Pika

I love how that's tagged "sustainable mining" as if mining anything can actually be sustainable.

Yeah but the two party consent states for recording imply that it's in a private location, there is nothing stopping anyone from recording someone in a public location.

It doesn't matter what the Stateside law of indicates whether it's public or private, it's already been decided by the Supreme Court that recording in a public area is a protection that's given under the First Amendment. This right to record has been challenged a few times by state representatives such as the 2007 case in Massachusetts where it went up to the first district appeals court, and back in 2021 in the Fraiser versus Evan's case which went all the way up to the Supreme Court.

As a general rule of thumb, if you're in a public area there is no expectation of privacy so therefore anything goes, this protection generally includes someone standing in a private area recording an area that is considered a public area, and in some cases even include someone who is standing in a public area recording it supposed to private area due to lack of obstruction from that public area (such as someone standing on the street outside a house recording an unobstructed window)

But as you said IANAL

edit:

That being said, because I realize I forgot to add this to the post. I am super against the entire idea of AI based goggles that's able to identify people in real time. That is such a violation of what should be basic privacy that honestly I think it's too far

They realized that most people will just cave and not actually go through the hassle of Defending themselves in court, so therefore why not

it's still practical to block them, twitch has adblockers and uses the same mechanics, if there's a client rendered element(such as a pop up box that can be clicked) it's detectable and therefor skippable or at the very least hidable.

that would be a trademark or copyright suit not a patent suit. Patents are strictly mechanics, they didn't sue on design, I agree I think they had a better case on that, but the Nintendo lawyers decided otherwise

the problem is, palworld isn't "pokemon with guns", they used that slogan originally sure, but palworld 100% shows more similar mechanics and concepts to ark then pokemon, it's a mix of pokemon style mechanics and Arks RPG mechanics. I would say they had a stronger suit against trademark than they did mechanics side.

The only game mechanic similarity between the two is the ball capture system and the fact that it's called a trainer/leader when you battle the NPC's anything else is already present in other games.

By this logic, any game that features the ability to tame or capture monsters would be a pokemon clone. That's far too broad of a category to allow as a patent if challenged. I personally believe it will result in them losing the patent as a whole if it is that patent they are fighting with.

rokus will DoS your DNS servers if you block their telemetry, I had to disable most logging on my pihole due to that because I was getting 2 or 3 gigs worth of DNS daily logging which was almost fully the sole roku Premier upstairs. It's so bad.

I use graveyard mods for it, gives me at least a chance but lowers challenge some

paralives is so slow development though, and the lack of teaser releases concerns me about the quality. I have high expectations for it as well but starting to grow concerned

having ADHD and trying to read this entire post, what a wonderful combo

I was just about to say a comment on the billboards, like wtf how is this legal. So glad that my state has them banned lol

I recently learned not all commercial craft are fly by wire when watching a mentor pilot video, I was amazed it was legal. ofc it was a crash video, but still the fact it was legal appalled me