I'm guessing they're counting the newly incorporated employees from ActiBlizz.
I thoughtNo. You didn't.
“Alpha” in the software sense, however, is an actual term that exists, and far more apt a description of anyone who labels himself as suchAnd it sounds like the guy this article describes will turn into vaporware.
“The proposed simple click-to-cancel mechanism may not be so simple when such practices are involved. A consumer may easily misunderstand the consequences of canceling and it may be imperative that they learn about better options,” NCTA CEO Michael Powell said at the hearing.Calling his customers stupid, while refreshingly honest from a telecoms CEO, is not the defense Powell seems to think it is.
AFAIK, the developer and publisher aren't the ones who came up with the "Pokemon but with guns" bit. So the customers can't really criticize them for it. The marketing material is pretty clear that this is a survival & exploration game with creature collection and battle mechanics.
A rumour is not fact, nor is there any violation in having models that look similar, because that would be ridiculous. The Pokemon Company has copyright on specific expressions; those expressions haven't been duplicated.
It’s not a rumor. All of the marketing for the game was a complete lie and was nothing like the released product.This happens to actual releases as well. That doesn't automatically make it a scam. Usually just overpromising coupled with feature creep.
...and I missed the reply button(again).
The protections of satire do not depend on whether the recipient is clueless enough not to recognize it.This wasn't satire, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up.
Considering your poor handle on elementary school-level statistics, I'm not surprised you can't see the obvious racism at work here.
facts can’t be racistApparently you've never paid attention in history class.
Is hypocrisy a foreign concept to you?
Tell me you're not a regular Techdirt reader without telling me you're not a regular Techdirt reader.
If you would like me to post under my own name rather than anonymously, get the site owner not to send my signed-in posts to moderation queues where they face long delays.That has nothing to do with the site-owner and everything to do with your posting habits.
The difference being that slavery is actually bad and evil. You not getting to express your narrow-minded viewpoints online with no consequence is not.
Because you want to take away people’s freedom of speech, you and the site’s owner choose to believe in constricted versions of it, so that you hide behind legalisms and laud censorship by private parties.If you're in favour of removing people's right to private property, stop beating around the bush and just say it.
Criticizing people who are wrong is also the right thing to do, even when it appears not to be working.So just to recap: you think social media platforms should effectively be bullied(or bought) into doing what you think is right, but if the bullying doesn't work, that's just the way it is, but also the bullying should continue regardless. All this for the supposed "evil" of a private company expressing their 1A rights.
Heterophobic anti-whitism on Techdirt?It's not so much heterophobic anti-whiteism, but rather ilithiophobic anti-republican.
They should, of their own volition, respect the foundational value of free speech and not censor opinions based on viewpoint.Why? As privately owned platforms, they have a right to free speech and association, and have no obligation to be associated with hate speech/disinformation/trolling/general stupidity. Their 1A rights trump your privilege of using the platform.
If they do not, they should be urged, convinced, shamed, or bought to try to get them to change. And if they still do not, then that’s just the way it will be.Nutters like you have been trying this shit for years, and the platforms haven't budged. So why can't you accept your own argument? Is it because you're being disingenuous right now? I think it's because you're being disingenuous right now.
The site owner believes incorrectly that freedom of speech is satisfied by preventing the government from censoring opinions based on viewpoint while having large private generic speech platforms performing the same censorship is fine.That's because private companies deciding what speech they want to host is their free speech, and it trumps whatever bullshit you have to say.
More specifically, Bizarro Techdirt.