He's so obviously not prepared to deal with anyone but sycophants.

This is why we got Stadia. Imagine Netflix where you pay a monthly fee and still have to buy all the movies and shows at full price. That was Stadia's model.

Thos erodes the concept of ownership so that it is substituted for rental, without stating that clearly. Stadia failed but in doing so it probably helped Microsoft figure out how to eventually get away with doing the exact same thing.

Games should clearly say if you're basically renting them, not have it buried in the EULA. Let publishers full price and let consumers decide if they are prepared to live with it.

Totally agree. You always leave yourself room to negotiate down.

Imagine not supporting this because you think it's unfair to the industry, given the very specific examples that have been given.

He talks about that. I think the gist is that a lot of games that are online services could run locally, the publisher just chooses not to. That's why Ross chose the Crew 2 as his hill to die on: there's evidence that an offline does/did exist and just wasn't enabled. That's a practice that needs to be challenged.

The argument goes that a game that relies on server side technology to run in any form shouldn't be sold as a product that you can own. This needs to be reflected in the price and licensing model. That seems fair.

The big question is why TF we're at a point where a company should be allowed to sell you a product and say you own it then remove your right to use the product arbitrarily. I bet there's IP in the server side code, but having a system where a corporation's IP and ability to make money from the IP is more important that the concept of ownership is deeply fucked up.

Technology Tangents did a video where a game he bought on CD and tried to play on period-correct hardware won't run because there was DRM that called a server to check the date and to make sure it wasn't leaked early. Decades after the release, the server is gone and the game can't run, ironically, because it's so far outside of its release date. That's the kind of bullshit that absolutely shouldn't be tolerated.

That article is from Jan 2023 when Sony responded to a Bloomberg report that they had cut production due to lower than expected launch sales.

It's possible they will rebut this article too, but they haven't so far AFAIK.

I agree with you, and I don't usually pay any attention to individual poll results. But this sentiment writ large may have an impact on the general election since voters typically link the performance of the economy to the current president (fairly or unfairly).

Interesting graph on this article showing correlation between consumer confidence and positive approval in the president:

https://theconversation.com/bidens-not-yet-getting-a-poll-bump-for-the-improving-economy-history-tells-us-why-220515

Think of those stupid "i did that" stickers, but in reverse.

And legislate content ownership altogether. The idea that Reddit spent more than a decade growing its community just so that it could use our content as its own property is a huge issue. How do we safely and fairly communicate and express our ideas in society where the platforms that enable this automatically claim ownership of our ideas? Social media are middlemen with outsized influence.

*free speech if Elon agrees with you

It's such bullshit, Reddit could have been so much more. Researching my latest purchase/obsession, and the only way to find anything that isn't corporate sponsored reviews or AI content farming is to add the word "Reddit" to the end of the search.

As someone with an 11 year old account that I deleted during the TPA debacle, I fully recognise that there's a huge problem here. Reddit created a place where people wanted to put their thoughts, ideas, and opinions, and now that they are cashing out TOO FUCKING BAD LAME EBD USER.

Edit: /oblig fuck you spez. Slimy little arsehole sold everyone out and thinks he deserves to be rich because his shitty site isn't absolutely irredeemable.

That chicken is so raw that 22 states want that man in prison.

I own Quest 2 and PSVR2.

The PSVR2 is by far the more glasses friendly. The entire facial interface is effectively suspended in front of your face and allows you to set a fixed depth that allows glasses clearance. The facial interface is much larger and supports larger frames.

Meta Quest is opposite: smaller and held in face by elastic that pulls the facial interface into your glasses.

I didn't have problems wearing glasses with either, but the PSVR2 is hassle-free. Still, I got lens inserts for convenience.

"Taylor Swift is going to come out in the presidential election and she is going to mobilize her fans," Kirk warned his viewers on Wednesday, adding, "And we're going to be like, 'Oh wow, where did all these young, female voters come from?' We better have a plan for that."

Kirk acknowledging a) the party does not attempt to represent young women and b) the current plan is that they hopefully just don't vote.

"If Judge Engoron can railroad a billionaire New York businessman, a former President of the United States, and the leading presidential candidate, just imagine what he could do to all New Yorkers,” Stefanik writes.

"If this can happen to someone who is above the law, imagine what could happen to you regular people."

Literally making her own counter argument in favour of the rule of law.

The report shows 48 per cent find it hard to know what content is available and where, 70 per cent wish they could manage multiple subscriptions in one place and 73 per cent wish they could search and discover content across all their subscriptions in one place.

Streaming platforms make it hard to find their content outside of their apps because they don't want to be a service, they want to be a destination. Just one of the many ways they are anti-consumer but expect they can demand premium pricing.

People want to pay a reasonable price for a reasonable service, and that's increasingly no longer the case.

It's... a me.

I have the receipts. Here's false statements you made that I corrected using easily available resource you refuse to acknowledge.

not fucking one has presented any argument as to what this body will actually do to change anything.

And

Nobody has any fucking clue what powers it might have, its a blank check. Show one fucking piece of evidence that there is any public plan for what this "advisory body" can and can't do, or shut the fuck up.

And

There is literally no scope included - they'll decide after

And

And all this done by a group of people or an individual chosen through unspecified means with unspecified credentials.

All of these are defined and you have wrongly claimed otherwise. You're a rube.

None of that actually says anything. Its just wide open phrasing that allows for limitless scope. Can you not see that somehow?

How? You refuse to explain. Every gap you identify I dispute and you go "nah man" and act like that's as good as actual facts.

How does the No vote lead to the actual change you're describing? You won't even answer that.

Get a fucken grip and use your Democratic power to help, don't throw your weight behind people who are making the world less inclusive ffs

I've been nothing but respectful toward you, even in disagreement. You're being an absolute cunt. This is the no vote in a nutshell n

there is no limiting phrase around "powers"

There is! The power is limited to "may make representations". It's written in stone, what more do you need than official, published documentation that clearly refutes what you claim is the position of the Yes campaign?

Maybe because you keep claiming information hasn't been made available when a simple google search proves you wrong?

Sure, but they can certainly give it powers to make or veto economic policy, make decisions on land ownership, environmental matters, regulations, or pretty much anything else, because there is no limiting phrase around "powers"

They can do that right now. Albo can legislate what you're describing and the next government can de-legilsate it. If the referendum passes it has no bearing on what powers are legislated.

The referendum does not give the powers you're describing and does not impact whether those kinds of powers are granted or revoked in the future.

You are misunderstanding what the Yes vote is. The referendum would only establish a voice in the Constitution that "may make representations" while specifically outlining that only "Parliament shall make laws".

And all this done by a group of people or an individual chosen through unspecified means with unspecified credentials.

Again, all of this is explained in the resources I linked to earlier, and the only reason you're ignorant to that fact is because you haven't bothered to do your research.

Members of the Voice would be selected by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, not appointed by the Executive Government.

Members would serve on the Voice for a fixed period of time, to ensure regular accountability to their communities.

To ensure cultural legitimacy, the way that members of the Voice would be chosen would suit the wishes of local communities and would be determined through the post-referendum process.

Members of the Voice would be Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander, according to the standard three part test. Members would be chosen from each of the states, territories and the Torres Strait Islands. The Voice would have specific remote representatives as well as representation for the mainland Torres Strait Islander population. The Voice would have balanced gender representation at the national level.

So, again, what's your issue here?