RedEye9 wrote on Jan 19, 2024, 21:54:This was decided by a grand jury, so how is that a sign that the DA wanted to make a name for themselves?Saboth wrote on Jan 19, 2024, 21:43:That's the first thing that came to my mind.
All signs point to a DA who wants to make a name for themselves.
This has been going on for over 2 years, sounds like the DA is up for reelection.
fujiJuice wrote on May 24, 2023, 23:45:Exactly! And that's the problem. Authoritarianism couldn't be further from the "don't tread on me" right-wing. In the US, I do think ultra-Nationalism is more typically right-wing because, at least in 2023, mild nationalism and even run of the mill patriotism is, but, more importantly, the most dangerous kind of ultra-nationalism has always gone hand in hand with authoritarianism, which, to tie this back in with the original posts, is nearly 180° from of what Elon says he is doing with Twitter.Rokkuu wrote on May 24, 2023, 21:27:
You do know that a core tenant of fascism is forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism and does not support free speech.
Twitter is selective speech. Elon gets to select the speech he likes.selection7 wrote on May 24, 2023, 22:49:
Don't forget the promotion of workers unions, the massive social welfare programs, and the co-opting of the free market economy to serve the interests of the nation over the individual. So, you see, those three guys really do remind one of a facis.... hey, wait??
I would imagine most people are referring to authoritarianism and ultra-nationalism when discussing fascism.
Not unions and welfare.
Rokkuu wrote on May 24, 2023, 21:27:Don't forget the promotion of workers unions, the massive social welfare programs, and the co-opting of the free market economy to serve the interests of the nation over the individual. So, you see, those three guys really do remind one of a facis.... hey, wait??Burrito of Peace wrote on May 24, 2023, 20:31:You do know that a core tenant of fascism is forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism and does not support free speech.
Because fascists love the idea of fascism? Just a wild guess.
Looks like twitter is open for all types of people to freely and openly communicate their thoughts and opinions. Quite Anti Facist to be honest.
jdreyer wrote on Apr 17, 2023, 22:52:just what I was thinking
Aaaaand watch pizza delivery dude get sued by the criminal for damages.
Sepharo wrote on Mar 27, 2023, 04:12:selection7 wrote on Mar 27, 2023, 03:59:Sepharo wrote on Mar 27, 2023, 03:06:Was she supposedly ever in costume at a convention with Chris? [...] Also, I don't think you should besmirch cosplayers! [...] I get why you might think they're a little nutty, but they're mostly good people.selection7 wrote on Mar 27, 2023, 03:05:Sepharo wrote on Mar 27, 2023, 01:27:What cosplayers?
Sounds like everyone learned an important lesson.
Chris learned to stop sleeping with cosplayers at conventions, lest something like this happen.
And the women who found him creepy learned they need to be very very specific about how exactly he's creepy, lest a lawsuit like this happens.
The women in the lawsuit.
You should read it.
What the hell are you talking about?
I did no such thing.
Sepharo wrote on Mar 27, 2023, 03:06:Ah, thanks. I did read quite a lot about it some time ago, but never came across her being a cosplayer. Was she supposedly ever in costume at a convention with Chris? Either way, Chris never slept with Karissa or Kelly, and to his knowledge, has never even met Kelly.selection7 wrote on Mar 27, 2023, 03:05:Sepharo wrote on Mar 27, 2023, 01:27:What cosplayers?
Sounds like everyone learned an important lesson.
Chris learned to stop sleeping with cosplayers at conventions, lest something like this happen.
And the women who found him creepy learned they need to be very very specific about how exactly he's creepy, lest a lawsuit like this happens.
The women in the lawsuit.
You should read it.
Citizen P wrote on Mar 26, 2023, 19:46:I agree it seems this way. Maybe it is. But this has been a sort of low-profile Depp-Heard case, except the accusers learned from the Heard case and didn't let it go to trial, and there's an important similarity in the outcome. If you consider the zeitgeist of the me-too movement that we were in for a while, it was a revolution, but still quite nascent. I like to think that both of these cases have helped that movement to start to grow up from the foolishness of a "believe all women" buzz phrase to something more productive.
How wonderful, those who have genuine cases of abuse now have more stacked against them because some people wanted to take advantage of change that should have been for the better.
Sepharo wrote on Mar 27, 2023, 01:27:What cosplayers?
Sounds like everyone learned an important lesson.
Chris learned to stop sleeping with cosplayers at conventions, lest something like this happen.
And the women who found him creepy learned they need to be very very specific about how exactly he's creepy, lest a lawsuit like this happens.
cappy wrote on Feb 16, 2023, 19:07:No problem. I forgot about this post too until today.selection7 wrote on Feb 15, 2023, 22:12:
That second link is interesting, but after reading paragraph after paragraph, I still couldn't find the part where they explain how the "vehicle indefinitely" could be corrupt or actually end up back in the hands of those donating. Did I miss it? I see many, many paragraphs complaining that the money is tied up not actually doing good in the present, though.
Furthermore, the bit about the Heard-Depp trial seems to present evidence against the article's own position. I watched many, if not the majority of that trial's testimonies:
#1) The article very incorrectly states that Elon gave $5MM in Heard's name (in addition to $0.5MM). My mental alarm went off went I read that, because it's not remotely true (and is easily googlable). Only $0.5MM was given by Musk in Heard's name, and probably another $350k anonymously (the ACLU says they literally don't know the source). The difference between $750k and $5MM is a pretty egregious factual error to get wrong in an article that's trying to persuade us they know the facts better than us.
[Note that Heard, herself, gave away no more than 5% of her divorce settlement, keeping the rest for herself, even though she said publicly she'd give it all away. Johnny actually started the process of giving that divorce settlement money directly to the ACLU himself, but Heard's reps reprimanded Depp and said he should pay the money to Heard first—supposedly so Heard rather than Johnny would get the tax write-off, but of course there never was a tax write off because Heard never gave it away, which an ACLU lawyer sheepishly testified to in court. Also interesting is the article saying Depp's legal team "tried to undermine Heard's credibility", even though Heard steadfastly refused to admit on the stand that she never gave that money away, even years after she'd received the settlement and before Depp sued her for defamation in 2019. If you watched the trial, you'd know there was no "tried" to it—it was one of many things that led the jury to believe Heard's credibility was undermined (i.e., that she was a serial liar).]
#2) In the courtroom, neither the ACLU lawyer, nor any legal pundits on either side ever suggested the $500–750k Musk gave to the ACLU (through the investor donated fund) didn't actually go to the ACLU. We might debate whether the ACLU should be considered a non-profit charity, but we can't debate that it nevertheless is, and that Musk gave $500–750k to the ACLU through that fund.
Sorry for the late response. A great many billionaires take advantage of "charity" vehicles primarily as a means of tax write-off while controlling and preserving the funds. A widely-used vehicle is a "donor advised fund".
Generally with DAFs, there are no minimum distribution requirements. Many of them may also be structured in a way (such as an LLC rather than as a charitable foundation) to avoid reporting their actual activities. They have become very popular especially among wealthy individuals in the tech industry.
This article discusses some of the issues with DAFs not making disbursements.
John Arnold talks about his issues with DAFs here
jdreyer wrote on Feb 8, 2022, 19:43:I don't play games that don't have an ending anymore, and in making that transition, only a few years after its release, I stopped playing this. I thought it was excellent. I didn't like having nothing to do for 10 minutes sometimes when I died early, though. It wasn't the dyeing I minded, but the sitting around doing nothing. Before Americas Army, I played the heck out of Counterstrike. Big difference between the two, and I preferred a less run-and-gun, more tactically cooperative style of play.
Tried it when it first came out, decided it was half baked, and never tried it again. I think they did continue to improve it for several years though. Did it ever get good?
Mr. Tact wrote on Jan 30, 2022, 14:38:Thanks, got it. It's true the only people I've heard talking about personally buying NFTs (some sports radio hosts in their 20s) were doing so speculatively, i.e., to make money. So I was aware of that angle, but NFTs are typically presented as something frivolous but apparently still 'cool' to the right kind of buyer (like Steam digital trading cards/badges). So I was confused why anyone would be up in arms about it. Going forward, I'll keep the speculative nature of NFTs more in mind when I'm reading about the subject.selection7 wrote on Jan 30, 2022, 13:57:First of all, I realize I can't keep idiots from wasting their money. Anyone who would buy Ubisoft NFTs is likely to find something just as stupid to spend their money on if Ubisoft does a 180 and never creates NFTs. Second, at some level, NFTs in games certainly aren't much worse than selling cosmetics for your character. And I don't have any particular issue with game cosmetics, I'll even confess to having bought some (ship paint jobs in E:D).
Don't misunderstand me. I'm not looking to debate the merits of NFTs. You don't even have to tell me why you don't think the NFTs are what Ubisoft says they are. I'm just looking for those who are complaining about it to plainly state exactly what their problem is with it. I don't think they realize it's not clear at all.
So, what's the problem? The problem is the representation this could be some kind of way for the gamers to make money. I feel this is disingenuous, at best. At worst it is a borderline criminal scam on their customers. It is nothing more than an attempt to con their customers. I object to people being conned.
Mr. Tact wrote on Jan 29, 2022, 17:31:So that's a "yes" to my question if the outrage is entirely based on protecting those who are foolish or uninformed? Because you also imply the NFTs are "Miracle Water" that are not what they're purported to be. As you read in my original post, I can't see that Ubisofts NFTs aren't exactly what they say they are, so I also need you to confirm that's another complaint. Don't just imply it.
While it might be true that, "A fool and his money are soon parted" -- that doesn't mean we should be on board for systematic ways of doing it. Are you good with the clown who sells "Miracle Water"?
eRe4s3r wrote on Jan 28, 2022, 12:26:I don't know much about this, which may be why I don't understand why you (and others like you) care. My 'first take' is that I'll never buy an NFT, so it makes no difference to me. To the people who do, no one is forcing them, and they get to decide for themselves how they want to spend their money. Neither you nor I have any say in it. If buying an NFT makes them happy, more power to them. Presumably, it makes the gaming business more profitable at no cost to me.
Oh we get it, it's another money making scheme for the rich to get richer on the back of players, by implementing features that by their very nature turn a game from something you play for fun, to something you play for earning money while the actual pitboss makes the actual money (here, Ubisoft Investors). And those games can go fuck themselves so hard that they come out of the other end of a black hole in the Gamma Quadrant.
Also it takes a special kind of mindset to think that we, Gamers, who live and breath the bleeding edge of technology, "don't get" new technology. Lmao. If there were anything about NFT's that weren't a pyramid scam maybe more people who aren't crypto-bros would support it.