Mic_Check_One_Two

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I’ve used it for basic coding stuff a few times, to great success. Nothing over a few dozen lines, but it’s great when you don’t want to bother looking up the specific functions and syntax for a particular language. For instance, you can have it write basic batch files for you. Then you simply double check it to make sure it’s accurate, (which is much easier than starting from scratch,) and you’re golden.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

I mean, that’ll only affect new releases. And even then, it’ll probably only affect new releases that are doing things in radically new ways. Old/current games (and even lots of new releases) will be fine to play.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Here’s a reminder that your neopets haven’t been fed in decades. You left them to starve. You monster.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 5 months ago

Just an FYI, DMCA takedown requests will affect forks. If you’re genuinely worried about something getting taken down, you should make offline copies. So even if your fork gets nuked by the DMCA, you still have the files and can rebuild it.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

He explains why it’s unlisted in the first few minutes. Basically, he knows it’s too long for the regular viewer, and plans to release a condensed version later. But for the people who may be interested in a deep dive, he made the much longer unlisted version where he has the freedom to ramble and fully explain things.

As for why it’s unlisted, it’s probably so he doesn’t get dinged by the YouTube algorithm for incomplete views. If the algorithm sees that his regular viewers are only watching the first 5 minutes of his hour long video, it’ll stop recommending his videos to them. Unlisting the video is an easy way to get around that, because only the people who are interested in it will seek it out.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

They use Documents because it’s an easy way to ensure saves don’t persist between users. If you and a sibling both play on the same computer, you don’t necessarily want to be sharing game saves. Since the Documents folder is on a per-user basis, the saves are per-user as well. If they simply saved the games in the Program Files folder, saves would potentially persist across users. And anyone who has had a younger sibling accidentally erase all of their saves knows what a bad idea that is.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

I always have issues with The Sims. Apparently EA uses the Documents folder for a lot of temp files. So every time I play The Sims, I get warnings from OneDrive that thousands of files were recently deleted. Because it’s creating and deleting temp files the entire time you’re playing, which are all automatically trying to sync to OneDrive.

Given, that’s mostly an issue on EA’s side; Whatever programmer thought the Documents folder was a good spot for temp files should be dragged out back and flogged.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 months ago

Voluntary deletion won’t remove forks, but a DMCA takedown will.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It’s because Yuzu was profiting off of their development with a Patreon. Keep emulators FOSS and there’s no profits to claim.

Also, because it’s a settlement and not a ruling, it’s not setting a precedent for future lawsuits. Courts historically put a lot of weight on legal precedent, to help make rulings consistent. If one court interprets a new case in a certain way, similar cases in the future will likely look to that first case’s ruling for guidance.

So if one ruling had decided that emulation is illegal, then subsequent lawsuits would have been much much easier for Nintendo. Because Nintendo could basically argue “we already proved emulation is illegal in that previous case, so now we don’t need to do that part again.”

[–] [email protected] 15 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Tesla routes pretty much everything through the center console. I’m surprised they haven’t tried to route the blinkers through it.

It’s because their wiring system basically just daisy chains everything together with network cable. So it’s a lot less cabling, because they aren’t running six wires for six different systems. But it also means that when one system fails, they all fail in a cascade because everything behind that system in the chain is also affected.

That’s why automakers have traditionally used individual wires for each system, because they have prioritized safety over easier wiring; You don’t want your airbags to fail just because your wipers are having an issue, for instance. So each system is essentially isolated to its own wiring.

Tesla is a good example of people not understanding why things are done a certain way. Elon just saw modern wiring harnesses and went “lol that’s dumb just use network cables.” And on the surface it sounds fine, because it’s less wiring. But it fails to understand why each system is wired independently. And now Teslas have frequent issues with cascading system failures.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (2 children)

It’s not a crime per se, but it does open them up to civil litigation. Because it’s a contract of adhesion, where the consumer gains nothing from the additional terms, cannot negotiate the terms prior to acceptance, and is forced into accepting the terms on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.

In order for a contract to be enforceable, both sides need to be able to negotiate the terms, and both sides need to receive something meaningful from said contract.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 5 months ago

the arbitration companies are usually ~~fairly friendly towards whatever corporation is being challenged~~ being paid directly by the company they’re arbitrating for, and therefore have a direct financial incentive to rule in favor of the corporation.

FTFY. It’s way worse than just “being friendly” with corps. They’re on the corps’ payroll (indirectly, because the corp is paying for the arbitration,) and they know that if they continue to rule in the corps’ favor then the corp will continue calling them for future arbitration. There’s a tacit understanding between the arbiter and corporation, where if the arbiter favors the plaintiff then the arbiter won’t get called when the corporation goes to arbitration the next time.

view more: ‹ prev next ›