It’s still a really bad option.

Really the only way to go is just accept that everything is a smart TV and pick one that doesn’t gate your access to an initial online connection. Or a “gaming monitor” that’s just a TV branded differently. But all the other options are terrible on a bunch of levels.

I’d be interested in the form factor with like a raspberry pi in there.

Less powerful than that seems like a waste.

And super-premium price for a budget quality picture.

It looks like they’re looking for a more complete picture of websites distributing Firefox to make sure they can identify sites distributing malware as the real thing.

This isn’t really Facebook. This is Adobe not drawing a distinction between smart pattern recognition for backgrounds/textures and real image generation of primary content.

Bias towards fairness means that if the entire congressional Republican caucus were to walk in to the House and propose a resolution stating that the Earth was flat, the Times would lead with “Democrats and Republicans Can’t Agree on Shape of Earth.”

Will McAvoy, The Newsroom

I’m all for it if that’s what you want to do.

But “you’re a hypocritical idiot for not saving all the money from a minimum wage job and finding a dirt poor country to live in or going across the world for some random job most people don’t want to do” is nonsense.

Gimp’s UX is a trainwreck. “Approachable tools” is the key bit there.

I don’t use photoshop. Fuck subscription horseshit. I use affinity. But Gimp having capability is fine, but it has a super high barrier to entry because the design is so bad.

I love the archery.

I haven’t played in a good while, but just sneaking through the forests poaching deer (to cook because the second it’s cooked it’s not suspicious at all that I have 500 pounds of meat for sale) is one of the more satisfying hunting in games experience I’ve had.

(Edit: it’s $3 on PSN right now. I have it on steam but I can’t resist rebuying to have on both at that price.)

Because it’s a copy. It’s literally that simple.

Libraries can operate because of first sale doctrine. You can do almost whatever you want with a physical object that contains a copyrighted work.

What you can’t do is copy it. There is no possible legal way to distribute a digital copy of a work without an explicit license from the copyright holder. There isn’t even a legal concept of “owning” a digital copy. You purchase a license.

I almost never “finish” games. I tend to prefer games that either can’t be finished or are of sufficient scope that following a main quest line is only a small portion of what the game has to offer. I generally think most game writing is bad, and am not playing for a story.

Most cases where I finish games, I consider it a letdown because I think there should be more.

There’s really no credible argument that their distribution of books even might be legal.

Their only defense is fair use, and there’s no precedent for a “fair use” defense justifying copying a work wholesale for mass distribution. (Yes, “one copy at a time” to multiple people is mass distribution.) Copying a whole work has effectively only qualified as fair use when that copy is not re-distributed, and is actually for a personal backup.

Because your suggestions are all completely deluded.

They’re not better. For pretty much anyone.

The constitution explicitly grants authority to regulate IP. There’s absolutely no path to a constitutional issue, and constitutional issues are the only way you get laws overturned. “Other legal doctrine” means something like violations of due process somewhere in the chain, which is a constitutional issue, or direct conflict with another law.

The only possible judicial remedy is the premise that it’s fair use, which there’s a lot of precedent that it isn’t.

No, they don’t.

Other libraries don’t make unauthorized copies. The “fair use” argument is laughably weak and was rejected by the court because the law is pretty clear that it’s not legal.

What Internet Archive did is digitized physical books, then loaned out their “one copy” with DRM. Their assertion is that this constitutes fair use. I don’t really think there’s any merit to that argument based on the law and the body of precedent, and fundamentally tend to dislike legislation from the bench (judges just arbitrarily reinterpreting laws). Passing new laws and restructuring how IP law works is the job of the legislature, not the judiciary.

IA then made this worse by taking the already super tenuous “fair use” argument and throwing it out the window by removing the lending limits during Covid. It was waving a red flag in front of IP holders and begging them to take aggressive action.

Too bad windows search is the dumpster fire to end all dumpster fires. And sends all your “local searches” to the web because fuck privacy.

He doesn’t want to leave that situation for a nightmare shitshow of a downgraded situation.

But those moves have traditionally come when a game is out and has, by whatever metric, failed. Or, at the other end of the scale, when a game fails to get off the ground earlier in development, and a publisher decides to cut its losses, or as it would probably say, “reallocate resources”. To commit five years of work, to build an entire company around the goal of producing a single game, and then throw it all in the bin just days before it was supposed to come out is a whole new level of ineptitude that’s particularly cruel, even by this industry’s cruel-by-default standards.

Abandoning a project right out of the gate before there’s a real chance to see what it can be is “cruel”.

Recognizing that a product doesn’t deserve to be shipped is a good thing. They gave it a great chance to get to a finished product, evaluated where it was at, and had the decency to not shovel shit out the door and rip people off.

I’d be all for altering definitions in a way that enables them to do stuff like the controlled lending system (also just digitizing shit generally).

But I think the law is pretty clear, and a precedent calling their use case fair use would be mind blowing. You need new, much more common sense IP legislation that redefines consumer rights in a digital world.