Cethin

A lot were, but not all. I believe Itch made the decision to allow this type of content only if it’s free for now though, so a lot has gone totally free (with the option to donate).

I’m not totally sure on any of this, because this content is not something I follow, but I think I heard this is the case somewhere here recently. I could be wrong.

Just a heads up, because of payment processor stuff, most are free on itch.io right now also.

I think I’ve heard putting a rock in your shoe is effective, though obviously not comfortable.

Yeah, even though batteries have gotten smaller, and I’d prefer a larger one, mine still trivially lasts a day. I’ve got an inductive charger at my desk too, so it’s rarely drops below like 80% even. They easily last long enough that carrying extras to hot swap is not required and just a hassle. I guess if you’re going camping or something, it might be nice, but that’s about the only situation I could see being useful.

And also none from the person above, but the logic doesn’t check out. Using basic inference, we know it isn’t about legal content. That already wasn’t allowed, so no changes needed to be made. There must be another reason. What is it? I don’t know. I’m not making a claim to knowledge of what it is. I’m only proving that it isn’t what the other person claimed. Burden of proof is on the person making a claim, not the one disputing it.

We don’t know their reasoning. However, we do know their requirement, which is not “no illegal content.” It’s “no content involving rape or incest” or something like that. They have also stated publicly they do not want to be involved in regulating legal content, but, again, that isn’t what they required. If they only cared about illegal content then that’s what their requirement would say, but it isn’t.

We should, but also they aren’t the root cause. If they’re gone, there’s nothing stopping a different group from doing the same thing (except for fear of retaliation). The ideal solution is to force payment processors to process any payment for legal content.

Yeah, that’s not what the payment processors are requesting. They aren’t saying they don’t want to be used to buy this content. They’re saying, if your platform hosts this content at all then they won’t process any payments. It doesn’t matter if the option is removed if the content is still there. They’re using their power of monopoly to police content.

I’ve heard this reasoning a few times. I don’t buy it. Illegal content is already illegal. You aren’t allowed to sell it. Policing particular content beyond that doesn’t cover your ass. In fact, it implicates you if you do process payments for illegal content.

I’ve never seen any argument from them that this is the reasoning. The only rule they need is that you aren’t allowed to sell illegal content on your platform. That covers everything. Going beyond that implies there’s a different reason. They’re being influenced by something else other than the law.

They have a risky move, which in 1/10000 cases leads to an illegal game being paid for through their payment platform.

And they have a safe move, where this never happens. Literally.

You’re not getting it. They’re the exact same risk. If it was illegal, it wasn’t allowed before. If you’re breaking the rules, you don’t care. Especially if you were breaking the law and the rule before, you don’t care that there’s a new rule that also applies. This doesn’t change risk at all. It doesn’t make it any more unlikely, and certainly not “literally never happens.”

The opposite could be true, if it were just against the rules but then is also made to be against the law. It might dissuade some people who were skirting the rules to reconsider. If they were breaking the law already, they don’t care that they’re breaking a new rule because they already were breaking the rules. It doesn’t make it any worse for them. It’s the exact same. If they’re discovered, they’re removed from the platform, exactly the same as before.

You must at least be able to understand this simple logic, right? Once you’re breaking the rules enough to be removed from the platform, why do you care if there are more rules that will remove you from the platform? You’re either stopped or you’re not, and the platform either stops them or it doesn’t. The risk to the payment processors is the same. You trust the moderation or you don’t. They aren’t going to do a better job because the illegal content is doubly not allowed. They’re either stopping content that isn’t allowed or they aren’t.

I’m saying the possibility of there being illegal content only exists if they allow the reintroduction of those titles.

Again, no. If there were illegal content before then it’s already breaking the rules. If you’re breaking rules once, why would adding more rules change anything?

They’d need trust in the store moderation, in the lack of bad faith actors, in a lot of things.

What? Yeah, the store moderators have to enforce the rules. I don’t know what this has to do with anything. Illegal or just banned, they have to be removed by the moderators. What difference does it make? This doesn’t make any sense. Adding more rules doesn’t magically remove the content. Moderators still have to do it. If they weren’t doing it for illegal content, why would they do it for only banned but legal content?

The reason they did it is because they were pressured by a weird group who has a lot of influence. It wasn’t because they were worried about illegal content, which is obvious because that’s not the rule they applied. If the rule was “you’re not allowed to sell illegal content” (which is obviously always true) then it’d be fine. Instead they made a rule for not allowing specific types of legal content.

Sued for what? They aren’t stopping illegal content from being sold. That, as is implied by the word “illegal”, was already not allowed on these stores. They’re stopping legal, but potentially (not my opinion) objectionable, content from being sold. There’s no legal risk for allowing it.

For your question, no. There’s no way for an object to have an orbit that doesn’t intersect the same altitude where an impulse happened. They could be knocked into an eccentric orbit, but it at least has to have the lowest point at the highest point of the Starlink network.

This is not to say it can’t hit something else after that changes the perigee at a later point in it’s orbit, thus lifting it higher. For a single collusion though, no, at least with the collision alone.

It’s be a step out of the relationship with me.

As a fairly privacy conscious person, I also expect and accept that it’s happening too. I don’t think you can be privacy conscious and not accept that. You have to be ignorant to think you can hide it all. I do my best to keep as much data out of their hands as possible though. I don’t agree with it.

I don’t think enabling it is a good idea though. Yeah, they might be worried, but they need to learn to handle those thoughts. Feeding them can only make it worse.

That’s not the reason for it. They want to ensure it isn’t normalized. If you start seeing a lot of people openly saying they’re anti-zionist, people who seem reasonable and generally agree with you, then you may consider that the propoganda you’ve been fed saying it’s wrong inst accurate.

It’s also a big red flag.

It’s still not creative. It’s just rehashing things it heard before. It’s like if a comedian just stole the jokes from other comedians but changed the names of people. That’s not creative, even if it’s slightly different than what anyone’s seen before.

I would rather someone posted saying they knew shit all about the sport but they were interested, than someone feigning knowledge by using ChatGPT as some sort of novel point of view, which it never is. It’s ways the most milquetoast response possible, ironically adding less to the conversation than the question it’s responding to.

That’s literally the point of them. They’re supposed to generate what the most likely result would be. They aren’t supposed to be creative or anything like that. They’re supposed to be generic.