You seem fun.
The altnerative is linked directly in the article. The Stop Killing Games movement lays this out beautifully. "When an online game publisher sunsets an unsuccessful client-server game, they must publish protocol docs and open source the client and server code?" Again, yes, as the Stop Killing Games movement makes clear. The point I keep coming back to is what copyright law lays out: a limited monopoly in exchange for that same culture to eventually be released into the public domain. If gaming companies are allowed to simply disappear these games, how are they fulfilling their end of the bargain? They're not, and that's the point. I consider this a violation of copyright law, or at least its purpose, and nobody seems to want to do much about it.
....do you not understand that MarkScan partners with others to police IP? You can't really think that MarkScan just goes out there and issues takedowns for IP they don't own without the permission of partners like Sony.....can you?
Holy shit, what a typo. I will fix that immediately.
"It’s not fascism, and calling it such is a deliberate call to violence." That's not how speech works and your naked attempt to play word games is both obvious and silly. Do better.
"You were rather ambivalent about the value of unions, which is not cool." I've never been terribly interested in being "cool", whatever the hell that means. "You can go to your boss and beg for a good working environment. Of course you risk getting fired for doing so, because many bosses have thin skin. Or you can go to your union, and your union can negotiate on your behalf, where the personal risk goes down and the likelihood of success goes up… It’s pretty clear that the union is the superior option here." Funny enough, I actually have an 8 to 5. And I'm not union. And I literally do what you're saying I won't get positive results from, and yet I do. Look, unions aren't bad. They aren't good, either. They're somewhere in between and we all have to do the math and decide if they, at this very moment (not historically, not as a tally of all that they've done previously) are a net positive or negative. I, personally, am both ignorant and ambivalent for the very same reason: I've never been in a union and don't feel comfortable passing final judgement on them. "Of course it’s possible for any organization to forget about its values. But we shouldn’t assume this has already happened in Oklahoma without evidence." Literally nobody, including me, did that. Like....not even close. "That’s insulting to the teachers. After all, which is more likely, a bad boss or a bad union?" They're both made of people so....pretty close call to me, honestly? Could go either way? I mean, probably the former, in my experience, but I have no reason to think that the margin on that is huge. "Checks notes. … Now I remember: this is a story about a bad boss." Indeed. That's why I find your critique, though I think well articulated and clearly passionate, so bewildering.
"Measles is no big deal" is certainly a take, I suppose....
It is a very silly thing to both point to the Constitution as a remedy for what is occurring right now AND to say you can't wait for the courts because they're bought and paid for. Either stand for the rule of law, or don't. It's not a buffet where you get to pick which parts of democracy are valid and which are not.
"You gotta understand, trump WANTS violence, and the more the better. That’s the point of everything he’s been doing. He’s looking for his Reichstag Fire moment. He needs a Cause célèbre he can use to legitimately invoke the insurrection act and declare martial law." I completely understand this. In fact, it's mostly my point, but the seasoning I add to it is this: this is coming one way or another. And if it's coming one way or another, I would rather Trump's victims participate in choosing the time and location for when this comes to a head. Otherwise, it's left to the administration's devices.
"Here’s a president whose supporters claimed he would “bring free speech back” explicitly acknowledging that his administration has done the opposite." Well, sure, but it's the kind of speech we don't like, so it's fine - everyone in MAGA, definitely
Stay tuned....
I am very sorry to disappoint you, but I don't do Red Team, Blue Team politics.
It really depends on the type of poll and what it's polling for. 1,000 -2,000 respondents is the sample size you mostly see in many national opinion and political polling. There is a significant decrease in margin of error if you go from 1,500 to even just 2,500 (roughly a 1 point decrease in margin of error expected). These seem like tiny differences, but they have more of an accuracy impact than you might expect. Anything much larger than that suffers from the law of diminishing returns, as well. So, 1,500 responses is, again, not on the larger end of the spectrum, nor is it on the small side. It's roughly in the middle, with a 3%-5% expected margin of error. Kennedy's polling is so piss poor that the margin doesn't really matter all that much in this case.
Way to gloss over the question of whether these are "foreign terrorists", dipshit. What makes them so, other than President Basketball saying so?
I watched the hearing. It was WILD. I need to digest it once more before I write something about it :)
Your pedantry is impressive. If your only real complaint is that I used "child" instead of "non-adult", I'll take that as a compliment. Given the strict definition of "child", you're technically right, which is the best kind of right.
If I can be a small repository of respite for you by showing you some lower scale stupid, I'll take it :)
So we agree?
There was no attack. There was no violence "They forced their way in, refused to leave, and scared the hell out of little kids, yelling all kinda vile shit." Yes, exactly, we're saying the same thing. Glad we agree there was not a violation of the law in this case.