User information for Orogogus

Real Name
Orogogus
Nickname
None given.
Email
Concealed by request - Send Mail
Description
Homepage
Signed On
February 22, 2003
Supporter
-
Total Posts
2323 (Senior)
User ID
16241
Search For:
Sort Results:
Ascending
Descending
Limit Results:
 
2323 Comments. 117 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16    117  ] Older
116.
 
Re: Chris Avellone Files Libel Suit
Jul 2, 2021, 05:41
Re: Chris Avellone Files Libel Suit Jul 2, 2021, 05:41
Jul 2, 2021, 05:41
 
MrDevinoch wrote on Jul 2, 2021, 04:14:
Orogogus wrote on Jul 1, 2021, 19:16:
As someone who follows VR, I thought that ZDNet article was garbage (as was Zenimax's case). Carmack and Iribe didn't get fired, despite being under just as much pressure from Zenimax -- Carmack was accused of wiping a hard drive to destroy evidence and stealing code. Iribe was a co-founder alongside Luckey, part of the same decisions with a higher title, and the court decision had him pay more out of pocket.

Then maybe you didn't pay anywhere near as much attention as you think you did:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZeniMax_v._Oculus
https://www.polygon.com/2017/2/1/14474198/oculus-lawsuit-verdict
https://www.vg247.com/2018/12/12/zenimax-facebook-oculus-settlement/

They're all in violation of the NDA, and of copyright infringement. If you think Zenimax's case is garbage, then I'm not sure how you're supporting the $250mil in payouts that came from them, 100 mil of which came from Facebook. Oculus pushed to try and have it dismissed multiple times. It never was. In the end, they settled. I wish I lived in your world where you think losing $100 mil of your employer's money isn't grounds for termination.

I didn't say I supported the payouts; I think Zenimax should have lost. I think they got an expert to lie on the stand about Carmack destroying the data on his hard drive, and about "non-literal" copying of data. They tried to get an injunction to stop Oculus from selling headsets, implying that those sales would hurt sales of a Zenimax VR headset, which they claimed to have spent tens of millions of dollars on in development -- I think that's a load of horseshit coming from a software company that hasn't remotely suggested coming out with any VR headset five years after the supposed IP theft. They said they hated to go to litigation, which I also think is a blatant falsehood.

In the original verdict, $300M came from Facebook; plus $50M from Luckey and $150 from Iribe. All that was cut in half (assumedly in the same ratio?), and then they settled. So if Carmack, Luckey and Iribe were all in violation, how come only one of them got fired? Supposedly the verdict proved that Carmack did some pretty heinous things (again, I don't agree). All three of them were there for the NDA. If anything the original payouts suggested that Iribe was more at fault, and he was the CEO.
2.
 
Re: Into the Black
Jul 1, 2021, 22:55
2.
Re: Into the Black Jul 1, 2021, 22:55
Jul 1, 2021, 22:55
 
The second link is the subject of the "Science YouTuber Wins $10,000 Bet With Physicist" article in tonight's Evening Metaverse.
105.
 
Re: Chris Avellone Files Libel Suit
Jul 1, 2021, 19:16
Re: Chris Avellone Files Libel Suit Jul 1, 2021, 19:16
Jul 1, 2021, 19:16
 
MrDevinoch wrote on Jul 1, 2021, 17:28:
Luckey's held fund raisers for Ted Cruz, who has, among other things:
  • voted against public health care
  • voted against gay marriage
  • voted against a woman's right to choose
  • voted against net neutrality

So, when you're in the tech industry, choosing to be against the very people you work with having basic human rights seems like, well, that can lead to most of the companies refusing to work with you. There's a pretty fundamental difference between calling something "a political view" and saying "I believe you do not deserve basic human rights." And we aren't talking customers, we're talking other companies, which seems to be the thing you aren't grasping. This isn't like a handful of people refusing to use Facebook because they don't like Palmer Luckey. This is dozens of multimillion dollar corporations looking at possible VR development partners and going, "Yeah, we're going to go with the company that doesn't employ someone who says I'm less of a person than he is."

But, even more relevant to the issue at hand, that STILL isn't likely the reason Palmer Luckey was let go from Facebook. The most likely reason he was fired from Facebook has something to do with the fact that Zenimax won a $500 million dollar lawsuit over Oculus for stealing proprietary information. You're welcome to read about that here: https://www.zdnet.com/article/the-real-reason-palmer-luckey-was-fired-from-facebook/ Guess who the loser of that $500 mil was? You guessed it -- Facebook, who owns Oculus.

Luckey can claim whatever reason he wants to that he was fired, but half a billion dollars speaks pretty loudly. It's also entirely possible that Luckey had a clause guaranteeing him indemnity from any past business dealings, which is why he got the $100mil payout, but the WSJ article jumps to the conclusion it wants to without supporting evidence, because none of the parties have said anything post the settlement, which is normal for the settlement. The WSJ article uses, and I'd argue speciously, the argument that since the lawyer said that in public before hand it was political, it must've been, since he got a settlement. Which is nonsense, and fundamentally misunderstands how legal settlements work, something I find rather suspect coming from the WSJ.

As for Colin Kaepernick, I am glad to see you're willing to concede that point, and thank you. According to the stats, Kaepernick was one of the top 10 QBs in the NFL, and when he was let go from the 49ers, nobody else picked up his contract, specifically for political reasons.
I'm not "conceding" the Kaepernick point, that's what I believe. But to flip it around, if you believe that firing Palmer for supporting Trump or Cruz wouldn't be political, then how can Kaepernick be a protected political view? According to federal law Black Lives Matter isn't a political group, letting it avoid restrictions on political expression -- you can wear BLM pins in places where you wouldn't be allowed to wear a MAGA hat, like an election polling site. But that should also mean it doesn't get the non-discrimination protections.

There's a pretty fundamental difference between calling something "a political view" and saying "I believe you do not deserve basic human rights."
I think so too, but I'm not sure what you think the difference is. As I see it, when Gina Carano shared an Instagram post comparing the treatment of conservatives to the Holocaust, that's on her. Fair game. But when Luckey attends a fundraiser for Cruz or Trump, that's political. According to the law, not the touchie-feelies. If you want to nail him for being a bigot then you have to have a quote of him saying or doing something directly bigoted. What do you think California law protects, otherwise? Is it that you think it only protects liberals and liberal causes? If you can say, "This guy's a Republican, and I believe Republicans are bad, so I'm firing this guy for being bad, not for being a Republican," then that's no protection at all.

And to get back to my point about losing elections, I think this paints all Republicans with a broad brush -- you're saying in so many words that people who'd vote for Cruz are against human rights and should be fired for it. I think tons of people, half the electorate, would be happy to be doing all the things you hate Luckey for, and take attitudes like yours personally.

As someone who follows VR, I thought that ZDNet article was garbage (as was Zenimax's case). Carmack and Iribe didn't get fired, despite being under just as much pressure from Zenimax -- Carmack was accused of wiping a hard drive to destroy evidence and stealing code. Iribe was a co-founder alongside Luckey, part of the same decisions with a higher title, and the court decision had him pay more out of pocket. The Wikipedia article says that the WSJ piece claims to have seen internal Facebook emails describing Zuckerberg violating the California laws in pressuring Luckey on his politics. The ZDNet piece has nothing.
102.
 
Re: Chris Avellone Files Libel Suit
Jul 1, 2021, 15:51
Re: Chris Avellone Files Libel Suit Jul 1, 2021, 15:51
Jul 1, 2021, 15:51
 
MrDevinoch wrote on Jul 1, 2021, 15:08:
Orogogus wrote on Jun 30, 2021, 17:09:
MrDevinoch wrote on Jun 30, 2021, 15:00:
Wait, so we're supposed to believe the guy who's said, without any proof, that he was fired for his political views, but we're not supposed to believe, without any proof, the company that said they didn't fire him for political views?

Must be incredibly nice to just pick and choose your consistency.
I think there was a significant amount of circumstantial evidence. The firing came five months after Palmer's donation to a Trump PAC came out in the news, and there were articles talking about the controversy this raised, with developers refusing to work with Oculus if Palmer was there. The Wall Street Journal reported, based on internal emails, that Zuckerberg pressured Luckey to publicly disavow support for Trump and throw in behind the Libertarian candidate. Luckey received his $100M golden parachute in a settlement after he hired an employment lawyer and accused Facebook of illegally firing him for his political views.

Right, except that FB wasn't firing Palmer because of what he'd said. They were firing him because there were an overwhelming number of developers unwilling to work with FB because of Palmer specifically supporting policies that targeted their basic human rights as individuals. Those companies have every right to choose not to do business with FB, and FB has every right to remove an employee who is costing them business, and his opinions were costing FB a lot of business partnerships. They weren't firing him for his political views. They were firing him because he was driving away income. The fact that it was political was tangential to the capitalism of it all. As the saying goes, "don't fuck with the money."

Also, he received his golden parachute because literally every high ranking person in the Silicon Valley gets their golden parachute.

And, once again, to my point on consistency, I still don't see you up in arms about Colin Kapernick, who was fired from the NFL for his political views.
You were addressing the Colin Kaepernick issue to other people, and I take exception to your tone. I think it's wrong to fire people for non-job performance reasons, and I agree with the point he was making. I think the people who complained about him have absurd double standards about patriotism when a lot of those people also celebrate the Confederacy, literally a treasonous cause that disrespects the American flag. I'd be up in arms, but I don't know anything about whether or not Kaepernick was any good at his job, or whether or not his unemployment status is unusual.

The Wall Street Journal says specifically that Luckey's $100M payout came after he lawyered up, and the attorney argued it was an illegal firing for political views -- according to Wikipedia, anyways; I don't have access to the article. There are other sources like Engadget and Inc, but I think they all trace to the WSJ article.

I don't believe you can evade anti-discrimination laws by saying that customers, vendors or employees are uncomfortable. If you fire a black employee because his race is driving away customers, then you're in violation. Otherwise these laws would have no bite whatsoever no matter how much proof you have of discrimination -- just find one bigot who says they won't deal with the company, wave the flag of capitalism, bam. Since political views are protected in California, I don't believe this any different. Do you have reason to believe otherwise? Do you have a cite for Palmer "supporting policies that targeted their basic human rights as individuals"? If you're inferring that because of his Trump support, then I believe that's a political view.
5.
 
Re: Evening Tech Bits
Jul 1, 2021, 13:19
5.
Re: Evening Tech Bits Jul 1, 2021, 13:19
Jul 1, 2021, 13:19
 
Tom wrote on Jul 1, 2021, 12:10:
jacobvandy wrote on Jun 30, 2021, 22:01:
The only thing I'd be concerned with is the fans giving up sooner than later because those are usually run at 100% -- noise isn't really a concern when you've got a bunch of these things lined up in a garage or warehouse or whatever.
How is noise ever not a concern with fans running at 100%??? For me, the feature of modern graphics cards to not run the fans at all at idle was a dream come true...
He's saying no one cares about fan noise if the computer is mining away in the garage. Not your daily-use/gaming desktop.
88.
 
Re: Chris Avellone Files Libel Suit
Jun 30, 2021, 17:09
88.
Re: Chris Avellone Files Libel Suit Jun 30, 2021, 17:09
Jun 30, 2021, 17:09
 
MrDevinoch wrote on Jun 30, 2021, 15:00:
Orogogus wrote on Jun 30, 2021, 04:40:
MrDevinoch wrote on Jun 30, 2021, 03:51:
Except, of course, that 1) Facebook has repeatedly said that isn't why they let him go, and 2) Facebook doesn't have to HAVE a reason to let him go. As I've stressed to you before, California is an at-will employment state. Employers can terminate your employment at any time for no reason at all.
49 states are at-will employment states; the only exception is Montana. But many states have exceptions on top of the federal discrimination protections; in California, it's illegal to fire someone for their political views. But as you said, Facebook insists that's not why they fired Luckey. Because that would be wrong. But I believe that as much as their insistence that they're committed to user privacy, or when companies and government organizations insist that they're firing a whistleblower for unrelated performance-related reasons that were never documented. Not providing a reason diminishes their credibility, it doesn't enhance it.

Wait, so we're supposed to believe the guy who's said, without any proof, that he was fired for his political views, but we're not supposed to believe, without any proof, the company that said they didn't fire him for political views?

Must be incredibly nice to just pick and choose your consistency.
I think there was a significant amount of circumstantial evidence. The firing came five months after Palmer's donation to a Trump PAC came out in the news, and there were articles talking about the controversy this raised, with developers refusing to work with Oculus if Palmer was there. The Wall Street Journal reported, based on internal emails, that Zuckerberg pressured Luckey to publicly disavow support for Trump and throw in behind the Libertarian candidate. Luckey received his $100M golden parachute in a settlement after he hired an employment lawyer and accused Facebook of illegally firing him for his political views.
80.
 
Re: Chris Avellone Files Libel Suit
Jun 30, 2021, 04:40
80.
Re: Chris Avellone Files Libel Suit Jun 30, 2021, 04:40
Jun 30, 2021, 04:40
 
MrDevinoch wrote on Jun 30, 2021, 03:51:
Except, of course, that 1) Facebook has repeatedly said that isn't why they let him go, and 2) Facebook doesn't have to HAVE a reason to let him go. As I've stressed to you before, California is an at-will employment state. Employers can terminate your employment at any time for no reason at all.
49 states are at-will employment states; the only exception is Montana. But many states have exceptions on top of the federal discrimination protections; in California, it's illegal to fire someone for their political views. But as you said, Facebook insists that's not why they fired Luckey. Because that would be wrong. But I believe that as much as their insistence that they're committed to user privacy, or when companies and government organizations insist that they're firing a whistleblower for unrelated performance-related reasons that were never documented. Not providing a reason diminishes their credibility, it doesn't enhance it.
77.
 
Re: Chris Avellone Files Libel Suit
Jun 29, 2021, 22:52
77.
Re: Chris Avellone Files Libel Suit Jun 29, 2021, 22:52
Jun 29, 2021, 22:52
 
MrDevinoch wrote on Jun 29, 2021, 21:21:
Except I didn't do any of those things. Did you see me do any of those things? You're painting a broad brush over everyone, in a way I don't think makes any sense. I'm pointing out, and fairly so I feel, that when people decided they're the only one who are entitled to rights, they deserve to be called out on their bullshit. I'm pointing out, as I have time and again, that people aren't demonizing the people who voted Republican, they're demonizing the Republican congressional members. Based on their actions, y'know, like lying about the election being fraudulent, or trying to prevent minorities from voting, or preventing LGBTQ+ folks from getting married or healthcare. You know. BASIC. HUMAN. RIGHTS.

The real question I'm asking you right now is are you okay with them doing that on your behalf? Are you okay with your congressmen and congresswomen telling blacks they shouldn't have the right to vote? Are you okay with telling people that if they're sick, they should just fall over and die? Because if you are, then yes, you personally are the kind of person who is being demonized. On the basis of your actions, and that you do not believe that every American deserves the same rights, which is the most unAmerican thing imaginable.

I genuinely don't believe that's 90% of Republicans. I'm just trying to understand why many don't seem to want to do anything about it.

The specific issue I brought up was Palmer Luckey, and how Facebook let him go, ostensibly because he donated $10,000 to a Trump PAC. I don't believe that he wrote or said anything offensive. As Beamer described it, he deserved to be let go for supporting someone who wanted to take away people's rights. And as I said, I think that could be any of the 74 million voters who wanted Trump to win.
69.
 
Re: Chris Avellone Files Libel Suit
Jun 29, 2021, 20:34
69.
Re: Chris Avellone Files Libel Suit Jun 29, 2021, 20:34
Jun 29, 2021, 20:34
 
MrDevinoch wrote on Jun 29, 2021, 19:49:
Orogogus wrote on Jun 29, 2021, 16:30:
What I think is that this kind of attitude is going to lose the next presidential election and a bunch of smaller ones, because you and a lot of other liberals are out to punish anyone who voted for the guy who won in 2016. I think Trump would have walked the 2020 election if it wasn't for COVID-19. Treating him like a fringe candidate, and people who support him like terrorists and sex offenders, does nothing but shrink the tent and feed the "Orange man bad" memes. Palmer walked away fine, but a lot of the right-wing base of white, non-college educated men is looking at poorer and poorer job prospects every generation, and what they see is left-wing elitists, the flyover country lol crowd, shoving people out of their jobs for voting Republican. It doesn't win elections or win over anyone's mind, it just demonstrates a vindictive refusal to work with the other 47% of the populace.

So if you're complaining about poorer job prospects... why the hell are you Republican? No offense, but this constant demonization of "the left" as the people responsible for the death of the working class is a fundamental misreading of, well, reality. Capitalism is your enemy, friend, and the people who are responsible for that? They aren't leftists. Hell, they aren't even fundamentally right-wingers first and foremost - they're capitalists. Capitalists tend, on the trend, to be Republican leaning, and Loser 45 is one of those in every sense of the word - he wasn't Republican, he was a con-man capitalist. The Republican party did everything they could to get rid of him until it became clear that the con was working, and then, like all good capitalists, they looked for ways to profit off of it. He was treated like a fringe candidate because everyone underestimated the gullibility of the masses. He didn't make things better for the working class; he raised their taxes. He didn't make things harder on "the rich elite," because he's one of them, so he lowered their taxes. He had four years to show that he had any sort of plan for anything, and yet, nothing. People didn't make jokes about him because they needed to. They made jokes about him because it was all anyone could do to stop from crying in horror.

People aren't being shoved out of their jobs for voting Republican; they're being shoved out of their jobs for attempting to repress minority rights, for attempting to codify their beliefs that anyone with a different sexual orientation, a different skin color, a different ethnotype, a different geographical historical background, a different religious upbringing, that anyone who isn't them doesn't deserve the same rights they themselves insist upon.

I don't laugh at the flyover crowd. I grew up in the Midwest and left partially because I was tired of so many people acting like "the others" in America didn't deserve equal rights. And yet any time I ask my opponents why they're against these people having the same rights as them, they deflect, they pivot, they argue that religion's involved, when the country was founded with a separation of church and state.

Maybe try being a human first, and learning to understand your opponents.
I'm not a Republican, and learning to understand opponents is exactly what this is about. Biden narrowly won the popular vote 51-47 after Trump colossally mishandled the pandemic. Just how secure is the Democratic advantage that it's okay to demonize everyone who voted Republican? What gains do the Democrats have to show in the red states? It's well and good to point out that the right isn't actually on the side of the undereducated working class, but calling those same people terrorists and hatemongers - or a basket of deplorables - and clamoring to fire public figures for voting or donating the same way they did, is going to be a stronger message than any facts, and I think it's a message that's going to stick for more than one or two election cycles.
61.
 
Re: Chris Avellone Files Libel Suit
Jun 29, 2021, 16:30
61.
Re: Chris Avellone Files Libel Suit Jun 29, 2021, 16:30
Jun 29, 2021, 16:30
 
Beamer wrote on Jun 29, 2021, 13:14:
Orogogus wrote on Jun 29, 2021, 11:25:

Palmer Luckey was let go from Facebook/Oculus basically for being a Republican. At the time, people were throwing a fit about anti-immigrant tweets his girlfriend had liked, or a photograph of him with a rightwing Internet guy, and $10,000 he gave to a Trump PAC that made one fairly bland anti-Hillary billboard. Customers were demanding that Facebook get rid of him, developers were refusing to work with Oculus unless that happened. Your argument at the time, IIRC, is that he made people (i.e., liberals) uncomfortable and therefore Facebook had no choice but to let him go, and I think it's pretty shit. He never assaulted anyone or committed any crimes, but he gave money to help the guy who won the election so people demanded that Facebook screw with his employment.


You're missing a few important things here:
1) He was making donations that would reduce the rights of a certain group of people, specifically. That group of people is one that is heavily employed by Facebook, and a large part of their money. Palmer was a key executive. When key executives use some of their salary to deny rights they have to significant parts of your employee base, vendor base, and user base, well, that won't go over well.

2) He hid that he was doing this, which, again, is not something companies generally like from key executives

3) He received a NINE FIGURE golden parachute

4) He then received significant VC funding to start a new company

5) That company has significant government contracts at the moment

So he was "canceled" into being the nine-figure-net-worth founder of a major defense contractor? Sign me up for that.

And this isn't new. If you don't think companies were having to let go of executives because of things they said or did that pissed off partners and consumers 100 years ago... I know you don't think this. What you think is that he was just "making a donation." You'll always see Trump as just a political opinion. You likely saw gay marriage as a political decision. You likely think that what happened at the Capitol was just normal tourism.
What I think is that this kind of attitude is going to lose the next presidential election and a bunch of smaller ones, because you and a lot of other liberals are out to punish anyone who voted for the guy who won in 2016. I think Trump would have walked the 2020 election if it wasn't for COVID-19. Treating him like a fringe candidate, and people who support him like terrorists and sex offenders, does nothing but shrink the tent and feed the "Orange man bad" memes. Palmer walked away fine, but a lot of the right-wing base of white, non-college educated men is looking at poorer and poorer job prospects every generation, and what they see is left-wing elitists, the flyover country lol crowd, shoving people out of their jobs for voting Republican. It doesn't win elections or win over anyone's mind, it just demonstrates a vindictive refusal to work with the other 47% of the populace.

Why do you think Obama said what he did? Because he hates gay marriage and supports the Capitol rioters?
46.
 
Re: Chris Avellone Files Libel Suit
Jun 29, 2021, 11:25
46.
Re: Chris Avellone Files Libel Suit Jun 29, 2021, 11:25
Jun 29, 2021, 11:25
 
Beamer wrote on Jun 29, 2021, 10:49:
Primalchrome wrote on Jun 29, 2021, 09:23:
Cancel culture and rampant knee-jerk redaction is childish mob rule. I'm not sure why most rational adults don't condemn both as cancers on society.

Because... it doesn't really exist? It's a nice, scary label to put onto something that's normal and has always happened?

How many people can you name that have been "cancelled?" Milo, for one. Maybe a handful of people that said something dumb in the past on Twitter that hurt their company. But how many have actually been canceled?

Trump said things like "grab her by the pussy." He became President.
Trump also tried his best to cancel the NFL and Nike. Both are thriving.

For as long as people have paid other people to do things, they've withheld the right to not pay those people if they think those people are dicks. That is all that happens today. But, give it a scary term and it's terrifying. Joe Rogan, a man that is getting paid $100M to do a podcast in which he routinely whines about how COVID doesn't exist (essentially), thinks cancel culture is an issue. But he's getting paid $100M to talk to people like Alex Jones about how he doesn't believe in cancel culture and how gay frogs are.

So yeah, I'm not really sure it's a thing. The majority of people "canceled" either were sex offenders that can no longer be insured to work anywhere, or weren't actually canceled and are actually making even more money now than before.

Palmer Luckey was let go from Facebook/Oculus basically for being a Republican. At the time, people were throwing a fit about anti-immigrant tweets his girlfriend had liked, or a photograph of him with a rightwing Internet guy, and $10,000 he gave to a Trump PAC that made one fairly bland anti-Hillary billboard. Customers were demanding that Facebook get rid of him, developers were refusing to work with Oculus unless that happened. Your argument at the time, IIRC, is that he made people (i.e., liberals) uncomfortable and therefore Facebook had no choice but to let him go, and I think it's pretty shit. He never assaulted anyone or committed any crimes, but he gave money to help the guy who won the election so people demanded that Facebook screw with his employment.

Is Obama a rightwing kook? He seems to think cancel culture and wokeness is a problem.
5.
 
Re: Final Fantasy VII and Alan Wake Remake EGS Listings Spotted
Jun 18, 2021, 17:16
5.
Re: Final Fantasy VII and Alan Wake Remake EGS Listings Spotted Jun 18, 2021, 17:16
Jun 18, 2021, 17:16
 
People probably hold Sony and Nintendo to different standards since they're console manufacturers. I'm not saying it makes sense, but for VR games I saw plenty of people vehemently angry at Oculus exclusives who were fine with Sony exclusives (timed or otherwise), even though some of those PSVR exclusives were from longtime PC series like Skyrim or Battlefront.
36.
 
Re: Five Nights at Freddy's Creator Retiring
Jun 18, 2021, 12:51
36.
Re: Five Nights at Freddy's Creator Retiring Jun 18, 2021, 12:51
Jun 18, 2021, 12:51
 
MrBone wrote on Jun 18, 2021, 07:23:
Sad that weirdos online can harass a person and his family like that and get cheered on. Pathetic but that is the progressive-way to handle adversity.
Harass a person and his family like what? I believe there was harassment, but it's not mentioned in the statement, in Blue's post, or in anyone's comments. What post or posts are you referring to?
19.
 
Re: Five Nights at Freddy's Creator Retiring
Jun 17, 2021, 16:34
19.
Re: Five Nights at Freddy's Creator Retiring Jun 17, 2021, 16:34
Jun 17, 2021, 16:34
 
RedEye9 wrote on Jun 17, 2021, 15:42:
Saboth wrote on Jun 17, 2021, 14:29:
MoreLuckThanSkill wrote on Jun 17, 2021, 12:34:
What a fucking piece of shit, rofl.

Who gives money to Mitch McConnell? I mean seriously? The rest of the list is a bunch of pieces of shit as well obviously, but literally McConnell?

I'm sorry I bought FNAF on some sale.


No doubt. If US democracy crumbles, it's directly through the actions of Mitch, Trump, and Republicans who value power over democracy. This guy is a piece of work if he thanks LGBTQ people in one breath while donating to Mitch, Nunes, and other garbage.
QFT
I'm surprised Cruz didn't make it into that basket of deplorables.
Cruz wasn't up for re-election in 2020.
5.
 
Re: Five Nights at Freddy's Creator Retiring
Jun 17, 2021, 13:49
5.
Re: Five Nights at Freddy's Creator Retiring Jun 17, 2021, 13:49
Jun 17, 2021, 13:49
 
MoreLuckThanSkill wrote on Jun 17, 2021, 12:46:
Beamer wrote on Jun 17, 2021, 12:43:
Also, it's always fun to see how much conservatives adore Tulsi Gabbard.

Well, she's similar to Manchin in that she has basically no Democratic principles, yet is somehow in the Democratic party.

I believe the confirmations for the Supreme Court justice appointments under Trump went straight down party lines. Are those not important to the Democratic party?

Manchin in particular comes from a district where people would vote in Hitler before a progressive candidate. And, well, I think you're going to see that when Manchin's up for reelection, and you're not going to like the results.
15.
 
Re: Valve Appeals Geo-Blocking Fine
Jun 16, 2021, 09:41
15.
Re: Valve Appeals Geo-Blocking Fine Jun 16, 2021, 09:41
Jun 16, 2021, 09:41
 
eRe4s3r wrote on Jun 16, 2021, 06:10:
Orogogus wrote on Jun 15, 2021, 23:54:
You know, the last time this came up I thought your solution was so absurdly onerous and Germnay-centric that I went to see how international porn sites handle this. Well, they don't. When the UK and France made similar demands, the big porn sites' response also seems to have been to ignore them. And the German regulators' solution wasn't to fine Pornhub and Youporn and whatnot into submission, their answer was to have ISPs apply DNS blocks against porn sites that don't have satisfactory age verification. This seems to be exactly why Valve implemented their policy. But you think they're going to be sued for doing exactly what the government did? Is this just what you want to happen, or is there a legal precedent in your country?

As long as Steam stops wrongfully blocking Adults from Germany.... I am supporting all efforts to that end. The EU anti-trust investigation is always going to target Steam over something like this. The moment you block 1 nationality in the EU but not all you violated 1 market rule. Even if you technically HAVE to block them because you violate national law otherwise. I never said the laws make any sense ;p

But it needs a solution. And if not then EU fines will follow. And funny you bring up pornhub because pornhub EU is very different from pornhub US .. as in, VERY different.
I don't think the EU stepped in when Germany asked its ISPs to start blocking Pornhub and other big porn sites. As far as I can tell, requiring age verification isn't an accepted thing across the EU due to privacy laws. If the EU determines this is an issue, you'd expect them to go after its member nations to remove illegal laws, rather than the companies caught in the middle.
13.
 
Re: Valve Appeals Geo-Blocking Fine
Jun 15, 2021, 23:54
13.
Re: Valve Appeals Geo-Blocking Fine Jun 15, 2021, 23:54
Jun 15, 2021, 23:54
 
eRe4s3r wrote on Jun 15, 2021, 12:34:
RedEye9 wrote on Jun 15, 2021, 12:11:
El Pit wrote on Jun 15, 2021, 11:53:
I hope they lose and will have to pay a few billion $$$. They need to learn that either they believe in their ONE WORLD idea or they don't. Believing in it only if it does not harm your profit is ridiculous and actually a blow to the whole idea. I love it when rich people say "WE ARE ONE PEOPLE" only to instantly change this opinion when it comes to selling their products.
Valve is seriously hurting if they can't pay a $2 million fine (I guess it's to be expected when nobody buys games from them anymore and just uses them to download games that were purchased elsewhere.)
They would really really really be hurting if they had to pay billions in fines.

Well in this case the fine is the full profit for the duration (sales in the affected region) which are apparently only 2$ million in Czechia, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

But if you want to steam bleed just wait till the EU agencies act on the 2nd issue raised, that is geo-blocking Germans because of missing age verification it also violates EU rules that prohibit geographically based restrictions that undermine online shopping and cross-border sales.
You know, the last time this came up I thought your solution was so absurdly onerous and Germnay-centric that I went to see how international porn sites handle this. Well, they don't. When the UK and France made similar demands, the big porn sites' response also seems to have been to ignore them. And the German regulators' solution wasn't to fine Pornhub and Youporn and whatnot into submission, their answer was to have ISPs apply DNS blocks against porn sites that don't have satisfactory age verification. This seems to be exactly why Valve implemented their policy. But you think they're going to be sued for doing exactly what the government did? Is this just what you want to happen, or is there a legal precedent in your country?
2.
 
Re: 2076 Midway Multiverse VR Demo
Jun 12, 2021, 17:24
2.
Re: 2076 Midway Multiverse VR Demo Jun 12, 2021, 17:24
Jun 12, 2021, 17:24
 
HoSpanky wrote on Jun 12, 2021, 13:48:
Huh. I still think Xortex had a way better idea for it, and it wasn't even a standalone game.

This midway multiverse game has unnecessarily shitty graphics, likely built to work on the Quest standalone.

I'm torn on the Quest headsets....on one hand, they get VR into more homes than VR requiring a PC, and right now, that's a HUGE benefit. Video cards capable of running even midrange VR games cost well over $1000, IF you can even find one. The Quest 2 is quite nice, overall, and a killer deal when you add in the PC compatibility as well.
On the other hand, the headsets bring the visual quality of games down a LONG way. Games made for both are always built with the shittiest hardware as the target, making the PC version look unnecessarily poor. I'm not terribly worried about Quest exclusives, as the hardware is self-contained. It's not the bullshit that Oculus games (the PC ecosystem) pull, where they refuse to support any other headsets. I honestly wish ReVive *HAD* been sued into oblivion, because too many weak-spined players will use it to play games that they've been walled out of. There's no warranty, or support, or anything, when playing that way, yet they charge the same price.


They can refund the games, under the same "warranty" as people who own Oculus hardware. As it is, I think this is going to be a non-issue within a year or so, as Oculus completely ditches the Rift and Rift S.
8.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Jun 11, 2021, 20:42
8.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jun 11, 2021, 20:42
Jun 11, 2021, 20:42
 
Mr. Tact wrote on Jun 11, 2021, 20:33:
Orogogus wrote on Jun 11, 2021, 20:22:
I think there are a lot of YouTube strikes because it has a mechanism for automatically detecting copyrighted music and notifying the owners, whereas I'm guessing Roblox really doesn't.
Well, considering they are illegally selling the music, automatic detection of copyright infringement would seem to be silly...
If they lose this lawsuit, they'll probably have to put something in before more flood in. I guess whether it was worth it or not depends on whether they made more than $200M plus fees from letting people sell music illegally.
6.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Jun 11, 2021, 20:22
6.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jun 11, 2021, 20:22
Jun 11, 2021, 20:22
 
Red wrote on Jun 10, 2021, 18:23:
I had been perplexed for years now (I have young children) how Roblox got away with all their illegal music usage. They literally sell access to copyrighted music in games for real world money (in the form of robux). Straight up pirate profiting. Like, how on earth did it take the big publishers so long to jump on that when they issue takedowns to youtubers who accidentally have a song playing in the background totally unrelated to the real point of the video.
I think there are a lot of YouTube strikes because it has a mechanism for automatically detecting copyrighted music and notifying the owners, whereas I'm guessing Roblox really doesn't.
2323 Comments. 117 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16    117  ] Older