God fucking dammit

Are you saying that’s happened? Or that you expect it will?

If this is the same thing I’m thinking of, the case was to be allowed to immigrate in the US. It was dismissed, so they were no longer legally in the country.

It’s rancid bullshit that they were instantly detained, of course, but** there is a logic to it.

It serves the key purpose of Mumble, in that it provides a reliable way to get in a voice chat with people. The other features (text chat, video calls, screen sharing, “servers” that let people aggregate for a dedicated purpose/community) come together to make a legitimately good product that’s hard to replace.

With little to no attachment to one’s personal life, unless I’m mistaken.

Is there a peer to peer equivalent to Discord? That feels like it would be the best option, since it wouldn’t rely on a centralized company that could enshittify the product.

It is a bit baffling. I think it’s more ethical than the alternative though: pay gating useful functionality. Offering paid pallete swaps doesn’t make a lot of sense to me, someone who would never pay for that, but it does at least mean I can just ignore it. If they were to, say, restrict voice calls to a paid subscription, suddenly I’m in a position where either I’m paying for the service or ditching it entirely.

I doubt the deposits were for the full cost, right?

“several X users claim”, they say for sources. Christ Almighty.

Not sure I want to tell all my friends to get simplex with me.

The one use case I can see being valuable is dynamically reading a custom name. In Skyrim for example, all NPCs refer to you by your title as Dragonborn. But some smart person made a mod that uses AI trained on the NPC voice lines to embed your character’s name into dialog!

As long as voice actors are appropriately compensated/protected, say with royalties for every game that uses their likeness or an ironclad contract making sure the company can’t stiff then out of future work, I feel like that could be a great thing.

The actor?!

Against the terms of agreements they made? Yes.

To be fair, this is what I meant when I said wrong. Enough people have taken umbrage with my wording that I think I should update it, though. Thank you for your reply.

My understanding is that the IA had implemented a digital library, where they had (whether paid or not) some number of licenses for a selection of books. This implementation had DRM of some variety that meant you could only read the book while it was checked out. In theory, this means if the IA has 10 licenses of a book, only 10 people have a usable copy they borrowed from the IA at a time.

And then the IA disabled the DRM system, somehow, and started limitlessly lending the books they had copies of to anyone that asked.

I definitely don’t like the obnoxious copyright system in the USA, but what the IA did seems obviously wrong against the agreement they entered into. Like if your local library got a copy of Book X and then when someone wanted to borrow it they just copied it right there and let you keep the copy.

ETA: updated my wording. I don’t believe what the IA did was morally wrong, per se, but rather against the agreement I presume they entered into with the owners of the books they lent.

I feel like in that case one would be loudly fighting to get the law changed, rather than insisting it’s actually fine. Maybe that’s just semantics.

I do not understand what point you’re making. Can you elaborate?

I predict that in under 4 years, he’ll have run to Russia for sanctuary, where he’ll tweet for the rest of his days. He’ll make some kind of comparison between himself and Snowden. The media will start to report less and less on what he says, and people will pay less and less attention to him as he is no longer able to do rallies.

Oh shit, that’s amazing! That could be a real learning opportunity for folks interested in starting game dev like me!

I switched to Mint for my new PC a few months ago. There are a handful of games that don’t work on it, but they’re few and far between.

I’m in the same boat. There are a lot of parts of the Internet that should be free, but YouTube is not one of them. Video hosting is one of the most resource intensive services around, and if we as consumers aren’t paying for it they’ll find a worse way to fund it.