Honestly though, what is wrong with people?

I'm in the same boat. The rear fingerprint scanner is one of my favorite features of any phone I've ever had. Seems like a small thing, but it's refreshingly functional. Still strongly considering getting a 6. Been waiting through several years and still using a 3. That said this 3 is perfectly adequate for what I need so maybe I'll wait on the 7 if reviews aren't stellar for the 6.

Did they add proper mouse support yet? (i.e. inverted)

Amen on that cryptocurrency article. Such a plague.

I would love to hear some opinions on the state of the game as well, if anyone around here has been keeping up. I usually jump into X games several years after release for both the fixes and improvements by the excellent modding community.

While they were unlikely to be investigating, with all of their network compromised, their ability to use standard development tools that make things function effectively as a large development team was definitely affected. I can see it taking a week or two to get things back to fully functioning order, not to mention the morale hit of having to (probably) redo work. The date of the last backups being unknown to us (hopefully days not weeks), this could be a significant amount of work having to be redone.

Did Genshin Impact add inverted mouse support yet? I can't fathom why it exists for controllers but not for the mouse.

Beamer wrote on Jan 12, 2021, 15:13:

Tomas wrote on Jan 12, 2021, 15:04:
It's a good thing we have places like bluesnews where we can make sure our opinions are correct.

With this post, you're one step away from calling us sheeple.

I don't think that's a fair expansion of what I said, but you are right, I shouldn't have made that comment. I apologize for that.

Cutter wrote on Jan 11, 2021, 23:51:
Tomas, you're conflating personal censorship and legal censorship. When your parents tell you not to swear, yes, that is technically censorship but it's not at all the same thing as being forbidden protected speech under penalty of law. One gets you grounded for the weekend the other sends you to prison illegally.

Parler's business model is one of, ostensibly, 'free speech'. Well too bad for them that no one told them that there's no such thing as "free speech" in America. There is only, and has only ever been, "protected speech" in America. And with protected speech there are limits to what you can say, and potential legal liability for the things you say. In short you're allowed to criticize things you don't like but you are not entitled to a platform to dispense those criticisms either. Otherwise I could call your employer and tell them you're a pedophile and you'd have no legal recourse to do anything whether it was true or not. And do you really believe for even one second that anyone should be able to say whatever they like no matter how fucking crazy or hateful or illegal it is?

All these companies that have refused to have anything to do with Parler owe them nothing legally or morally. They have no responsibility or obligation to them in any way, shape, or form. And not a single one of them is stopping Parler from doing business or limiting their protected speech. Them refusing to do business with Parler is not a violation of their protected-speech. That's no different from you coming into my restaurant dressed as Hitler and telling me I have no choice but to serve you. Really? So where do my rights come in to it? See, if that happens, I point to the sign by the entrance as I'm escorting you from the premises, "The Management Reserves The Right To Refuse Service". I don't have to give you a reason why. I don't want on you on my property so out you go. Your rights end where mine begin. Feel free to stand on the sidewalk and cry about it all you like, your rights haven't been violated. You need to learn a little something about law.

Uhm, no I'm not conflating them. The fact that censorship can come from multiple sources was my exact point. I am bothered when people make up definitions for words that aren't accurate, like suggesting that what AWS and others did was not censorship. I suppose we could imagine that their basis for doing what they did may not have been to censor what was taking place, I mean, that goes against what they have publically stated, but regardless of all that, and irrespective of the correctness or legality of it, censorship occurred. Unless I'm mistaken, I've also never stated that I think they were wrong in doing so. My argument has been about how this affects things from here on out as our society and technology evolve (including how we communicate as humans).

In regards to the rest of your post, I agree with it. I'm not sure what I've said to convince you otherwise. It is starting to feel like you aren't even reading my posts. My point has been and still is that there is a change in technology and with it there should be some discussion regarding how that is affecting a great number of things including, but not exclusively our first amendment rights. I'm under no false impression that we have complete freedom of speech, nor have I ever stated such.

Edit: lost my temper today. Embarrassing, but I'll survive.

This comment was edited on Jan 12, 2021, 22:33.

Edit: Deleting because it was in bad taste.

This comment was edited on Jan 12, 2021, 17:50.

Verno wrote on Jan 11, 2021, 17:34:

wtf_man wrote on Jan 11, 2021, 16:52:
A whole platform was silenced by 3 tech companies.

A dangerous platform hosting illegal content that it made little to no effort to police. And the platform wasn't silenced, they built their stack around AWS and that's on them. They can self-host like Gab, no one is stopping them. I don't care if it's 2 app providers or 20, none of them should be forced to host content that could make them liable or that violates their TOS. Parler was given multiple warnings and shrugged them off. That's on them.

The slippery slope arguments might make sense around here if we weren't already tumbling down the mountainside, pushed by idiots who do not care about laws and rules.

When we silence dialogue and see our own neighbors as the enemy we have lost our way.

You can't have a dialogue when one side refuses to engage and chooses alternate realities and violence. I made the same arguments four years ago when Hillary spoke about deplorables. I was wrong.

Regardless of everything I've posted today I agree with most of what you said. The last statement though gives me pause. I think that perhaps too often the fringes are manipulated to appear as if they represent the majorities beneath them.

Anyhow, I think that's it for me on here for today. I sincerely hope you all are having a good day regardless of everything going on in life. There's a lot of good out there if you look for it as well.

Beamer wrote on Jan 11, 2021, 16:58:

wtf_man wrote on Jan 11, 2021, 16:52:

Beamer wrote on Jan 11, 2021, 16:45:

Ok. Who was banned for things that aren't TOS violations?

A whole platform was silenced by 3 tech companies. Not Individuals that were violating TOS.

This is the same as if Twitter was hosted on Amazon, and the apps hosted on Apple and Android were completely and suddenly removed because Twitter wasn't fast enough at getting the small percentage (compared to the entire platform) of illegal content (death threats, etc.) removed.

Yes, when you create something predominantly for illegal purposes, or you fail to put in good faith efforts to curb illegal usage, this is what happens.
Over time we've seen this happen plenty, and usually for things that go up bragging about having no censorship. The Silk Road bragged about having no censorship. It was used mostly to sell drugs, and a few people purchased the services of hitmen (who may or may not have been hitmen, and who I don't think actually killed anyone, but they still took the money for the murder.) It was taken down.

Cheat programs for popular online games get taken down all the time.

This is as American as it gets. It's a mix of law and order - follow them or you get shut down, and capitalism - if you start creating more trouble than income you bring in for your vendors, they'll pretty happily sever ties.

Hey, Beamer. I don't think it's fair to suggest Parler was created for predominantly illegal purposes. I feel I should disclose that I have the app installed on my phone but I only used it once to see what it was and found nothing there of value to me personally. However, what I did see wasn't illegal in any way. Were there people on there I found repulsive in their opinions? Yes. Were there people on there I agreed with? Yes, as well. Were there groups on there who were committing illegal acts? I didn't see any, but from what's been shared as news since it sounds like it. I think you can probably find peole of that sort on any decent sized communication platform. The issue here isn't the legality of AWS shutting it down. The issue is in how and why they did shut it down. As they did, they instantly silenced millions of people who had done nothing wrong. Is AWS within their legal rights to do so? Yes. But doing something simply because it's legal doesn't make it a good idea.

Many people no longer receive a news paper or have access to the daily news on TV. The internet and its various platforms are where many if not most people now get their news and information and equally as important, these are the places their share their voices. While that is in itself no less than moderately terrifying, these platforms, the Twitters and Parlers are equivalent to the public forums of our day. I believe it is critical that we find better ways to manage them without stomping on voices with which we don't agree. That, too, would be as American as it gets. When we silence dialogue and see our own neighbors as the enemy we have lost our way. If we are proponents of American ideals we should be constantly striving to protect and understand the under-represented voices and those who feel marginalized.

Cutter wrote on Jan 11, 2021, 16:21:

Tomas wrote on Jan 11, 2021, 15:00:
I understand what you're trying to say, but what you said is just wrong. It's 100% censorship, but done by entities other than government. Sure, it's legal, but it's not necessarily good for our republic.

Holy blue flaming Jesus on a pogo stick! How many times must it be said? It's not fucking censorship if a private business refuses to do business with you. Censorship is when a government, or prior to the modern world, religion, prevents you from speaking your mind upon pain of punishment for breaking that edict. Like Galileo would have been subject to an inquisition and torture as well as excommunication if he didn't recant heliocentrism - he did, under threat of torture. That's fucking censorship.

Private companies refusing to do business with a business who's business model is making money from violent, seditious psychos isn't censorship. That's just good business. None of them have shut Parler down or put it out of business. Parler has no right to private telecommunication lines. They can either run their own lines or use fucking carrier pigeons, no one is stopping them from doing that but they're are owed nothing when it comes to providing them a platform for what they want to do.

censorship noun

cen·​sor·​ship | \ ˈsen(t)-sər-ˌship
\
Definition of censorship

1a : the institution, system, or practice of censoring They oppose government censorship.
b : the actions or practices of censors especially : censorial control exercised repressively censorship that has … permitted a very limited dispersion of facts— Philip Wylie
2 : the office, power, or term of a Roman censor
3 : exclusion from consciousness by the psychic censor

It's literally the definition of censorship. It can also be "good business" (twitter lost 12% of its value over the weekend, mind you, so maybe it wasn't good business), but that doesn't mean it's not censorship. Censor isn't by itself a "bad" word, but it does mean the suppression or deletion of things considered objectionable. That is literally what was done. I don't see why the definition bothers you so much. Because Twitter and other companies censored someone doesn't mean they did anything wrong legally, but the legality of it doesn't make it not censorship.

Tom wrote on Jan 11, 2021, 15:56:

Tomas wrote on Jan 11, 2021, 15:45:
Suppression of speech is something that alarms me regardless of who is being suppressed. Just because it is legal doesn't necessarily mean it's a good thing.

Incitement of violence and hate speech. That's what's being suppressed. Is that alarming? In my opinion it's far more alarming to allow that sort of thing to proliferate unchecked. That's what got us to this point.

If that was the only thing being suppressed I'd be bothered less. I also think you're being a bit disingenuous in suggesting that is the only thing that got us to where we are. We have massive problems beyond incitement of violence and hate speech.

Beamer wrote on Jan 11, 2021, 15:08:

Tomas wrote on Jan 11, 2021, 15:00:

Mr. Tact wrote on Jan 11, 2021, 14:19:

Agent.X7 wrote on Jan 11, 2021, 13:56:
Everyone is OK with censoring people they disagree with. Just wait until it's your opinion they disagree with and you get censored.

There is no censorship happening. Government action is required for censorship. No one has a right to free speech on a company application. The company decides the rules.

I understand what you're trying to say, but what you said is just wrong. It's 100% censorship, but done by entities other than government. Sure, it's legal, but it's not necessarily good for our republic.

Intentions do matter, but there's a reason even that bastion of conservatism, the ACLU, is worried about what's going on. If what is taking place regarding suppression of voices doesn't cause a little panic in your heart (even if met by a measure of relief) you aren't really that concerned with the intent of the first amendment. Many people seem ecstatic to paint everything as black and white when it suits their political leanings, but the world is far more grey.

Things could be going lord of the flies out there and some of your would be cheering it as a victory.

People with significant power saying whatever they want, without repercussions, without meaningful fact checking, is a bigger problem.

People with power such as Trump use Twitter as a one-way communication device. He would avoid the press and the media, and put his message into this, where it reaches the people he wanted it to reach without any kind of dialogue, feedback, or discussion.

Bigger problem than what? Suppression of voices? If that is what you are referring to I think that there is a conflation of issues here that aren't exactly the same. Finding ways to establish facts and dole out repercussions for liars would be great and I don't think you have to suppress voices to accomplish that.

I agree with the statement of your second point, but I'm not sure I agree with the intention. Why shouldn't he use Twitter that way? It's literally what it was made for - a place for people to microblog whatever they want. Most people on Twitter aren't looking for deep discussion. The platform, by design, doesn't well support conversation. It's literally a place to spout things off in hopes that others will instantly validate your thoughts via virtual adulation and re-tweets. That said, I'm totally ok with Twitter banning him for violating their code of conduct as well.

Tom wrote on Jan 11, 2021, 15:08:

Tomas wrote on Jan 11, 2021, 15:00:
I understand what you're trying to say, but what you said is just wrong. It's 100% censorship, but done by entities other than government. Sure, it's legal, but it's not necessarily good for our republic.

So... you think it would be better for our republic if companies did not have the freedom to decide their own terms of service within the constraints of the law?

No, that's not what I think. I love that companies are able to have their own opinions and I do not think any of them acted illegally in any way.

However, I do think it is of value to consider that technology has changed the landscape in both how we communicate and how we get information. I believe there is conversation that needs to take place at this point to find what is best for society as a whole. When we lump everything that has happened politically over the last year into two baskets (democrats and republicans) its easy to make broad-stroke declarations about specific points, but those strokes do little to clarify what is really taking place. Suppression of speech is something that alarms me regardless of who is being suppressed. Just because it is legal doesn't necessarily mean it's a good thing.

Here's the statement from the ACLU lawyers - I think it's worth reading and thinking about.

“We understand the desire to permanently suspend him now, but it should concern everyone when companies like Facebook and Twitter wield the unchecked power to remove people from platforms that have become indispensable for the speech of billions — especially when political realities make those decisions easier,” said Kate Ruane, ACLU senior legislative counsel, in a statement. “President Trump can turn to his press team or Fox News to communicate with the public, but others — like the many Black, Brown, and LGBTQ activists who have been censored by social media companies — will not have that luxury.”

Mr. Tact wrote on Jan 11, 2021, 14:19:

Agent.X7 wrote on Jan 11, 2021, 13:56:
Everyone is OK with censoring people they disagree with. Just wait until it's your opinion they disagree with and you get censored.

There is no censorship happening. Government action is required for censorship. No one has a right to free speech on a company application. The company decides the rules.

Edit: Mr. Tact, only this first paragraph was directed to you. Didn't want to sound like I was attacking you specifically.

I understand what you're trying to say, but what you said is just wrong. It's 100% censorship, but done by entities other than government. Sure, it's legal, but it's not necessarily good for our republic.

Intentions do matter, but there's a reason even that bastion of conservatism, the ACLU, is worried about what's going on. If what is taking place regarding suppression of voices doesn't cause a little panic in your heart (even if met by a measure of relief) you aren't really that concerned with the intent of the first amendment. Many people seem ecstatic to paint everything as black and white when it suits their political leanings, but the world is far more grey.

Things could be going lord of the flies out there and some of your would be cheering it as a victory.

This comment was edited on Jan 11, 2021, 15:14.

This used to be a truth, but I can't remember the last time I bought something notable during the steam sales. There have been better deals at epic with the 10 dollar coupon system.

I feel bad for those getting hit by bugs aplenty, but so far my experience (I'm 10 hours in, just hit the logo - it'll make sense when you play) the only bugs I've had are cosmetic things and occasionally not being able to pick up piece of trash worth 3 eddies (the money in cyberpunk). I did replay one scene and had a guy's gun show up awkwardly above his hand as it seems to have attached improperly to his model. But beyond that, the bugs have been really insignificant. I've seen some videos and comments about notable bugs, though, so I'm not blind to the fact there are a lot. I'm just not experiencing them so far.

I am really enjoying the game for what it is. The hype level was too far beyond reality that I think most people will initially be disappointed. The story has so far been compelling and I'm enjoying my initial foray into the world. I've always loved cyberpunk, though, so this isn't my inaugural run into the genre.

All that said, I do usually wait about a year for RPGs to mature before bothering to play them. I'm not in a rush to plow through Cyberpunk because I expect to have a better experience as the patches roll in.

Framerates aren't great, but I'm running on ultra with only blur and depth of field off (I don't like either of them in most games). Here's my specs:

i7-6700k
32 gigs ram
Nvidia 1080 @ 2560x1440
Game is on an ssd drive

It's very playable. If it was a competitive fps I'd be hating it, but since it's just AI it's not a big deal. FPS seems to be sitting between 30-60 though I'm not running a FPS counter all the time. I had my monitor showing the refresh rate for a while but in the end it was crappy having that showing so I turned it off.

I don't think that long term this will do much damage to CD PROJEKT. Probably will be stable and more complete in 6-8 months. And then when all the free content starts showing up people will remember that they are actually a pretty good studio when it comes to treating their customers well. Also don't forget how much Witcher 3 improves as the large expansions came out. You have to imagine the same will be the case here. If you don't enjoy replaying games then waiting for the complete pack a couple years down the road is definitely the way to go. They'll keep making cash on this for a while, I'm sure.

Played for 54 hours so far. Still having a blast. Excited to try out all the patch fixes and updates.