You've got that backwards. Offering information services should not qualify you for an exemption from regulation as a telecommunications service if that's a part of your business. Even a tiny part. Don't like it? Divest yourself of the telecommunications part. Or place it into a holding company/subsidiary.

Nintendo didn't brick the system. They didn't brick the game. They banned online access; download server access for purchased items opens them to possible lawsuit. I can see how given their download servers were massively hacked for years why they would be paranoid about allowing compromised systems access to it. I think their download/update servers can still be used on the WiiU to pirate software - provided by Nintendo! They are not yet bricking updates etc for past customers of old old products.

heretically... ha.
I derived my definition of evil from an old psychologist who was also religious and studied the nature of evil for years from the two different perspectives. He believed there was a supernatural force influencing people but he somehow also believed mental illness along with lapses in judgment are behind just about everything people do. It's hard to have an evil monster of a person in the science... the worse they are, the easier it is to find a severe illness to classify them under. SICK not evil and many are not even doing anything evil; just individual sick acts.

Adjective? word play. sometimes just add "ing." way too often we turn words into tools to over emphasize. We literally use evil so much it has little meaning anymore... today literally means figuratively way too often.

An act of evil would be facilitating the corruption. The acts carried out as a result, like say...murder, are an anti-social behavior and in itself not evil (We often support and praise murder.) If the murder is to create the conditions for another target to be driven to do something anti-social in response then the murder is an evil act; but it's a tool, like using propaganda.

A person can create conditions which influence themselves to act badly; not just others. A group of people can unknowingly do this as well. This is why primitive peoples thought supernatural forces were pulling the strings -- because humans have a bias to attributing intelligence to emergent patterns. Such as thinking geese plan, lead, or breed themselves into flying in a V pattern. It's just another behavioral fractal.

WhatCouldPossiblyGoWrong

It's the only state where you need to buy a card from the government in order to drink a beer at a restaurant.

You're correct in principle, but this needs going deeper into relevant human traits.

People that could push this sort of a change require to have a combination of a specific traits. First one is ability to do complex future planning and sacrificing short term for it. Very small percentage of people in total are capable of this. A large plurality if not outright majority barely has a conception of the future if at all. Of those that remain, clear majority has problems tolerating the sacrifice (see: obesity "epidemic") needed for long term gain. Even when gain is massive elevation in quality of life and survival.

And even for people who can do what you describe, the gain must be clear and unambiguous. To go beyond that, you need to go to a different trait, that being risk tolerance. This trait is independent from the future planning one.

Finally you have the actual ability to what is needed to secure those long term gains.

So the people who could tolerate high risk and are capable of imagining the future and capable of sacrificing in short term for it and have the ability will genuinely invest only in things that have a massive return. Because there's so few of them, and so many opportunities they can direct their unique talent set towards. So because they walk rather than crawl for lulz, they will invest their time and effort only in most efficient things.

Causes like you speak of have such low returns compared to alternatives where such people could orient their effort towards, these people will not even look at them twice. All you get is ideological, highly disagreeable weirdoes who ride generally lack one or several of required traits to enact the kind of thing you are talking about at scale you're talking about.

And so, we get status quo. Because it's human.

This is as fair use for the company as fair use is for the consumer.

You buy shady stuff from a shady place you are taking a RISK. Neither the company or the customer are to blame but they have to deal with the mess the middleman created; however, the company doesn't know about it while the customer took the risky action.

Let us not attack everything involving a global corporation as being equivalent. Nuance...

Nintendo resolved this problem much better than anybody else I've heard about and they didn't brick the system or the game; just cut off online. maybe it should just be that game that blocked; although, attacks happen from such things sneaking past security. Nintendo's own servers were providing pirates easy to click and install copies at one point. Should people get upset? sure, maybe policies will improve. But unless it is a huge number of people, they do not have to do anything. They could have acted like Sony and been far worse - and Sony has been just fine; they know they could get away with so much more and yet they choose to be far more reasonable.

The four 1.5-megawatt turbines die after a year?

It's going to be awkward when you realise that by far a super majority of people use Chrome which *checks notes* has data collection on by ... well you can't disable it at all.

Oh, it's not as risky as it sounds. The studios use "Hollywood Accounting" tricks to make it appear as if they are losing money when in fact they are raking it in. These gross numbers are just part of the smoke-and-mirrors.

I don't know what these tricks actually are, of course, as I am not in a position to know. But I have read that they are along the lines of: part of making this movie involves building a bunch of wooden props. So the studio contracts with a company to build those props. The company is entirely owned by the same people who own the studio, so the bulk of that money was actually just shuffled from one pocket into the other, with a paltry percentage of it spent on actually paying the employees. So now it looks like they just spent a few million on props, when really they only spent a hundred thousand or so.

So that whole 900M figure is the lie they tell, that everyone knows is a lie, but everyone accepts as the truth anyway.

I read that they use similar tricks to get out of royalty payments, after the fact, apparently. It has something to do with the different ways the royalty agreements are worded. Like, so long as they own the rights to the movie, they must pay royalties on whatever they make from views. But if they sell the rights, then they have to pay some royalties on the profits from that sale, and then that's it, the royalty payments are done, they don't transfer, the story is over. So they just sell the movie to a different company they also own, at a loss, and laugh all the way to the bank.

I don't really have evidence that these things are true, but it seems to be a "given" among those in the know that this and things like this are standard operating procedure in the movie industry.

Not really. Most people don't read a ToS and even if they did, don't give a shit about it.

If the Mozilla ToS is an issue for you, then you wouldn't be affected by Chrome dropping manifest v2 support since you'd need to be suffering from severe braindamage to care about the Mozilla change while having agreed to Google's ToS

Not really. The problem is user facing issues are the true benefits and that the end result of a couple of failures biases the user unfairly towards thinking that something is a major drawback.

No the new architecture brought FAR more benefits than drawbacks, you probably were just affected by the drawbacks specifically and it left you bitter as a result. You lose a bit of customisation, but the compatibility it introduced with Chrome *massively* broadened the availability of extensions to firefox.

That's especially relevant now that Firefox has a fuck all market share, since no one would go out of their way to support the old NPAPI architecture for an absent userbase.

That's evil as a *noun*, sure. Evil is also an adjective. And whether used as a noun or an adjective, the word evil can also refer to the act itself, not just a moral condition. And as such, it can mean causing harm or intending to cause harm to others, and it can also mean morally corrupt.

In this case, the act of bricking a brand new game console without any evidence is doing an entirely evil act (harming others) in the name of justice. And from a theological perspective, there are few greater evils than this.

So IMO, your statement is not just wrong; it is bordering on heretically wrong. :-)

Wait are you browsing the internet without an adblocker? What's wrong with you!

Who is this "we" you are speaking for? Do they know you speak for them?

Objectively ublock origin was disabled. It's right there in the extensions list marked as disabled. If you want to understand the nuance then go read on ublock's github page to understand why there is no upgrade path offered from ublock origin to ublock lite. The creator considers them fundamentally different products with fundamentally different capabilities. If you have ublock origin your extension was disabled. There's no way of sugar coating that or talking your way around it.

You'd advocating installing a different extension to replace the disabled one.