Should be a crime to bring that game back to life.

The article talks about all the reasons that the game failed, but doesn't once mention how gamers were laughing at it and calling it a joke before it was even released. After its release, they doubled down. It says that Sony didn't market it enough to make people aware of it, and yet I don't know anyone who hasn't heard of it. Delusions and cope for sure.

Right. But most people would rather deal with Nazis over all of the fascists and racists who are flooding Bluesky. Lesser of two evils.

I see more Nazis on Bluesky though.

Obviously I'm using that term in the liberal sense, but you know all about that based on your post. Crazy how even Jewish people and patriots use Twitter/X over Bluesky, even though it's apparently full Nazis lmfao.

Funny how "good journalism" had magically disappeared after Musk purchased it and introduced the ability to call out facts and bias. You ever think that it was always full of poor journalism prior to that? Maybe it's just that your echo chamber broke down. Kind of says a lot about what's all over Bluesky, don't you think?

I think you're beginning to understand taxes now. Good job.

And yes. Just like the mob.

Let's work on abolished the IRS before caring about whether the top shareholders are making enough millions off of sales to China or not.

Did you read the rest of that sentence? Seems you missed the part where I said "under fair use". You can wish really really hard, but it won't make it true. This is why watch party streams are almost never covered under the fair use doctrine, and never covered if it's for commercial use.

What was false? Yes, you can obviously form an opinion about something immediately after you've watched it. That's not what was stated. I said you that cannot criticize UNDER FAIR USE in this manner. Streaming a copy of the content to your viewers through a "watch party", and criticizing it, is not covered by fair use. This is exactly the same as renting a movie, streaming it, and then making some comments.

Fair Use effectively allows you to reference the original work to illustrate or show the subject of your critique (or any other covered use). You're not referencing anything if you haven't seen it before. The Fair Use doctrine does not cover playing copyrighted work that you simply intend to criticize.

Is this true? Because immigration to the UK has increase 4-5 times in the years after Brexit. That seems to be opposite of what you're saying.

Are you saying that the democrats pulled a bait and switch over there too?

Immigration to the UK skyrocketed right after Brexit. We're talking 4 or 5 times more immigrants entering the UK, mostly unskilled. What do you mean by reducing visas and Immigration? Have you not seen the news lately either? Immigration and policing have become such a huge problem that nationalists are beginning to march and even riot in some cases over their immigration problem. Brexit is a democratic movement. The conservative party was against it.

They did the opposite of what Trump is doing and they're in shambles. I don't understand your point.

Trade and Tarrifs have been a success under Donald Trump as well. It sounds like he's on the right track for immigration too. You're literally complaining about how bad things are in the UK due to immigration policies and Trump is doing the opposite. Just say'n. Sounds like you agree with his policies.

Going to bathroom or physically leaving the stream for extended periods while the copyrighted video continues to play on their stream is not a form of commentary. The video is kept playing specifically so that their viewers can continue to watch the copyrighted work.

And when Denims tells her viewers to watch Ethan's video on her stream so that he does not get the views, I think it's pretty hard to argue that as a form of critique over the video. That's exactly what copyright infringement is meant to protect against.

Streaming a video in real time is also different because you cannot possibly criticize a copyrighted work under fair use if you have not even watched it. This plays a very large part in his lawsuit.

It's just the most commercialized aside from news tabloids, err I mean "articles".

I don't enjoy reading enough to read your comment.

3 books a year? I haven't read a book in nearly 15 years, and it was required for college. There are many things that you can do to waste time, and reading doesn't seem like an interesting choice.

Why would I want to spend all day reading at work, and then go home and proceed to read for "fun"? Even just 3 books a year seems like that'd be performed by someone who REALLY loves to read.

Careful, your TDS is showing.

Huh? It's the opposite of what you say.

Teachers aren't allowed to criticize students or even physically discipline them. Meanwhile, the bar for graduating keeps getting lowered by the education system. Books from the 1800, 1900, etc... are being even more scrutinized for being politically incorrect. That is the complete opposite to what you'd see prior to the 21st century.

I saw the app. It wasn't actually open for everyone and not just men, and still got shot down. But it was rejected for being insecure. It was rejected many times even before this leak.