Meanwhile in Russia, mobile data shutdowns are becoming a routine. Especially in regions closer to the border/front line. They say it's to fight drone attacks, but no word on how effective that actually is.
That's the short-distance FPV drones used near the front line. The long-distance ones, the kinds that strike hundreds of kilometers deep, fly pre-programmed routes afaik but also use mobile networks for something. Maybe intelligence collection, maybe so an operator could take over.
This vague handwringing isn't any better. None of us know what the law will end up turning into. But we shouldn't let that stop this being addressed properly in our political institutions. That's what they're there for.
Also, bringing up the DMCA is sort of rich, since it was always just a vehicle for the biggest content companies in publishing, film, television, music and software to protect their property online.
Now we have something that was brought into being by consumers and may finally do something to curb anti-consumer behaviour by companies like this, and you're against it because you have no idea what it'll look like. I just can't, man. What's even the point of legislation if we have to be afraid it'll all be corrupted? Why even have political institutions at all at that point?
And if the end result of this legislation is that videogames in EU aren't licensed or sold but are instead all streamed and you are instead just buying access to stream a game, then what?
TO me it's just amazing how the advocates for SKG ignore any possibility that it could make things much worse that they already.
If that business model worked so well, they'd all be doing it already. It'd cause piracy to cease, and (mostly) render the need for anti-cheat redundant, barring external image recognition cheats that are already tough to stop anyway.
> And if the end result of this legislation is that videogames in EU aren't licensed or sold but are instead all streamed and you are instead just buying access to stream a game, then what?
Then the industry is honest, and I can spend my money on an indie developer that doesn't do that.
Companies that do that will likely be completely outcompeted by studios that give a shit.
Based on how you talk to people, I see no value in discussing this with you any further after this.
> The correct thing to do is for the Stop Killing Games initiative to be more concrete and specify what features of the laws they want implemented to reduce latitude for the EU to screw things up. That's the outcome I'm hoping for - not that the SKG initiative doesn't pass.
They were as concrete as they needed to be. The people who wrote SKG aren't subject matter experts. They don't have to be in order to point out a problem that they want political institutions to discuss and address. It's not their place to specify the details. These people do not represent the wide population. They are not elected officials. This is what we elect political representatives for. Their job is to figure out the problem and the details.
If you do not believe in this process, that's not a problem with this petition. That's a you problem.
Don't bother replying. I don't care what you have to say anymore. I'm not tolerating your ad hominem attacks. It's not suitable for this site and I wish you'd go elsewhere to be toxic.
> Based on how you talk to people, I see no value in discussing this with you any further after this.
That's a concession that you cannot defend your position.
> If you do not believe in this process, that's not a problem with this petition. That's a you problem.
There's very well-documented issues of corruption in both US and EU government, so no, this is not a "me problem" - yet more emotional manipulation and misdirection. The existence of that corruption also nullifies everything that you wrote above. If you're denying the corruption, you're part of the problem.
> I'm not tolerating your ad hominem attacks.
I never committed an ad hominem, and you know it.
> It's not suitable for this site and I wish you'd go elsewhere to be toxic.
You know what's not suitable? The falsehoods and emotional manipulation that you've repeatedly made in your comments. That is toxic - not calling it out. What a perverse thing to claim.
You need to learn to be able to make your points without emotional outbursts. Being mad does not make you right.
It's not any form of lock-in or anti-competitiveness, and it's not an aspect that's specific to Steam. You actually need to substantiate that instead of just claiming it. Almost all the online digital platforms do this, even non-gaming ones, and it's weird that it's only being argued here because it's about Steam.
This is a digital media rights issue, not a Steam issue.
The other platforms on PC are exactly the same though. If you're against Steam because of this particular aspect, you should be against almost all platforms on PC as well as every console and phone platform. This is how it works on almost every digital media platform. It's not sufficient reason to treat Steam like a monopoly, because in itself it's not anti-competitive behaviour.
It's also not solvable unless you legislate platform agnostic licenses that are valid regardless of platform. Fat chance of that ever happening and I doubt that's actually what you're suggesting.
It means helping people is imperialism and imperialism is bad, so actually it's a good thing these people are starving. At least now they can finally pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.
Or something, I don't know. I don't understand these people.
> DB und Siemens Mobility haben bei Testfahrten einen neuen Geschwindigkeitsrekord für die Strecke Erfurt–Leipzig/Halle erreicht
> Der ICE-S der DB Systemtechnik wird hauptsächlich für Test- und Messfahrten eingesetzt. Er dient dazu, neue Strecken zu testen, die Infrastruktur zu untersuchen und verschiedene Hochgeschwindigkeitsprüfungen durchzuführen
The latter paragraph explicitly states the point of this specific train is to test new routes and to analyze the infrastructure.
I think, like usual, it's a case of people reading the title and then going off to write a comment.
> I think, like usual, it's a case of people reading the title and then going off to write a comment.
Yes, that's poor communication. You need to read the last half of the article to really understand what the news is about. The title should be "405,0 km/h auf Schnellfahrstrecke Erfurt–Leipzig/Halle in Testfahrt erreicht". Note that this omits mentioning a specific train.
That's interesting. Can you tell me anything else about Germans? I'm particularly interested in what their school system teaches about good writing and effective communication.
Even Germany has this figured out. Getting a new passport just required me to make an appointment, fill out an online form and go to the appointment with a single person. The only document I needed was my personal ID. Took like 15 minutes, not including the wait before I was called up. I feel like if Germany can get its shit together, any other country can too.
If you're applying for your very first personal ID, then you need to bring a birth certificate and another adult who already has an ID, but it's also something that's been trivial to do for years now.
The price of gas isn't immediately and directly impacted by the price of crude because of futures contracts. This naturally means gas prices will move to match the price of crude over time. It's a feature of the current system, not an indication that the price of gas isn't heavily reliant on gas. Nobody is making gas with spot prices.
I don't really understand any of your comment. Can you explain exactly how to solve all the problems that she's rightfully pointed out? I'm actually not sure what your problem is with what she says.
Or why you think pointing out the toxicity of the manosphere is a bad thing?
You actually didn't provide any arguments for why she's wrong and you didn't provide any better solutions either.
I took away much more from her post than I did your comment. All I see here is somebody who's firmly in the alt right bubble who doesn't like being called out.
I think basically what they are trying to say is that the whole idea that men behave the way they do because of a "lack of education in emotional literacy" or whatever is incorrect. The emotions themselves that bubble to the top between both groups tend to be different and require different responses. A "heart to heart" like you might have with your wife is not necessarily gonna help with your teenage beef between a bunch of insecure young men.
They are saying that relationships between men are different from relationships between women or between men and women, and that they don't necessarily rely on things like emotional intimacy to the same extent, or perhaps that the emotional intimacy experienced doesn't have to be in the form of a very caring heart to heart conversation about feelings.
To be honest, they have a good point in some ways. I think it's true that male friendships are different from women's and it would be basically biologically and culturally impossible to get men to share their feelings as often and in as much detail as women (nor would that necessarily be desirable). But I think there is definitely something to be said for lack of connection between men, and that the original article is correctly identifying a number of very real problems. It's just the whole cliche "men need to cry it out with their bros more" thing that is misguided and not believable to plenty of mature and not frustrated / Andrew Tate watching guys.
I also suspect the whole Andrew Tate thing is really a phenomenon of pre-pubescent and pubescent boys and that it is not nearly as big a problem among, say, people in their 20s. I'd really like to see the statistics on who is watching because I suspect the demographics are like plenty of other "edgy" teenager type shows and that it precipitously drops off once people pass through puberty. My suspicions are mostly driven by the fact I've never heard a man in real life ever mention the guy once and I'm only 28 years old. Certainly, if he had some more broad appeal to men in general, I would have at least heard of it and maybe watched it at least once? I've certainly heard of Joe Rogan for instance, who certainly has a more broad appeal to men more generally.
Young men have always been into a lotta uncouth and kinda shitty stuff like that and I'm not sure they aren't going to grow out of it just like we did with our own "manly man" bullshit back in the day.
>I took away much more from her post than I did your comment. All I see here is somebody who's firmly in the alt right bubble who doesn't like being called out.
As I said go back to read the first part about how she doesnt understand. Just like you just admit dont understand.
Again another label pushed onto others, 'alt right' keep it up. keep dividing and attacking.
>But now, as diversity pipeline programs like the one I've spent my career building are systematically dismantled and women's fundamental rights are rolled back to chants of “your body, my choice,”
Who is winning? The author straight up admits defeat and wants to go after children to push her failed ideas. You know how fast that'll be systematically dismantled if she tried?
Her push for boys who nurse or teach is telling. Will she call out the systemic sexism in those industries? Give men free tuition to become those things? You've never even heard that before have you? My side isnt about attacking like this.
>You actually didn't provide any arguments for why she's wrong and you didn't provide any better solutions either.
My solution is being implemented and is systematically dismantling the problem. It's about rolling back some rights. My body, her choice is what we heard during covid vaccines.
Sorry that i am part of the side that's implementing the solution. What's to argue for?
What happened here is that the republicans should have pushed back against this stuff, but as the quote goes... "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."
https://www.euronews.com/next/2024/03/25/ukraines-telecom-en...
I think these networks can be a lot more resilient than we think and they can be maintained even during a war.