Quoting: geckofish52Forgive my ignorance, but my understanding is that unlike Manjaro, which lumps Arch updates into point releases, Endeavour is basically an Arch installer. So what constitutes a new "release"?

A new splash screen.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

As always he doesn't lose a chance to advocate for less transparency and worse customer service.

But I can surely entertain the idea that the concept should be reversed: not an "AI generated content" badge but rather an "AI content free" one.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Hei. It was true. They didn't hit the bottom rock already.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Well, one could argue that there is artistic value in Bible bestiality, incest and rape. For sure it inspired some awesome art through the centuries.

Anyway, the ambiguity of that rule it's just because who wrote it clumsily tried to make censors and libertine happy at the same time. So it can be interpreted one way or another depending on convenience. Because they know it all to well: it's not their job to decide what is legal or morally acceptable. Unless in addition to their job at a payment processing company they are also MPs in some sovereign country with a voters mandate as a secondary job. And even then they would be pushing the issue on the wrong one of their jobs.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Uhm... so if I understood correctly, Mastercard added this rule the 3rd of June:

"The sale of a product or service, including an image, which is patently offensive and lacks
serious artistic value (such as, by way of example and not limitation, images of
nonconsensual sexual behavior, sexual exploitation of a minor, nonconsensual mutilation of a
person or body part, and bestiality), or any other material that the Corporation deems
unacceptable to sell in connection with a Mark."

And now that the processors and banks are enforcing it is saying "not our fault, we know nothing of this".

Oooooook. Nice defense there Mastercard.

Problem is a lot of Mastercard users live in western democracies where we vote representatives to collectively discuss and decide what is legal and what is not on our behalf. Nobody is happy when Mr Mastercard wakes up in the morning and decides what is moral or not for us. Even when it happens that we agree on the subject.

Oddly enough, even in Autocracies I bet the autocrates don't like that as well.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Lol, I only found this guide link today on the main page. A little to late as I did it by myself 2 weeks ago. I could have spared half an hour.

So I can confirm that the Steam guide works like a charm, exact same steps as I did. Proton FTW.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

My thoughts on this? What exactly?

Incest? I find it repulsive, I have trouble just thinking of it. Though if the involved parties are all adult and in their mind, they can do whatever they want. And possibly not let me know about it.

Companies forcing censorship and morals (which can be aligned with mine in this case, but not in other cases)? Very annoying and disturbing. And dangerous as well.

I'm open to hear from any dude into police and sexual crime fight why censoring this kind of stuff would be beneficial, it's completely possible that there are good reasons that can't see.

Yet the main take away in my case, is that next time the government pushes for digital payments over physical bills, I will have to take the side of the physical bills. I always thought it would be better overall if all could be traced and reconstructed. But if private organizations can decide how people spend or spend not their digital money, physical bills all the time. Until some EU initiative blocks this shit that is (obviously it won't be a fight we take on the incest hill).

The other observation I can make, is that censors and puritans seldom stops. They start with the easy win, the stuff nobody wants to fight for, and then move on more ambituous stuff. So ok, I and most of the people out there won't fight for incest this time. But I know for sure, they won't stop here. And I urge everyone who is receptive on the topic of freedom to prepare. Because this is not an episode. It's an opening, and war for freedom will come. In 5k years of civilization it always came.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I remember this video.

Ok they added some lines from the in game units, but they left the fundamental part untouched. (i.e. the disarmed ork that throws a rock at the sergent at the end)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Well it's not that if you buy the hardcover you're also entitled to the paperback. It's that first you buy the content IP, it goes on Blockchain that you own that book content, and then you can ask whoever you want to print it whoever you want (for the price they ask to do it ofc, you own the IP not the physical media yet).

It's surely overly complicated for physical goods. Once you move to digital it's already starting to make more sense. You buy Risk and Morty season 9 4k as an IP, it goes on the Blockchain, and now you can get it with whatever streaming service you want (for monthly fee ofc) or order a blue disk from a seller (for a price ofc). I guess you're also legally entitled to you own copy on disk (which is not backup anymore, you own it in all possible medium present or future).

Before Blockchain that would have been nuts. Now it's in the realm of possible. But, as I said, it goes against the implicit rules of economy we have that push for vertical integration and pseudo monopolies. Corporations would complain that it would cost them to much and prices would rise. Though if we really think about it, if Netflix, Disney+, Amazon Video and the likes all had the same catalogue and had to compete on prices and quality of service alone... would it really be bad for consumers in the long run?

I don't make the VG example by choice since ofc if Stream, EGS and GOG has the same catalogue and had to compete on the prices and quality of service alone we know how little it would actually change.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I use the eBook as an example, but really, this should absolutely apply to anything with a digital license -- games, books, music, videos/movies, etc.

The underlying issue here is that the free market and competition as USA shaped it promotes vertical integration. So eventually a single corporation gets to control the whole supply chain, or at least the profitable layers. In digital but also outside. You buy a book on Amazon, you can only access that IP you bought there (the license is amazon license). That is what competition laws push for.

To make a system where you "own" some IP access regardless of who gives you this access, you need to make a legislation that forbids vertical integration. So if you buy "Lord Of The Rings" on Amazon, you own it also on Bookshop or Kobo. Or a physical bookshop too (in that case you would pay the print costs not the intellectual property that you already own). License market separated from license access market. The owenrship of the book is one market, how you consume the book another market. But for this to work it requires to separate ownership of the license from the servive of providing you the content (which now would not be free but become a monthly fee service I guess). But again, who will store the ownership of the license for you? The state? Another service? Well, if I were the lawmaker, I would say that is the quintessential use case for blockchains, which could very well be state regulated and then p2p operated. But ofc this is the only use case for blockchains that nobody care about since it solves actual issues and it's not speculative in nature.

Anyway, even if today it would be very doable (and very welcomed since it would mean the end of exclusives as a business practice in gaming as in video, and the possibility to get your IP wherever you want), it would require a massive education and mobilization campaign of the consumers in EU and possibly it would mean that EU and USA part ways all together since it's completely incompatible with how people think in other side of the Atlantic. It will never happen.

View this comment - View article - View full comments