive towards the idea that we'd never need to go without. This combined with lifestyle changes (more people working longer hours) gave birth to the rise of fast convince foods and the mass growth of places like McDonalds and Burger King.

Why don't people just stop? Ideas within society have a lot of momentum, they take a lot of energy to get started and a lot to turn or stop again.

(used by most countries)

That might be true for head of state, but not so clear for legislature houses. From a look at the maps on this wiki page I'd say a majority of countries have some kind of at least limited PR.

True. But hardly relevant. To convert someone to something is a perfectly fine grammatical usage. Another example would be when people say they converted to Christianity.

We need to make sure whenever the General Election is we keep up this momentum. I want them to have a wipe out that makes Canada 1993 look like a good result for conservatives. Leave the fuckers with 2 MP's.

When the time comes remember to vote tactically. In our system you often don't get the luxury of voting for who you want, you vote against who you don't want.

https://tactical.vote/

I think you're thinking of the humane AI pin.

I think you meant "completely". Complacently is a completely diffident word.

Almost perfect.

Fuck grandma, "entirely" looks wired. Wood be chiefs kiss.

No, socialism is a set of ideals, beliefs and values as well as a system (you can't have a system without the idea behind it afterall). It's perfectly reasonable to convert someone into believing in a set of ideals, beliefs and values.

So as a likley post menopausal human. JK Rowling no longer belongs to the 'sex class woman' and likely has no 'sex class'.

It's not grammar it's an entitlement different word. It would be like refusing to call a dog a dog because you think it sounds better to call it a cat.

Edit - you know what, I'm leaving that auto correct in. Entitlement looks better here to me than entirely.