A letter warning that they might consider supporting their primary opponent. Unless that primary opponent actually wants to consider even a baseline of progressive policies, or heaven for bid uses the word socialism in a non negative context.

Yeah I think that's the question. in short it's fishing for a way to make it profitable, whole concept is when we pour enough money, servers, research etc... into it, eventually it will start making money faster than we put into it, and so far, that's not been proven. Que old image of guys digging for diamonds, one walking away just before hitting the diamond jackpot, the other blindly charging towards it.

and of course just like reality, there's no actual way to know if there's even any diamonds... just that we haven't found them yet.

I mean, I'm totally fine with a physical device based authentication (but agree that a company should provide a phone or yubikey), bank same concept.

The big concept is that you should own your "copy" of a game. IE I own my car, I can drill a hole in it, I can paint it a different color. I may or may not have to follow certain rules of what modifications I do on it to drive it on streets which is pretty reasonable, but if I want to use it in my backyard I can.

Now yes that doesn't mean if say 3D printers were able to perfectly fabricate something like a car, that I could say make a fully functioning form of the car with whatever patented designs etc... the car manufacturer has on it and sell or give them away in bulk.

I do suppose that's the one area where digital and physical create some divide. IE digital by definition has to be duplicated to be modified. hell technically it's duplicated just to be used (as even a physical disk is copied to system memory over the course of playing it).

IMO I feel like a pretty fair rules set could be drafted for digital property.

IE a pretty simple digital items bill of rights:

You have a right to use a digital item on any device you own capable of playing it.

You have a right to modify it in any way shape or form you are capable of doing.

Games that either require, or have a significant portion of their gameplay that depends on a remote server, should have a declared date of which the servers are promised to be online till at the time of purchase, if the servers shut down prior to that declared date you should be entitled to a refund. (IE as that date approaches developers can either move that date further forward, or their buyers can be aware that the EOL of the game is not far),

Modifying your games either to run on any other hardware etc... should be allowed, copying to multiple devices that you own should be allowed, however developers have a right to refuse to allow modified games to connect to their servers.

I think the key point is, it's not hard to write a digital property ownership ruleset, that covers almost any thinkable case, and allows a reasonable form of "ownership" of a digital item.

It's so fricking insane though with what's said to have been done... a masked person with a gun hops into your car, and you bring them to a police station. That's... consideration beyond any reasonable action... a point of restraint so absurdly wholesome erroring so far on the side of not killing a potential attacker.

Though realistically of course it's going to be a greyer area. stand your ground protects you if you KILL a teenager with no without confirmation that they are armed or have any risk to you. But bringing someone who absolutely has the ability to end your life at a moments notice that you can't identify to the police so everything can be confirmed and sorted out, probably won't have the same level of protections.

Yeah, was going to say currently you have to do tests on video calls if you aren't sure, IE currently you need to ask a video caller to do something like, spread out 3 fingers and wave them in front of your face to break AI

You mean prison could be better than the streets... I'd say that's not entirely false. Kind of based on the raw numbers etc... bottom line we spend more money on dealing with problems caused by people in homelessness (both crimes of despiration, making hostile architecture and policing to keep them swept under the rugs and shoved into the outskirts of town, saving their lives in the ER when they collapse from hypothermia, than it actually would cost to house them).

I mean in short, no paying in non currency is still taxed. Same problem that's mostly glossed over when say you win a new car on a gameshow or similar, and why in reality the gameshows offer you cash value for the car instead. (because a broke ass family winning a top of the line car that they could never afford, still has to pay taxes on the prize... that they also could never afford). and yeah paying in something that is going up in price, means the company has to budget with either spending all of your sallary up front to buy what they are going to pay you massively up front... or know that they don't actually know what they are going to pay you, then add in a concept like "at will employment" obviously you are motivated to quit or renegotiate if the price crashes, and they need to fire you or re-negotiate if the price skyrockets.

On top of course of limited goods, because the company buying them will drive the price up further.

What is an instance?

Some don't like this comparison, but effectively think of lemmy in similar forms to e-mail, IE you can e-mail your friend who uses a different mail service, by adding @whatever.com to their username. the whatever.com in e-mail that's called a domain usually, but in lemmy that's considered the "instance". The only difference is rather than just saying "that's not an address" lemmy assumes if you don't specify, you must mean the one where you are.

well yes but generally speaking with regards to porn, the most common time porn is "illegal" is at least currently almost always for reasons that almost everyone would agree on morally. Admitted, the current direction of the US is working on regulating/restricting porn between consenting adults, and just had that abysmal ruling that AI created CSAM is probably OK. Right on the heels of discovery that Grok has somehow trained on CSAM.

Well short term yeah, thing is that's step 1 to fixing the system... step 1 is getting the facists out of the majority in the supreme court, because without that step done, any further steps will be ruled "unconstitutional", then comes ethics rules, further checks on the power of the supreme court etc...

I mean it's fair to say in some movies there's jarring scenes that pull from the rest of the concept of the movie. IE if you are watching a rom com, and they decide to throw in a 30 minute chase scene, it's likely to detract from rather than add to the movie. Some scenes bundle well, some scenes bore half of the audience, and would have done better as seperate things.

It's always fair to complain about parts of a movie that you didn't like, because the quantity of complaints on the whole either encourages the existing movie makers to shift their movies, or in the best case scenerio, encourages someone else to make a movie more focused on the things you like without the parts you don't.