So that was the catch

I know there’s drama between the various lemmy instances and ml is supposed to be commies bad, but I find this place quite welcoming.

Speaking of MBFC… Did the bot finally disappear since it didn’t invite itself into this thread?

Is such a strategy really feasible? Adding legislation that a game has to be made operable in a reasonable manner after the publisher discontinues support for it in no way influences this strategy.

If someone wanted to do such elaborate botnet defamation attacks in hopes of getting the game playable on 3rd party servers they could’ve done that already without legislation.

Bots making the game unplayable is a problem, but opening the servers in general would help the problem as private servers can implement harsher requirements for players than official ones usually do, opting to rather make a huge bot-filled cesspool as you’ve already said.

However, this proposal isn’t a general “all games must have FOSS self-hostable servers” proposal. It’s just a “if you kill a game it still has to be alive afterwards” proposal. Whether publishers open servers or not before they shut theirs down is their decision without the proposal as much as it is with it.

was Israel not attacked?

If you’re attacked, you don’t have the right to escalate the situation however you please, especially if it’s against international law.

I genuinely have issues trying to discern the propaganda from the facts.

Sure, it’s hard. It isn’t easy sometimes for me either. You just have to take in information and draw your own conclusions. Of course, depending on the information you get your view will ve skewed. In my opinion it’s impossible to be biased, but you have to at least try to siniff out the propaganda and lies, which I commend you for doing.

from what I gathered, I believed that Israel just took some land on which other people were living ~70 years ago, displacing these people.

That’s true, sort of. Israel was given part of the land after WWII by the UN as a result of wellmeaning intentions. However, a conflict arose, culminating in the First Arab-Israeli war. Next was the Six-day war some 20 years later, followed by other conflicts. Then 5 years later, the Yom Kippur war. Other than that there have been other conflicts with the Palestinians, notably in 2007, 2012, 2014 and 2021. Finally there’s the current conflict which started last year.

Of course, some of this was justifiable by Israel, but the problem is the way Israel treats Palestinians. There’s a good chance that if they weren’t treated as 2nd class citizens none of the later conflicts would’ve happened.

Most notably, Palestinians were rsther explicitly forced out of Israel during the Nakba, itself a breach of International law. Nowadays, Palestinians are living under an apartheid regime: they are scrutinised much more closely during security checks, thir homes are appropriated by Israeli settlers, mkre often than not under the protection of the Israeli government. They don’t have the same civil rights as Palestinians are tried in miliary and Israeli citizens in civil courts. Military courts generally don’t offer the same legal or human rights protections, punishments are mlre severe, there’s limited legal representation of the defendant and no confidential communication with lawyers, and Israel isn’t an exception to this.

Regarding escalation: the Palestinians are rutinely, and often violently opressed in a systemic manner.

They can’t get building permits. They get kicked off their land by settlers. They get retaliated against indiscriminately.

If you systematically opress someone like this, of course the desperate people will fight back in their desperation. What is unnecessary escalation is the disproportionate response of mass murder via starvation and bombing, as well as the systematic opression during the 70 years you mentioned.

None of this would’ve happened if Israel just came to some land, holy or otherwise, planted a flag and fairly enforced their laws according to basic principles of human rights

Since the game is at EOL it cannot generate any profits

Releasing server side source code opens up a route for abusing the game studio making the game

If, as you said, as the game is EOL it doesn’t make profits, then it can’t cause losses either. Otherwise it’d have to be kept alive.

Since if some 3rd part wants to profit off of running private servers of that game, all they have to do is make a flood of bots in-game and on the game’s communication platforms (eg discord servers, communities on Reddit or even Lemmy)

Uh… If they’re 3rd-party servers then hosting isn’t paid for by the publisher. Additionally, game publishers don’t pay for hosting of Discord/Reddit/Lemmy communities. And even if they did if the game is EOL they’d axe that too if it induces any cost.

This coupled with finding as many in-game exploits as possible can drive up costs enough to bankrupt the studio.

It absolutely can’t. The game is DEAD. It causes no profits or losses. Nothing aboit the game matters to the publisher anymore except for brand/reputation for a possible sequel.

forcing them to release server side source code, which the corpos can then grab and monetize the crap out of

Nothing explicitly forces release of source code, any reasonable server application wpuld suffice, open-source or otherwise.

The “corpos” usually make the games. The monetization concern is minimal since a server for a game isn’t anything a corporation couldn’t make on its own if it wanted, nor is it something groundbreaking.

Since the bot flood can be made nigh untraceable by having them operate out of an unfriendly state (say, Russia or China)

The bots would attack servers nit owned or operated by/for the publisher.

and there’s no studio acquisition necessary to get server side code, this would be a perfect extortion method that’d fly under the radar of antitrust legislation

What does any of this have to do with antitrust legislation? If anything, this would curb the publisher’s monopoly over the game servers although that in and of itself isn’t even an illegal monopoly.

Making a “allow 3rd party servers” update and a basic server application wouldn’t hurt an indie studio much. For beheamoths it isn’t even a drop in the ocean.

British Ambassador to Japan Julia Longbottom explained that her decision was because the city did not invite Israel to attend. Longbottom told reporters that unlike Russia, which invaded Ukraine, and Belarus, which cooperated in the invasion, Israel is exercising its right to self-defense. So, treating Israel in the same manner would be misleading, she said

U.S. Ambassador to Japan Rahm Emanuel will also skip the Nagasaki peace ceremony. According to the U.S. Embassy, Emanuel does not want to politicize the Nagasaki event.

the envoys of Group of Seven nations, except for Japan, and the European Union said that if Israel was excluded from the invited countries, it would be difficult to send high-ranking officials to attend the ceremony.

Totally not politicized. I guess supporting Israel is a better look than opposing nuclear warfare.

British Ambassador to Japan Julia Longbottom explained that her decision was because the city did not invite Israel to attend. Longbottom told reporters that unlike Russia, which invaded Ukraine, and Belarus, which cooperated in the invasion, Israel is exercising its right to self-defense. So, treating Israel in the same manner would be misleading, she said

U.S. Ambassador to Japan Rahm Emanuel will also skip the Nagasaki peace ceremony. According to the U.S. Embassy, Emanuel does not want to politicize the Nagasaki event.

the envoys of Group of Seven nations, except for Japan, and the European Union said that if Israel was excluded from the invited countries, it would be difficult to send high-ranking officials to attend the ceremony.

Totally not politicized. I guess supporting Israel is a better look than opposing nuclear warfare.

They could’ve just said “Rank the features from one to three accordibg to how much you like it”. This seems unneccessarily more confusing. It isn’t all that cobfusing, but it is an odd way to formulate the question.

I think that’s a good way of measuring “bullshit” in tge surver. The only problem is that you get just one of these questionnaires and a bunch of other questions for the entire survey

As far as I know Google doesn’t let some pretty basic stuff from Crome into Chromium, for example translation (might even go as far as the inbuilt password manager). Potential forks either lose those features or have to implement them seperately.

Now that Manifest v3 is rolling out, apparently Google is able to somehow block the change from being easily reverted which is additional developmental load (or just show ads). Manifest v3 won’t impact Brave too much since it only applies to extensions, while their adblocking is baked-in, but it’s worse than uBO.

Firefox is fully open-source and doesn’t artificially make enabling adblock an issue which might attract more simpler forks (as opposed to Opera, Brave and Edge having companies backing them, Firefox forks mostly have volunteer developers or open source collectives making them).

For Firefox forks, it’s viable since the forks aren’t doing all that much in the grand scheme of things. That isn’t to say what they’re doing is in any way bad, it’s just that there’s no need to reinvent the wheel.

Firefox is a secure browser and already has 99% of the work done. Most changes which forks make can be done just by changing the config. Some unfortunately have to be made seperately, and that does require extensive testing. Some can even be lifted from other open-source projects.

Separating from source just isn’t viable. Something nuclear would need to happen for any fork to decide to seperate from Firefox. If we just look at the Chromium side of things, Microsoft found it easier to switch to Chromium than to keep making IE/Edge from scratch, and Microsoft surely has a lot of resources to burn.

Would you mind pointing me in the direction of those AIs since the newfangled factcheck bot seems to just pull its data from a premade database, so no AI here on Lemmy

What happens if a mistake was made and an NFT is erroneously issued (for example to the wrong person)?

That person has it now. They mjght volountarily be willing to send it back with another transactions or the courts could force them to do so (as in give fines, request keys, send to prison, or just have the government own and ooerate all the wallet keys and simulate transactions eith blockchain just as the technology used in a very janky way)

What happens if the owner dies? How is the NFT transferred then?

Similarily, either the government does all the transactions with ‘your’ keys for you, or you write down the keys in your will and have someone of trust (e.g. a lawyer) do the partitioning/transactions part in your stead.

Who checks that the original NFT was issued correctly?

The seller and buyer beforehand, mostly

What about properties that are split? What happens if the split isn’t represented in the NFT correctly (e.g. due to an error)?

Rebalance by having everone affected send their portions for redistribution to a trusted entity

As you’ve said yourself, NFTs seem wholly unsuited for keeping track of general ownership on a large scale. All the problems do have solutions, but they’re either complicated for the owners or it’s someone else controlling people’s keys, defeating the entire point.

It could. It may or may not. I agree decentralization is a good thing, but do governments agree as well? First of all, governments are very resistant to change if that doesn’t play into their interests (real or percieved like this privacy violation). Using a traditional database to keep track of ownership seems cheaper (since they already do it) but most of all simpler. I’m not too familiar with the way blockchain functions so I may be wrong, but say someone wants to sell a car. In the current state of most countries you just draw up a paper or fill out a form, maybe get it notarized and pay taxes. A database seems flexible enough that if your sale didn’t get logged and the buyer got pulled over and questioned, they could provide the contract and clear up any questions about ownership. Or say the ownership was stripped as part of a court order. If it was a database, then changing the records is simple, but with blockchain the court would either have to get you to transfer the ownership volountarily, force you to disclose your keys or have some mechnism of forcing a transaction from the requester account (which as I understand it seems what blockchain is here to stop abd a core part of the specification). Alternatively the government just uses blockchain instead of a database, managing all the keys, wallets and identities (as in they have everyone’s keys and do all the transactions) which is the same level of centralization as a database, but with extra steps.

Ownership was (and is) a social contract, and a flexible one at that. Things get gifted volountarily, sold, taken away lawfully and inherited in a single jurisdiction by the thousands daily, and not all of these are well documented. Blockchain seems very limited in what it can do flexibility-wise which makes it unsuitable for keeping track of ownership, and that’s not taking into account that either everyone would have to actively use the blockchain for their sales and be familiar with the technology (decentralized) or having all the wallet keys operated by the government (defeating any useful feature of the blockchain for citizens). Adding blockchain into the mix will just complicate the transfer process and centralize it (as in we either do all validation on the blockchain or none), and with the fact that all the transfer history is centralised in the blockchain (despite it being decentralised in storage, it’s still explicitly stored and accessible) it would serve as just another venue of privacy violation and opression.

Maybe blockchain could be useful for things like, say carbon credits, or similar government-issued ‘currency’, but I don’t see it applicable to validating general ownership on a large scale for the general population, ever. The ‘digital Euro’ proposal, also being blessed by the buzzword Blockchain seems very distopian to me as well. Here, with currency being used I can see how it would be applicable in the real world (instead of heavily unstandardised land deeds, sales contracts and other proofs of ownership you have strictly defined currency units), but this also seems like a gross privacy violation as the government (and maybe anyone) can see where you got your money and where you’re spending it down to the cent.

Playing devil’s advocate here: maybe they were trying to be inclusive by not specifiying gender but haven’t heard of they. The US education system is a joke in a lot of places so the (hypothetical) teacher may have to think twice before suggesting they change the it’s to their. But hey, at least the apostrophe is where it should be and I’d take that as a win for education.

deleted by creator

Fun fact, Aspirin is still registered to Bayer in most of Europe

What wpuld those be if you don’t mind me asking?

Threats of physical violence are the only tool they have in their toolbox. THE ONLY tool.

And actual gun violence. They’re the sniwflakiest and wimpiest of the all, bringing an AK-47 to a civilised discussion and feeling “threatened”.