lime!

yeah

i don’t really care about animals… i know like three different fish and that’s it as far as sea creatures go. i will still listen to people talk about them though.

isn’t this like saying some people are allergic to asbestos?

the ps shoulder buttons have always been labeled L1/L2 and R1/R2. literally stamped into the plastic.

mate, i’m swedish. you don’t have to convince me that it’s tasty!

middle name, sorry

well then you have your summer schedule all worked out!

do you also do the varieties that the swedes do? that’s my favourite part, getting a whole bunch of differently spiced ones. probably need to try the dutch version.

why would it be cooked? it’s pickled!

i was on mobile so i was keeping it terse. let’s see if i can expand a bit now that i’m at a keyboard.

the right to repair movement is fighting companies that deliberately make it harder to fix things, so that customers will have to use company services to repair their stuff, or buy new stuff. john deere and apple are two big players here, with cryptographical signatures built into parts that void the warranty if they don’t match. this is actively adversarial behavior and should plainly be illegal. skg, on the other hand, is fighting companies that just leave their stuff to rot. they’re just neglecting their product once there is no profit in it, which you can’t really say about e.g. john deere; they are obligated by law to provide parts for the things they sell for x amount of years after they no longer sell the product itself.

so, the two are in different legal frameworks: right to repair is trying to stop capture of the spare parts market, while skg is fighting for there to even be a spare parts market. and that’s where my previous point comes in: while machines are inherently understood to be repairable (because they used to be) and the fact that companies are trying to clamp down on that is plainly obvious, software has never been generally understood to be changeable by the end user. it has always been an enthusiast/professional-only thing.

so, equating the two may harm either
a) rtr, because of the assumption that only people with the correct credentials should have access to repair parts,
b) skg, because of the assumption that they want companies to provide support for things for up to several years like in the parts market, or
c) both, because of the assumption that they want the same thing, which, if implemented, would make neither side happy.

i’m not 100% sure i’m making sense here, because on some level i do think they share similarities. of course they do. but how do you present that to a group of amateurs (legislators) in a coherent way? i don’t think you can without harming either cause.

because to most people software is not a thing that can be repaired.

that’s an assumption. for all we know they would have connected the two, or seen one as harmless and implemented it, or lobbied against both.

and that’s what the regulation is for. to get them to plan ahead.

i think macos inserts those automatically if you do three dashes.

But most of the key points he raised were sensationalized but not actually wrong if you look at things from a developer perspective.

they were also not really relevant to the campaign, which was the biggest problem with his comments. there was no expectation that studios do extra work to keep servers up, or make offline clients. the expected legislation was to have publishers allow external use of the relevant source code of the product when the publisher deems the work no longer profitable, to spare people the effort of reverse-engineering protocols and building their own servers. a knock-on effect of that would be that future services would have to be built with eventual shutdown procedures in mind, which, let’s face it, they should already have been doing.

thor was saying “this isn’t feasible because it’s a bunch of extra work for the developers”, completely missing the point that this is not on the developers. it’s on the company sitting on the IP. they can publish source trees no problem, no developer involvement necessary. and the legislation would have made sure of that fact.

that was sort of the point though. a big case with a narrow focus can later be used as a fulcrum for a wider scope, given that the original case has the right spin. it’s also easier than going after the anti-repair people.

linkedin is like designed for envy but only used for pride.

thor is a tech youtuber. it’s just his actual name.

yeah my opinion on piratesoftware was really cemented by his inability to do a charitable reading of the petition.

nah, he’s live and reloaded