Not for the corporations that make money off of extorting a basic necessity from poor people! Won’t someone think of the corporations?

News used to be 60 minutes just after prime time. Now they have whole channels with news 24/7/365. Have to fill all that air time with something

My argument was that you can’t claim the moral high ground based on legality alone. I understand that nuance exists in the context, but moral high ground does not come from whether or not it’s legal.

I see what you’re getting at, but I think ‘moral high ground’ might not be the phrase you’re looking for.

Laws and morals are explicitly different. That’s why juries exist, so that a law may be put against the morals of a situation and the morals may prevail if need be.

Breaking the law isn’t necessarily immoral. It’s just illegal. So it isn’t like someone breaking the law is seeking to take the moral high ground in the first place, nor does that mean that someone who only ever follows the law always has the moral high ground. Lawful-evil does exist.

You are a god among men

This is the natural progression of the games-as-a-service model. Any game that relies on online support of some kind just to function will eventually cease like this.

Is it stupid that a vr game about a pet relies on online support to function? Absolutely. But it is what it is. Buy more offline games.

deleted by creator

Maybe that’s the point. Unity caves immediately to the big lawyers and says “Sorry guys, we tried. Looks like all you little studios will have to pay up after all. Blame Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft”

Let’s go a step further and analyze exactly what this graph is saying:

There’s only about a 20% distribution difference in the “never” sections between Christians and atheists. So on average, 4/5 atheists would answer the exact same as Christians. All this graph says is that Christians are barely more tolerant than people who identify as atheist. Barely is the key word. If anything, this graph proves that tolerance levels don’t fluctuate that much for the individual between differing religions.

But Bible thumpers need any win they can get, so they don’t read the data for what it is, they just see one bar longer than the other and declare victory.

I bought my oneplus 10 pro for sub $500 during a sale, and it has usb3.1. It’s last year’s model. You can get a pixel 6 with usb3.1 for less than $400. A Galaxy S21 has usb3.2, less than $500.

That’s almost every major android brand for $500 or less with 3.1 or better. The cheapest you can buy an iPhone 15, the one with usb2.0, is $800. What are you on about?

You’re a housing provider, not a landlord. If you aren’t making anything off of the houses you lease then you aren’t the subject of the ire of renters.

Ignore those goons saying you’re a bad investor. It’s noble of you to not leech off of the people who you rent to, and at the end of the day, the equity of the house is still yours.

deleted by creator

And soon, the carrier pigeon breeders will start tagging them with tracking chips…

deleted by creator

It’s psyops, nothing more. They perceive it as “playing the west’s game” in a double bid to stoke their own citizens and trip up NATO counterparts by using “western” language against them.

The right in this context is invented: A projection of hard power through the lip service of soft power.

Oh, like a little kiss

The first step is to make it illegal to sideload “illegal” apps. It’s the step that sounds reasonable that less informed people might agree with or at least not protest. The next step is to arbitrarily decide what makes an app illegal. By that point, it’s too late to protest the actual law.

It’s like the law in Florida making the punishment death for sexual assault on a child. That sounds fine until you realize that their legislature has announced their intent to make wearing clothes opposite your gender in public into sexual assault on a child.

Unilateral restrictive laws, without specific stipulations or conditions, even innocent sounding ones like this, are one bad actor away from being changed to a political weapon.

I’m not sure if you’re talking about the left on a world wide scale, but in America I really don’t think it’s fair to say that the left is the side limiting free speech. Sure, they may paint the use of certain words as distasteful, but that’s basically the extent. Leftists don’t even tend to get the law involved outside of defining what may or may not be hate speech.

On the other side of the aisle, the right wing party is promoting book bans and firing teachers they disagree with. Several states have a version of the “don’t say gay” bill that literally prohibits teachers from explaining why one student has two dads, and a similar bill that prohibits institutions from simply acknowledging a kid’s preferred name. Texas and Florida are defunding colleges with curriculums they as a party don’t like. Louisiana (along with a few other states) passed a bill requiring you to prove who you are with state ID before you can view something they deem inappropriate.

All of those things are actual examples of infringing the concept of free speech. Does the left do anything remotely like those things?

Came here to say this. The most literal definition of the word conservative is “to conserve old ways”. They are resistant to change by definition.

Leftists use change as a tool to try to make things better. They’re naturally more likely to embrace something new.

Do you know that donation to Mozilla don’t (and can’t legally) fund Firefox development, right?

Two lines on a graph don’t prove that statement. What you’ve proven is that the chair of Mozilla is making more as the market share is going down. Now connect the dots with a source that shows why those numbers matter and you’re golden.