It’s not that they “can’t count to the teens”. The wording used in the OP was that they keep “losing track”. That’s very different and could suggest some kind of visual processing or attention issue rather than not understanding basic numeracy. Those kinds of issues are common intellectual disabilities that people can still succeed with if they find the right mechanisms to allow them to do the same tasks as other people.

I find that alcohol makes me feel sleepy/drowsy, but actually keeps me awake. I just lie in bed for hours feeling sleepy but not asleep. Good that it works for you though (/maybe find a way to fall asleep that’s better for you lol)

Pretty sure it’s satire especially with the hashtags.

Idiot on a team of intelligent people. I get pissed off at people being stupid. My team might get pissed off at me but that’s their problem. And generally I like being around people smarter than me because I learn a lot from them.

A lot of legal protections for workers aren’t enforced, or are difficult to enforce due to standards of evidence and other factors. A union is a worker-controlled means of enforcement. Instead of appealing to power from above, workers can exert their own collective power from below. In other words, it’s better than having rights on paper, because the government can’t just sign a piece of paper to take them away from you or decide not to enforce the rights.

Like all of this ranges from unenforceable to spuriously enforceable (eg for rule 1, you can guess whether something has AI vibes—with vibe code it might be easier if the AI has just hallucinated a function or something). Seems more for the purpose of making a point than anything, or perhaps relying on others respecting your policy, but other projects with much more lenient no-AI policies still have people flagrantly breaking them.

I think no win no fee is commonplace in the EU.

I mean, even if it predates modern image AI generation, we’ve had photo manip for a lot longer. Someone could’ve just edited it the old fashioned way. I did some pretty convincing photoshops back in the day.

There’s a lot of people in the world. If they offer international shipping, I’m sure whatever company you’re thinking of has a sufficient customer base.

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.

the court system

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.

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

1. 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

2. 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.