But that’s not what you are doing. You don’t need this mod to make the choice that allows you to play the way you want.
I mean, I have no problem with modding anything anyway (in fact I believe it was wrong for Nexus to remove the mod, the only thing it did is making certain kind of obstinate people go into a silly crusade to defend a silly mod). But this mod is objectively removing options, not adding them.
The whole concept of “charity” is political… all charities are “political groups”, no charity would be valid based on that judgement.
Particularly in the US, where having a gun is relatively easy… to the point that even school kids can end up getting hold of them. I’d be scared.
Another reason to use Godot.
There’s already Mod support, but it’s ‘unofficial’ (https://www.nexusmods.com/starfield/mods/).
Most likely, what they actually mean with this announcement is that they’ll add some store like they did with Skyrim ‘special’ edition, where they can sell you the mods and get a cut…
I know a lot of people define it as a necessity, but I feel that it’s a life choice too.
I’d rather sacrifice a lot of other things (eg. rejecting one job vs another) if it makes it so I don’t need a car.
I would love to have the privilege of living in a nice and relatively big family house in the suburbs, but I’d rather live in a small cramped apartment farther away from some of my siblings if that means having better transport options without needing to purchase and maintain a car.
I wonder, if everyone had similar preferences, whether the world would adapt to actually make public transport (or alternatively, home office / delivery) as widespread of a commodity as having roads for private vehicles.
In general terms, I believe each website can limit the scope of the content they host in any way they choose. The same way as how /m/asia can limit itself to Asian content and delete content related to other countries/ethnicities, or how an Islamic streaming service can decide that it will only allow content that respects the Islam, and remove any Christian content (and in the same way, a website might declare itself Christian and remove Islamic content).
Though in the particular case of Youtube I’m not saying that’s a bad point, but only because of how big of a platform Youtube is. So in a way they could be considered a monopoly, and in that case there might be a reason to think that they should not target any demografic in their content. But I’m not a lawyer and I’m not sure if that’s enough of a legal basis to demand that. I would expect it’s not, though. Specially if we are talking US law which is under which this lawsuit was filled.
Sure but that’s a different topic. We are talking about the content they host, it’s the content what they can take down for any reason. Of course they can’t ban an individual based on one of the conditions that are protected by human rights, but they can ban them based on what kind of content that person posts. He wasn’t banned because of being an antivaxer (even if that isn’t protected), but because of the antivax content he posted. Even an antivaxer can post content in Youtube, as long as it’s content Youtube is ok with (eg. not antivax). I’m sure there’s a lot of people with controversial ideas that happen to post content within the limits of what Youtube tolerates.
Youtube often takes down content that shows too much of women boobs, but they are ok with showing men boobs, for example.
You can’t refuse selling a calendar to a woman (for the reason of her being a woman), but you can refuse to sell calendars that have pictures of women on them if you decided that’s not what you wanna sell (and you don’t even need to justify it). For example.
I mean… does Youtube have any obligation to host any content?
I believe it’s pretty clear that they can (and they do) take down any videos they don’t wanna host, regardless of the reason.
The complaint from MS is not really that “Bing” shouldn’t be a gatekeeper, but that Windows (which is the gatekeeper) should be able to give unfair advantages to “Bing” (or any “small” product they want)…
Microsoft is “unlikely” to dispute that its Windows platform meets the definition of a gatekeeper, but it’s arguing that Bing’s relatively small share of the search market (compared to far more popular competitor Google) could only be further diminished if it must do things like offer users access to rival search engines.
Windows being a “gatekeeper” is independent on how successful they are in their attempts to exploit their gatekeeping power.
Just because Bing is so unpopular that people don’t use it even after slapping it in every possible MS product, does not justify exploiting Microsoft’s success in a completely different market (the OS) as a means to give unfair advantages to one “small” product over the competition.
Windows, as a highly successful & popular product (almost a monopoly), should not be forcing ANY alternatively monetized Microsoft product (regardless of their success) down its users throats. Windows should make business on the basis of it being sold as an OS, which is what they are advertising the product as (and it’s already successful enough at that). Not make business using their powerful position to give advantages to alternative Microsoft products from other markets (eg. unfair gatekeeping).
If Microsoft is not happy with those restrictions, they are welcome to surrender that position of power and stop distributing Windows in the EU. I’m sure there are many competing alternative Linux distributions / organizations that would be happy to comply with the EU regulations if they were the ones replacing Windows as the new popular gatekeepers.
And the same should go for Apple with iOS/Mac or Google with Android.
The thing is that being a “builtin” is so unfair of an advantage that I wish Windows came with no programs at all. No Microsoft Edge, no Teams, no Media Player. Nothing other than the simplest of file browsers and some system tools. Either let it be up to the OEM to decide what programs to use or have people install their own preferred programs right after they install Windows.
But of course having control of that advantage is too juicy of a power. So they’ll keep integrating things into Windows.
Them removing a builtin would be a good thing if it wasn’t because they probably did it so they can push (or focus in) some other product instead.
Now we need a Windows handheld mode for these Steam Deck competitors
No, what we need is for game companies to stop using DRM that blocks Linux.
These days some phones are so thin they are even awkward to hold… specially when they have the rounded display around the edges, sometimes I press the touchscreen edges by mistake when holding it. And thin profiles make the cameras stick out, exposing them to damage.
I always end up buying a thick & rugged case anyway… the thinness even makes me afraid it’ll snap/crash easily. I never understood the thin obsession… I actually was ok with the size of the thick nokia phones from the 90s.
It’s worse, he’s smashing his face with it and yet refuses to acknowledge the parking sign while complaining about some other imaginary obstacle instead.
If it were true that Americans & social media wanted such simplified plot, it would have been more successful than it was.
They did post it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjOMPka5WFo
Sure, but if the hate was focused on the platform and not on its leadership I doubt there’d be as many reddit users willing to protest.
Anyone who truly cares about the openness of the platform would have already been using a more open alternative by now.
In fact, if it’s something that affects the customers generally, I looks like disclosure might no longer be so important, since they seem to allow delaying the disclosure if it risks “public safety”.
In some instances, the disclosure timeline may also be postponed if the U.S. Attorney General determines that an immediate disclosure would pose a significant risk to national security or public safety.
So a company might keep a backdoor secret if it’s for the sake of national security / surveillance.
I dont think i want that kind of content. Quite the opposite, this is the reason i chose the fediverse.
That’s your personal preference. What you call spam others may call content. I expect if your favorite personality / organization / news-provider joined Threads and started posting content there that you don’t consider “spam” then it being in Threads would be an annoyance.
I believe kbin doesn’t have it yet, but some fediverse platforms offer the option to block a particular instance from your feed without limiting everyone else. So that would be an alternative. Even if by default it added Threads in the blocklist of everyone.
I expect you do see some value on federation (seeing how you seem to be participating in some communities beyond your home instance), so I think the question “why would anyone sign up if they can just use Threads” would answer itself if you don’t assume everyone shares your preference.
And it’s perfectly fine if those people turned away by the fediverse don’t join. Personally, I don’t think we should be trying to get everyone to join at all costs or anything like that.
It also depends about what specific topic we are talking about.
In many places in Europe, being a social democrat when it comes to economy (like Bernie) might be considered pretty moderate. But then certain attitudes about non-binary pronouns or supporting special considerations for specific groups of people, are seen closer to “far left”.
You don’t see the amount of virtue signaling in Europe that you see in USA media productions, for example.
This has nothing to do with biology, it’s 100% English grammar. Biology books are not the ones explaining what’s a “pronoun”. In fact, many languages don’t even have pronouns, and yet their biology books can perfectly be translated.
English grammar is constantly evolving. In fact, it would make it a lot more realistic if there were more strange expressions and mannerisms, even outside of pronouns. Battlestar Galactica did add some funny nonsensical expressions like “frak”, “rook”, “frimp”, “pogees” and popular phrases like “so say we all” that added a layer of depth to their futuristic culture, making it a lot more believable.
I don’t think this mod really helps with “realism”. It would in fact be unrealistic to expect no linguistic changes at all in 300 years. The only reason why I think some people are mad is because they think it’s pandering to a political agenda so they don’t even want to see an option be given at all… despite it actually being a totally optional and even totally believable aspect of a future hypothetical culture. Whether you agree with the direction that this hypothetical futuristic culture developed towards or not.