Copyright protects already executed ideas, stripping that protection down to less than a decade would be completely unhelpful.

Don’t be too excited, these are the same people that made Warcraft 3 reforged, that one remaster that made everything worse.

Nah, the 1st amendment does protect non-citizens as well as citizens.

I mean, that all sounds to me like a really good argument for preserving copies of every single version of every game. To go back to your Shakespeare example, it would be a massive loss if any of those adaptations were not preserved to be found by those who went looking, so all we had to go on was records of people talking about them. In fact, there are at least a few examples of exactly that: Homer’s Illiad and Odyssey are only parts of a much larger series which we only know exist because we have other records discussing it.

Yeah, just taking snapshots of everything isn’t going to let you perfectly recreate the culture surrounding a game at any point in time, but having those snapshots around is important for giving context to other records you have.

It technically means the government needs to pass a very high bar before it can restrict any kind of speech, that bar being strict scrutiny.

Of course, the view of the public and the court historically has been that blocking union busting activities has passed strict scrutiny, since it a) is justified by the government’s interest in preventing the kind of violence that occurred when union busting was allowed, b) doesn’t restrict actions outside of union busting, so it’s narrowly tailored, and c) is the least restrictive method yet proposed, only other method I can think of is compelling union membership for everyone.

If ethical reasons are a concern, you might want to avoid Trader Joe’s as well on account of their union busting activities.

Not really no. SMS is nowhere near as versatile as a service like Discord in terms of being able to meet new people or have conversations that don’t overload unrelated but potentially interested people with notifications.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8H1u-zh9dmU

As much as I’d love that idea, I would guess there are financial reasons to not allow things like that, as both advertisers and credit card companies seem to really hate erotic and erotic adjacent media.

The game looks good, and I first heard about it because they are hiring a dedicated narrative designer.

IIRC homes are protected in bankruptcy, because someone decided it would be unfair to inflict homelessness on someone for committing the crime of being broke (irony very intended).

Didn’t even offer a refund it sounds like.

“Hey, I know we just fucked up and let a ton of personal information out into the wild. As compensation how would you like to keep using us?”

I will point out there are actually pretty good driverless cars, they just aren’t made by Tesla. Look up Waymo if you want to look into them.

Don’t forget https://capitalwasteland.com/

What do you mean unless it was also from a ballot measure? I’d say it should override laws even from a ballot measure since the new ballot measure is more recent, though in that case it would be best to communicate that the new ballot measure is overriding the old one just for clarity sake.

Perpetual licences have their place, like I’m reasonably confident under the hood you have a perpetual licences for the OS your phone runs on. The point isn’t to get a piece of software that will be updated and supported forever, it’s to get something that works, fits your needs, and that you know can’t just be revoked at the whim of another. Problem is that last one is becoming increasingly untrue.

I mean fuck AT&T, but fuck needless consolidation, pointless service bundling, and revocation of perpetual licences even more.

I for one would be fine with a digital ID to be used for even age verification, so long as it is only used for verification and is completely detached from any other form of identification. Honestly I’m getting kinda sick of rumors of Russian and Chinese trolls, true or not, as well as AI commenters influencing genuine discourse.

Au contraire, the devil absolutely needs an advocate, to make sure he’s being called out on the right bullshit and not just whatever accusation is thrown his way.

It’s the argument a lot of politicians are making, that once platforms start curating user generated content they become responsible for it despite section 230. I think it’s bullshit, but it is the argument being made.