hey, no worries!

just felt like it might be useful to know where the misunderstanding happened

i’m glad if it helped, cheers!

ah, that makes more sense!

just as an aside, for future reference:

you wrote,

Bitcoin, and the millions other way more efficient alternatives 😜"

when you really meant to write:

Bitcoin, or the millions other way more efficient alternatives 😜"

it may be s subtle difference, but when you write “and” it means bitcoin AND the other alternatives are efficient.

when you use “or” instead, it means bitcoin OR the more efficient alternatives.

so my interpretation was correct. you just didn’t write what you thought you did…

i know it’s not the point of the thread, but FYI:

bunker busters can’t destroy cities. not practically, anyways.

they’re hyper-specialized munitions that get dropped from high up in order to pick up a lot of gravitational momentum to then penetrate deep underground and through multiple layers of concrete.

they’re long, extremely resilient, stupidly heavy rods with relatively small warheads.

they’re the "rods from god"s little cousins, essentially.

although there’s some speculation that some kinds of modern concrete might be strong enough to withstand even multiple direct hits…

the kind of munitions that could cause enough destruction to level a city are M.O.A.B.s, for conventional arms, or straight-up nuclear bombs.

…or you could use a LOT of smaller bombs, like the russians in ukraine, or the israelis in gaza.

but bunker busters, while having an objectively badass name, are not actually that scary a weapon, unless you’re sitting in an actual bunker; they’re more of a precision weapon!

the wiki page is super interesting to read!

if you’re going to be all “uhm, aktchually” you might want to make sure you get the terms right:

when it’s 2 companies, it’s called a duopoly.

“Bitcoin” and “efficient” do not fit together like that…

achtung: der teil mit der wahrheitsgemäßen berichterstattung bezieht sich nicht auf die partei über die berichtet wird.

die AfD kann lügen soviel sie möchte (leider).

das gesetz sagt nur, dass der rundfunk wahrheitsgemäß berichten soll, nicht dass der inhalt des beichteten wahr sein muss.

sprich, wenn der ARD berichtet: “die AfD hat folgendes gesagt: bla, bla,bla, usw.” <-- ist das eine wahre aussage von seiten des rundfunkes.

das ist was dieser absatz aussagt.

ist, wie schon angedeutet, nicht ideal und gibt damit explizit nazis eine plattform. was ein riesiges problem ist…

not exactly, see here for an example:

https://feddit.org/comment/7945682

you’re not stealing anything using the script

see here ;)

if you wanna switch to the pro version, which should also be better in this regard, here’s a handy link:

https://github.com/massgravel/Microsoft-Activation-Scripts

turns out the windows activation is extremely insecure and easy to fool ;)

yes, that’s pretty much correct.

and i think i misunderstood the part about the obligations only kicking in after service ends; you are right about that.

yeah, there’s a lot of wiggle room; the proposal is pretty generous!

The obligations only kick in once the game gets shut down

I’m afraid that’s a misconception: in most cases the obligations have to be considered during development.

in 95%+ of cases, you can’t “just release the binaries”, because the developers usually don’t own all of their assets/code.

modern coding, and especially game dev, is highly modularized.

you usually don’t build code from the ground up, if there is an existing solution for what you need. (some indie game devs still do that, but it’s usually because there isn’t an existing solution, or not enough budget; it’s not the usual approach)

so for example, you wouldn’t create your own networking solution for a multiplayer game, you’d just use an existing solution.

but because you didn’t write that solution yourself, that part of the code either needs to fall under a license that allows for redistribution, or it has to be removed before you “release the binaries”.

and removing such code after development is a huuuuge headache. this is something that needs to be planned for during development in most cases.

so yeah, there is some upfront cost associated with SKG, mostly in that the new regulations would need some rethinking about how to handle these code modules.

either through new or more open licenses, careful design that allows for the removal of problematic modules before release to the community, etc.

it’s not a big cost, but it is there. and creating new requirements for the code, integrating that into review cycles, testing the removals, and on and on the list goes. it’s mostly a management issue, but it’s by no means trivial.

not that any of this is a deal breaker, but it should be kept in my mind that these new regulations are not entirely free… it’s gonna cause some chaos in the industry. manageable chaos, but all chaos is somewhat expensive, when it comes to industry.

where PirateSoftware is coming from

see, I’m afraid it’s simply down to money.

so I’m not convinced it would be all that productive to talk to ross.

he made the assertion, without evidence, that the petition would kill live service games, and then based everything else on that flawed premise.

it has been explained to him that this is not the case, multiple times over.

he, as an ex blizzard employee amd avid WoW player, should know exactly just how popular private servers for WoW are (used to be? haven’t played in about 10 years, but used to play a lot on warmane myself).

that makes his takes especially weird, since that’s a perfect example of how game preservation for live service games could look like! (although I’m sure corporate was ‘not amused’ by those servers at all…)

this implies to me, that his motives are not at all honorable.

the most likely explanation, which is entirely speculation on my part, is simply fear of missing out on profits, if he ever gets his game out.

or that creating his game is going to take so long (cause he spends all his time streaming instead of working on his game), that he’ll basically have to start over, since by that point he probably will have to comply with the new regulations, eating into his profits.

imho: doesn’t really matter what his motivations are, because his opinions are harmful to everyone enjoying games, period. and that, weirdly enough, includes himself!

so I’m not very optimistic on this point, but i would like to be wrong!

at least that would most likely be, because there’s a more interesting explanation…

And honestly, that makes me want to watch those other streamers less.

I’m the same!

drama turns me off content creators, not the other way around…

(i only know about the drama, because so much has been showing up in the recommendations under the videos i do watch…i have watched exactly none of the drama/reaction videos)

the problem with the streamer/yt drama machine i have specifically, is that all the creators that jumped on that particular wagon were dead silent on the initiative in the first place.

and that’s the real tragedy: a whole group of people, whose livelihoods, even if they don’t necessarily depend on games, are very much enhanced by them a LOT, did fuckall to support the initiative. nothing.

…until they saw an opportunity to profit off the drama!

THAT’S what gets me!

these are all people that are supposedly (and i really do believe largely honestly) passionate about games!

…until it might eat into their profits to share something that would benefit them AND their audience.

the utter lack of solidarity is what really turns me off about these people…

(well…in addition to everything else about streamers… I don’t like streamers very much in general…never understood the appeal…)

It doesn’t need YTers to create a bunch of drama about it.

yeah, but this point is an issue with the outrage-based economy of online content, not this particular case…

sucks in it’s entirety, but until we manage to decouple content from ad revenue we’re stuck with it.

only solution i see is to declare the internet a utility (which it obviously IS, but try telling that to the money people…)

yeah, no.

it just straight up isn’t.

if you think it is, then that’s a misunderstanding of the expression on your part.

it was neutral, and it was even accompanied by an “lmao” to indicate that it shouldn’t be taken all that seriously.

if you choose to interpret it only in the strictest possible, probably because you were already upset in the first place, I’m sorry to say, that’s on you. not them.

it was an okay-ish comment:

neither especially offensive, nor especially friendly.

maybe read it again when you’re more chilled out? merely a suggestion…

he’s repeatedly refused to talk to ross;

after the first video pirate software uploaded about SKG, ross left a comment offering clarifications and a chance to talk about the petition and surrounding misconceptions.

ross was refused an answer.

then PS uploaded more videos, and streams, with even more misinformation.

ross ignored it at that point and just continued doing his thing, advocating for the petition, giving updates, etc.

then it looked like the petition would fail, so ross decided there’s nothing left to lose by talking about the drama with PS, and lo and behold, suddenly all youtubers and streamers were suuuper onboard, helped spread the drama, and as a consequence SKG reached its goal… because of the drama.

so a net positive overall, but sad that it’s only because drama sells ads on streaming and video sites…really just a dumb state of affairs…

and to be clear: ross wasn’t at all vindictive in his video. frustrated by the situation, yes, but ultimately it was a very fair and sober response.

highly recommend checking it out; from what you said so far, i think you’ll enjoy the level-headed approach ross took!

here’s a link to the vid

“what’s your problem?” is a common expression. it’s a phrase, it isn’t literal.

that wasn’t a personal attack.

a personal attack would be:

“man, are you just a dick or what?”

what they asked is simply a request for you to explain your motivations, since they seem nonsensical to the previous poster.

(and immediately jumping to “personal attack” when someone is trying to understand you doesn’t exactly imply “peak intellect” either. and btw, your snarky “peak intellect” <-- THAT’S a personal attack. phrasing it as a statement doesn’t make it less of an insult.)

tl;dr: it’s far from perfect, but it is a decent compromise.

what you’re talking about are government applications, which can take many different forms.

some can be filled out anonymously (often things like complaints, sometimes even lawsuits, etc.), and some need to have a verifiable identity attached (for example petitions, like SKG).

the reason the latter needs proof of identity is to prevent spam and unlawful influence campaign: if there was no verification, how could you know that it is actually citizens filing these requests, and not bad and/or foreign actors?

what if you had a European Citizens Initiative called “let’s join the russian federation” that got to 50 Million signatures overnight?

obviously seems fishy…so how would you verify wether it was actually supported by your own citizens?

this is why you need verification: it’s simply not an option to have this sort of thing filed anonymously.

there are some ideas on how to do this digitally, mostly focused on pseudonymization, which would be mostly great, but the current system is pretty decent.

there’s a tradeoff happening, and it’s one that has to be extremely carefully considered:

on the one hand, you’d want citizens to be free to support whatever campaigns they want without fear of repercussions, social or otherwise.

on the other hand, it’s also a good thing when people can’t hide behind anonymity when voicing their support. with the recent rise of nazis, that’s certainly a prudent state of affairs.

both ways of doing things have advantages and disadvantages.

the current system of public support tends to favor quite conservative (as in traditionalistic and broadly accepted socially, not as in the “conservative politics”) initiatives over more reformative ones, but it also suppresses utterly unhinged Initiatives of the right wing factions.

as much as i understand that many groups would prefer a more anonymous approach, i honestly think the current approach, under the current state of affairs, offers much needed protection against nazi influence campaigns.

i think people underestimate how much more comfortable nazis get, when they can hide behind anonymity.

they are cowards be default, and anonymity helps them find a whole lot more acceptance than having their names out in the open…

as for why complaints can be filed anonymously… probably the same reasoning, but in reverse:

protecting people from repercussions is more important when it is about reporting current misgivings, than it is when petitioning for change.

think whistleblowers: they NEED anonymity.

without anonymity, a lot remains unreported, because many people tend to shoot the messenger first, ask questions later or never…so protections are required, mostly in form of anonymity, otherwise no one ever finds out about things going wrong…

“campaigning AGAINST”

they’re against that…

ah, that’s a bit of a shame!

totally get it though: it’s not for everyone…

since you mentioned enjoying hopping into a game for a bit in the sea of thieves section, maybe try some rogoulikes/-lites?

try out hades: fun, fast paced, neat story, satisfying gameplay loop, variety, and I’m pretty sure it’s on sale! ;)