Kinda looks like a rodent himself
OK, someone explain this one to me. I am only vaguely aware of this guy, not being in the anglosphere, and I am definitely more aware of the hate than the output.
Why do people dislike this guy? Is there anything specific or do people just... not like him?
I mean... yeah, but also I'm very well on the record disagreeing with that and calling Trump a fascist since day one. Not that I expect you dig through my online presence to corroborate it.
I'm not American. The presence of fascists in US politics has been a commonly accepted truth in anybody anywhere left of demochristians for half a century. This isn't "hindsigh", it's "I recommend always reading what people say about your country in foreign newspapers".
And for the record, we got fascists, too. We're just less shy about calling them that, maybe? Certainly don't have any delusions about ourselves in terms of being inoculated from fascism at a fundamental level. The idea that Americans would have survived Bush, let alone the overtly fascist Trump without noticing or acknowledging it seems outright bizarre to me, but there you go.
I mean, Stephen Miller isn't even shy about it. Even if you are the kind of European that would argue Berlusconi wasn't a fascist and could maaaaaybe entertain Trump is on that same level of "just horny criminal idiot" you surely would have had zero questions after hearing five minutes of Dracula Hitler back in 2016.
What? Everybody thought fascism would come from the inside in the US. Even if you slept through the first Trump term this has been a thing since the 1930s. Surely during the Cold War, and definitely for everybody outside the US itself, but... I mean, were you alive during the whole "war on terror" nonsense?
Had the post-Reagan, post 9-11 US fascists successfully brainwashed even left of centre normies into thinking that was not the case? Were Americans that oblivious?
You guys keep misrepresenting things I disagree with and make me fact check them, then argue with me as if I'm agreeing with them.
Google isn't killing Open Source Android apps, although it may very well kill F-Droid. Open source devs can definitely still register and provide their apps as a standalone APK.
This does open the door to Google refusing to grant an account to people they don't like, although they haven't done that yet, and it should be noted that as they present it once you have a dev account you can just sign as many apps as you want.
The real eff you from Google to F-Droid here is that they are presenting two types of accounts you can use for this: dev accounts, meant to publish on Google Play (although potentially you could just... not do that) and student/personal accounts that are free and they claim are meant for hobbyists. I've heard rumbings online about what the dividing line will be between them, so that may be a functional workaround for anybody who doesn't want to be on Google Play, but I haven't seen anything specific from Google on it other than "it's coming". It does stand out that "I'm an Open Source dev who doesn't care about Google Play" is not part of the equation here, though, and "I'm F-Droid and I intend to build and verify a TON of apks" is also not accounted for at all.
And of course there now will be a direct paper trail between any signed app and an organization or individual, which is a legal liability issue for a number of app developers. At least on phones. Non-Google certified devices (think Android SBCs and handhelds) should still be able to load unsigned APKs, although those are residual.
I mean, that's all really bad. Why do we need the hyperbolic "Google is killing Open Source" framing? The real thing is bad enough and it doesn't make me show up to argue about it. Plus you could have accurately stated "Google kills anonymous apps, threatening alternate app stores" and that would have been 100% accurate and just as horrifying.
I mean.. this. Supermarkets aren't that big. If you're recording where everything is shelved (and that's a big IF, I doubt it's worth it), then a good old search will do the trick just fine.
But also, forget even asking. I would assume supermarkets want you to roam around the store looking for things, because... well, that's how you bump into crap you don't need and buy it anyway. Seems like a weird lose/lose.
It's a "me" problem in that "I" think the indies vs AAA lines are increasingly inconsistent and nonsensical. "I" also find the concept of "pirating against" to be extremely disingenuous, which is why there is a whole post explaining that after the line you quoted.
The hell does "piracy against big companies" even mean?
Man, pirate what you can't afford if you must, just... you know, be honest about it. I'm always annoyed by people doing the thing they wanted to do anyway and presenting it as activism. That's not how that works.
For the record, while I think there's plenty to be critical about in modern gaming, "DLC", "game has a launcher" and "game is ported from other platforms" are not that. "A game I played on the PS3 was too expensive when I wanted to rebuy it" is somebody giving you bad value up front, not some ideological stance you're taking.
For the record, I also didn't buy it because I also didn't think their launch price was right. In fairness, it has since been on sale for 30 bucks multiple times, which is a lot more reasonable.
And again, I'm not saying don't pirate it. Do what you want. Just don't be weird about it.
No, no, Jeff Ennis worked as an actual superhero briefly in the 1970s you're thinking of John Ennis, who created The Boys as a musical in the 90s, but he was mad about his working conditions.
No, it's much more interesting than that.
It's an accurate representation of Garth Ennis being mad about having to work with superheroes despite not liking that at all and being a bit of a petty bitch with a bit of a dudebro sense of humor that, frankly, we all overrated at the time because when you were a teenager in the 90s you thought Preacher was hilarious and much smarter than it is, and it got to his head a bit.
And then it's an accurate representation of Eric Kripke who was very much the right age to have gone through that, taking the material and going "well, that Trump guy sure was a thing, huh?" and "aren't you kind of over all those MCU movies, also?" because superheroes in film were at the same point in 2019 than they were in comic books in 2006.
Don't be the teenager we all were in the 90s and assume that "edgy and mean and over the top" is the same as "smart and realistic". It's not.
I'll say that the show is at least less callous than the original material and it's at least trying to be political, which makes it slightly more plausible and internally consistent than Ennis' HR complaint of a comic book. Hollywood has a history of taking this edgelord crap (see also: every single Mark Millar adaptation) and making it palatable by applying the same mainstreaming and dumbing down that kills every Alan Moore adaptation. Turns out if the original material isn't that smart to begin with that's actually a good thing to do.
Most of that is entirely absurd and not worth getting into. I'm sure a pedantic historian can nitpick it if that's the way everybody wants to go.
However, let me revisit your accusation of "contradicting my point". At no stage here have I conflated unarmed protest with peaceful protest. All along I've been frustrated by the US mindrot tendency of accepting no nuance between some My Little Pony version of political action and outright armed confrontation. The worldwide protests that show how bonkers the US perception of the issue is were not peaceful, but neither were they an armed confrontation where protestors attempted to use their armed might to deter police forces. They were... you know, political action. Civil unrest. "Civil" being the key word.
The way you and US leftists in general tend to parse stuff like this is nonsense. The fact that mass protests can escalate to the point they went in Nepal, Madagascar or any of the countries in the general "Gen Z spring" movement and prior protest waves disproves the US perspective because a) it has nothing to do with the level of access to weapons, and b) it shows sufficiently commited public action doesn't have to be either fully nonviolent or an armed insurrection.
Americans look at this as some form ot guarantee their success by either intimidating the other into submission or hoping that the other side will fold immediately. That's not how this goes. "The cops may charge at us, we should bring guns" is some weird overlap of thinking protestors are entitled to painless victory and that there is no possible pressure beyond violent pressure. It makes no sense to me. And yet, here we are, a bunch of posts down the line.
See, and there it is. Zero to a hundred. It's either popcorn or civil war, no gradient.
I mean, for one thing Nazi Germany also wasn't defeated by military cosplayers flashing their gun collection at them, and clearly neither was MAGA America. The first one was defeated by a borderline apocalyptic global war, so... in the grand scheme both the military cosplay and the sternly worded letters are pretty much about just as effective there. We're still waiting and seeing on the MAGA America part.
But for another, plenty of nonviolent and/or unarmed protest has achieved its goals, historically. From Europe to India to South Africa to the actual United States. The "sternly worded letter" derision is pure action movie fantasy. This month alone the governments of Madagascar and Nepal came down after mass protests. Not a single set of camo pants in sight, just... you know, students organizing on social media and One Piece flags for some reason because this is a weird timeline.
They weren't even fully nonviolent, either. There were clashes, there was enforcement violence and dozens of people, mostly protestors, were killed in both countries. And still two governments came down and the situations continue to evolve and push for full regime change.
Meanwhile the example I'm being given is some American fascists standing on a street while cops that agree with them wait for them to get sleepy at their military cosplay convention and go home.
I don't get Americans. I don't think the way they see the world as a culture makes sense, and I am terrified at how much they export it successfully through places like this. Nepal just held a full-on election over Discord and I still understand how that went down better than middle class America's political views.
Yeah, no, that's the point. You look at a barbaric demonstration of a completely broken down society and see something that works. That's horrifying.
You effectively saw some guy walk into a subway holding his erect, exposed penis in one hand and a machete in the other and went "hey, that guy found an empty seat right away, I think we can all learn a lesson here".
That's nuts. It's weird that you don't see how nuts that is.
Somehow still accurate.
Well that went places.
I didn't say it looks like a flash game, I said it looks like the logo for a flash game portal.
That is fucking terrifying and so is anybody who doesn't think so.
Twitter has an aggressive character limit, a focus on a streaming feed and historically it's been built on fast, trending content updated in real time via reposts and this sort of atomized discussion using unthreaded quotes.
Tumblr has changed a bunch trying to stay relevant in a MySpacey kinda way, but it's ultimately more of a blog platform where the main post is expected to be bulkier and more readable while the threaded responses are framed as more of a comments section you don't even get to see in full by default, so it more or less splits the difference between Twitter and Reddit, or between Masto and here.
"A different CSS" can impact how you interact with things a bunch, along with how you present trends and follows. Which I guess was my original point.
It's less the design itself and more that it makes the entire proposition seem like a flash game portal circa 2006, so it just screams "stay away" at unsafe volumes. It's not even a bad drawing, it's just branding the wrong thing at the wrong time.
It's all just little text packets, this place included.
But hey, that's all social media. The slight differences in threading, text limits, media embeds and share mechanics do matter.
Yeeeah, I'm not watching 25 minutes of someone shitting on someone else, especially since I don't know or care about either end of that online petri dish.
I'd be grateful for a summary, though.