That’s an insane litmus test of objective fact. I’d say a significant amount of court rulings go blatantly against reality lmfao.
You can’t test things in court that aren’t disputed because someone has to dispute it… Who’s gonna dispute that a contract is a contract? Read the text it says when you buy a game. It says what it says. No court can say a document doesn’t say the words it literally explicitly says.
What I’m saying is not in dispute is the fact that you buy licences to play games and that licences can be revoked. Both of those are objective fact. It’s a separate question as to whether or not a given state wants to enact punishment against a former licence holder.
Case law is specific to jurisdiction. I don’t know where you live, and I’ve not said where I live. The way buying and selling most digital copies of games is through buying and selling licences, though some software you do pay for the download itself rather than paying for a licence. That doesn’t require case law; that’s literally just what it is, like how if I sign a contract I don’t need case law to demonstrate that what I’ve signed is a contract, it just is. Case law adjudicates matters of law which are in dispute, not figuring out whether a spade is a spade.
In the first example, it is not fair use, because you don’t buy digital copies of games—you buy a licence to play the game. My Minecraft licence would have been revoked when I didn’t create a Microsoft account. Game companies can impose whatever conditions on a game licence they like (so long as the condition is not otherwise illegal).
That’s great though, because it makes cleaning the floor fun. You get to drive a remote controlled car instead of just mopping or whatever.
It definitely is, and I’ve done it several times.
One example is Minecraft, which I legit bought but no longer legitimately own, because when Microsoft took over they forced people to make Microsoft accounts and no longer allow Mojang accounts to be used to authenticate. Because I didn’t make a Microsoft account, I no longer own the game, so now I play a pirated copy because I can no longer legitimately play it.
Another example is some games made by studios that went bust and there’s no longer any legit distributor of the game, so the only copy you can download is a pirated copy.
It’s still piracy if it circumvents the intended method of distribution and validation that you own a licence.
It’s not as simple as just wiping out the global south and working class—the global north ruling class is only able to better survive climate change because of the labour of the global south and the working class. When climate change leads to a collapse in population and labour in the global south, it will seriously impact the people living in their air conditioned bunkers. The nature of being a parasite means you need a host to leech off of, and that’s us. They can’t live without us.
And I don’t believe climate change is going to literally eliminate every single person among these demographics. Some people in soon-to-be-uninhabitable countries will be able to leave and seek climate asylum elsewhere. There’s also permanent human life in every continent except Antarctica; there will still be some small communities clinging on in parts of the world largely departed, because humans can adapt to such a wide range of climates. There’s going to be a huge societal collapse and restructuring of society, but not extinction.
It is completely unrealistic to expect humans not to be greedy, or to subscribe to left leaning philosophies of human love, human rights, the right to a home or distribution of wealth. In the end we all are monkeys, more now than ever, given how the far right has become so mainstream. It is simply what people want.
“Human nature” is not transhistorical or actual nature. Our material interests change based on the mode of production we live in. We live according to the logic of capitalism because we live within capitalism. Climate change will lead to at least a fundamental change in capitalism, if not its collapse, which will also change humans themselves and our behaviours. Capitalism atomises us so that the economic subject is the individual, but in another mode of production such as communism, the economic base of society would be different such that the economic subject is not the individual. Humans aren’t inherently greedy, nor are they inherently altruistic.
It’s not an insult. It’s the widely accepted term for the ideology of the bourgeoisie. They self-describe as liberals. That’s been the usage of the term since its coining; USAmericans just decided to only use it to describe more left-leaning liberals rather than all liberals. If it’s used as an insult, it’s between communists accusing another communist of not being a communist, not because liberalism is inherently a pejorative. Like if a right-winger calls someone a communist as an insult, it’s not because communism is a pejorative, it’s because it’s a non-communist accusing another non-communist of not being not-communist enough.
Wikipedia’s administrators showed that they don’t appear to value details like formal charges, a designated prosecutor, basic decorum, distinction between prosecution and judge, dispassionate adjudication
It would be deranged and far from a good thing if online moderation and dispute adjudication decided to use a criminal model of trying to prove a person’s guilt
The real life criminal justice system is the opposite of unbiased and fair
DDG is fine. It’s hard to have a “completely private” search engine as currently only Big Tech has a comprehensive enough index of the internet to effectively provide a search engine.
Obsidian isn’t FOSS though. I’d recommend Notesnook as an alternative. I haven’t tried any of the following but I also know of Logseq (which aims to do what Obsidian does but FOSS), Joplin, and Standard Notes, which you might want to look into.
The only scars I have are surgery scars. Surgeries involved going all the way through the skin to what’s beneath. All the other injuries I’ve gotten must have been too shallow to form a permanent scar (some formed temporary scars that disappeared over time). If your skin biopsy is just a “tiny little cut” then it most likely won’t scar unless you’re prone to scarring.
I second the recommendation for silicone treatment; that’s what I used for my surgery scars and they helped a lot. For the surgeries I’ve had, it’s not possible to not scar, but silicone scar treatment has made my scars change colour to the same colour as my skin so they blend in very well now.
It depends on your threat model again. Many people are able to live as fugitives for a long time because they’re not very high priority for the cops. I’ve personally known people who have been able to evade the state just by living nomadically because the state doesn’t put many resources towards finding you if you’re low-priority. Obviously if you’re actively wanted for idk terrorism or something then you’ll need more than just a nomadic lifestyle.
I don’t sit on corner sofas regularly enough to have a standard seating position. In that picture I think I feel inclined towards the junction of the sofa.
Because they benefit from eating animals (they enjoy eating them) whereas they don’t benefit from having sex with animals (they don’t enjoy having sex with animals).
It’s fairly difficult to have a fixed abode anonymously. It depends on what your threat model is, but if concealing your location, particularly to the state, is part of your threat model, living nomadically is better. You’re talking about something different, which is blending in socially.
The forking option wouldn’t work as well as it does on github because AUR packages are not namespaced like GitHub repos, e.g. communism/mypackage; instead it’s just mypackage. So if adoption required a new name you’d have mypackage-cont, mypackage-cont-cont, or whatever. And it wouldn’t really be possible to introduce username namespacing because AUR packages are just Pacman packages that are community-contributed rather than official, and Pacman, like most package managers, doesn’t namespace their package names; firefox is just firefox rather than, say, mozilla/firefox. Some AUR packages get added to the official repos so when you do, e.g. yay -Syu, you’ll then install the official package if you previously had the AUR package installed as it has the same name.
There isn’t a perfect solution. Even if package adoptions were moderated, someone could take over a package and initially push a genuine commit, and then their next commit is malicious. Reviewing every single AUR commit would be incredibly labour-intensive. Possibly you could add automated checks for commits that suddenly add an npm install or other suspicious command with regex, but attackers could just get cleverer about avoiding those regex checks. Imo the best solution is just more widespread warnings about the fact that AUR packages are community-contributed with no guarantees of safety (e.g. on the Arch wiki where it sometimes suggests users install AUR packages), and AUR helpers forcing users to read PKGBUILDs before installation.
Just look for “faraday bag” online. There’s some online stores that sell them.
If you mean an actual cage rather than a bag, not sure, but I imagine you could make one to your specified dimensions.
It’s a Haveno network. Haveno is the platform; RetoSwap provides a network for the Haveno platform.
I use bisq and retoswap.
So what are you suggesting is in question then? The licences sold for games will differ from game to game; if one of then were legally unsound, that wouldn’t automatically make all of them legally unsound, and obviously that’s local to the legal system in which that finding was made. That selling licences to play games is categorically unlawful? I think that’s not a particularly plausible outcome, and is unlikely to propagate beyond the given jurisdiction the finding happens in if such a ruling were to happen.
There’s no “the court system”. There are court systems. You’ve only linked to US case law, which, for instance, doesn’t apply to me. This does just seem to be a legal fetish (in the anthropological sense, not the sexual sense). A court ruling something or other doesn’t even have worldwide legal implications, let alone worldwide epistemological implications.
As for what counts as piracy (a separate matter to the rabbit hole we’ve gone down), something being a legal term does not mean that the definition of the word matches 1:1 with its legal description. I’m sure we can both think of examples of murder which is not criminalised as murder by a given government, for example. Words are defined by their use, and people use piracy to refer to a method of obtainment.