![](https://lemmy.ramram.ink/pictrs/image/b10c37c3-3393-4993-a64d-9a59c29629f1.png)
![](https://beehaw.org/pictrs/image/c0e83ceb-b7e5-41b4-9b76-bfd152dd8d00.png)
How long before we find out it always flags certain makes and models as criminals?
How long before we find out it always flags certain makes and models as criminals?
Rename Twitter Blue to X Pass
Rename the Post Tweet textbox to the X Box
Let me know when you know.
It’s legal to end a license at your own arbitrary discretion if that’s under the license terms (it is)
Ya I wasn’t really making an argument.
It’s entirely legal, yes. As people have been saying for years, you don’t own the games, you own a license to them.
They’re gonna be NFTs come next week
When did Xbox last make a game Xbox exclusive?
And nearly all PS5 games have to run on PS4. I fail to see your point.
only wanted to make sure it was extinguished on other systems?
I hope you’re similarly malicious about Sony’s exclusives too.
The only time Sony’s ever had stronger hardware was PS3, which was a dumpsterfire that never even ended in a profit. PS1 < NS4. PS2 < GCN. PS4 < Xbox One (by a small margin). PS5 < Xbox Series X.
The only thing they have to their name is a bit of code made for their platform and not others, and the opportunity to buy a $700 headset that’s outclassed by a standalone $400 headset.
The best thing that ever happened to Sony was a) Nintendo using cartridges to solidify FF as a PS franchise, and b) Sega marketing Nintendo as “for kids” back in the 90s, a stereotype they’ve never been able to get away from.
MS isn’t even top 2 in a hardware market of 3. They’re not even top 4 in publishers either. Hardly a monopoly.
US Courts have already ruled in the past that human authorship is required for copyright. It’d be a logical conclusion as such that human authorship would also be required to justify a fair use defence. You providing a summary without any quotations would likely justify fair use - which is still copyright infringement, but a mere defence of said infringement. A machine or algorithm that cannot perform the act of creative authorship would thus not be exempted by the fair use defence.
I know I am!
If it’s an ad: 40%
If it’s a SW: -15%
Big L for the creator of Banal Wonderland.
And they’ve shown they’ll allow content through for those who are willing to pay them. Also, I don’t know if they still do it, but I remember they used to inject their own advertisements on websites (I think it was opt-out though)
You sure you’re not thinking of AdBlockPlus, or did Brave do it too?
https://ramram.ink but I only use subdomains, I’ve not hooked anything to the domain itself.
Or an AI that’s pulling over cheap and old cars because the owners are more likely to get ticketed due to living in over-policed neighbourhoods.