Idk if he even codes
He was a hacker for the US government and has won 3 competitions at DEFCON. Before that he was a programmer for Blizzard and Amazon Games.
ImplyingImplications
joined 1 year ago
They're doing this because they've lost so much money investors are angry and the executives want to win people back. They aren't worried about law changes, they're worried about their stock price and reputation.
In the 12 years since European Citizens Initiatives have existed, there have been few successful campaigns even fewer actual law changes. If I were a greedy company, I wouldn't be worried about this in the slightest.
If ECIs are to become a useful tool for civil society, campaigners would benefit from a better understanding of how to craft their demands in a way that is likely to lead the Commission to actually propose a legislative initiative. There have now been 133 ECI attempts, millions of signatures collected, a significant amount of money spent, and little to show for it.
I also thought the entire reason for treating minors differently is because they're more likely to commit petty crimes and that shouldn't hurt their future.
A teenager who did a breaking and entering made a bad decision and should be given another chance. Their bad decision shouldn't haunt them for the rest of their life because that just ensures their only option is to continue committing crimes. A mass murder should not be given another chance. That's not a stupid decision a kid makes.
Recently I was made aware that AI of 'me' falsely endorsing Donald Trump's presidential run was posted to his site. It really conjured up my fears around AI, and the dangers of spreading misinformation. It brought me to the conclusion that I need to be very transparent about my actual plans for this election as a voter.
She also said the only reason she isn't being politically neutral like she typically does is because Trump posted AI pictures of her claiming she supports right-wing policies. She's now encouraging her massive fan base of young women to vote, a group that probably would have been apathetic beforehand. That's another massive unforced error for the Trump campaign.
A gacha game asking money for something useless? That's the entire model!
Players that buy stuff in these games usually see it as a donation to devs making a good game. If nobody bought any of the useless stuff the game would shutdown. That's how I treat the $10 a month I spend on Reverse 1999. Or they're a gambling addict and can't stop themselves from spinning the wheel.
How did they manage to center the text???
That would be very sad considering there are currently petitions for accessible abortions, banning gay conversion therapy, and taxing the ultra wealthy.
This is why they're known as wedge issues because there's no compromise.
I was a funeral director. I got to know all the religious leaders in my town.
In a choice between "you can play online until 2035" and "you can play online forever", the answer is pretty obvious. All things being equal, the indefinite option is better. I think the problem is that all things are not equal, and making it a legal requirement that all games with online features come with a guarantee those features work indefinitely is incredibly vague and can lead to situations that outright hurt developers.
If the devs need to provide a server binary for players to host a server, how do they ensure these servers only allow players who have purchased the game to play? If they can't ensure it, then the law is forcing companies to allow pirate servers to exist
How do they ensure people running these community servers aren't charging money for people to play? If they can't ensure it, then the law is allowing people to use a company's IP to generate money without a licence.
If the original version had an in-game shop where you can unlock things with real life money but the offline version doesn't have a shop, thus making parts of the game forever unobtainable, did they follow the law? If not, then devs would have to give out paid features for free.
Unless these kinds of details are accounted for, this vague idea is doomed to fail because no government is going to force a company to give up their copyright/IP for free. I know a lot of people have also said "fuck these giant corporations" but this also affects indie developers as well. Copyright protects small creators as much as it does large ones.