No, Ubisoft tried to offer a partial game for free, distributed via Steam, but sold paid full access for cheap on Uplay. Basically, a “purchase full access to this Steam game on our storefront so we don’t have to pay the fee we’d normally pay to get Steam to distribute the game for us”.
The issue with the Ubisoft case was that Ubisoft offered R6S in a free, restricted mode and a full mode. However, Ubisoft allowed you to obtain the free version from Steam (distributed by Steam servers) but offered a cheaper way to access the full game on Uplay only.
So you could get the full game, distributed by Steam without spending a penny on Steam, as long as you purchase it on Uplay. That’s just Ubisoft trying to dodge Steam’s policy prohibiting cheaper access to Steam distributed games on other storefronts.
It’s kinda like you providing a free game on Steam, but upon opening it you have to enter your credit card details first in order to access the rest of the game. You’re just using Steam’s services for free at that point, and that is obviously dodging the policy.
Ukraine receives security assurances under the Budapest memorandum (which Russia violated).
Fuck ads, obviously, but I can understand there’s confusion here.
If GPC says “do not sell my data”, but the user subsequently opts in via the cookie banner (or vice-versa), you have two conflicting signals. There’s no clear case law or anything that says what to do. Or what should happen if the same user sends different GPC signals depending on their device or browser.
Although I guess the easiest solution is just “do not sell data if any signal suggests it’s not allowed”, but that doesn’t line advertisers’ pockets I guess.
I think it’s to suggest that this fine won’t do anything to motivate Amazon to go full electric.
Ultimately you don’t need much more than loyalty. If enough of the top brass are willing to follow Shoigu, his demotion won’t matter.
Presumably the slumbering conflict with Taiwan and in the South China Sea, as well as his support for some of the previously listed names (like Putin).
We’re not even sure how to deal with intelligent life on Earth yet. Let’s figure that one out first, shall we?
Israel is suing the NYT for supposedly breaking US law. That’s pretty typical worldwide. Crime doesn’t become legal if you do it to a foreigner, you need a special status for that (like ICE goon for example).
The idea apparently was that the warmth of the rectum makes the ball very squishy again, allowing you to easily push it out again.
I know that there’s the occasional spicy comic or photoshoot, and I think I recently came across a kind of squishy ball you could insert rectally to make anal sex less messy. So there was some stuff at least.
To make this determination the court may hear evidence, and must take account of any representations made by the parties.
This did not happen as far as I can tell. Neither are any of the listed examples applicable.
On the flipside, an always public never-changing modlog has already and will be abused in the future (in eg the doxxing case). You can’t protect people’s privacy if the modlog can’t be hidden in some manner (which is also a GDPR-compliance issue). It’s an overlooked problem and imo severe enough to warrant a quick, but perhaps overzealous response, over a slow response. If a better solution is proposed they can always change it again and adopt it. And if it’s a dealbreaker for your instance, either defederate or fork the software (which is part of the core philosophy behind the fediverse after all). A right of reply wouldn’t remove the PII, nor would a context field or something. And if you could remove PII but it would require a context field, there’s nothing that stops an admin from hiding their actions through such a field either.
You can’t be absolute in either conviction here since they clash. The only way to solve it as far as I can see is having admins build up trust with their communities, allowing them to redact the modlog if necessary, and trusting them to do the right thing (and defederating if they don’t).
Tbf, the join-lemmy website has a server browser with a supposed “random” ordering that seems anything but random, since the same 4/5 instances always show at the top. Not sure how that one is considered “random”.
That may well be simply because transphobes tend not to be openly transphobic in non-trans-focused spaces. So the admins there have no reason to suspect transphobia yet.
But they weren’t convicted of terrorism, which has a legal definition. So the judge shouldn’t be considering it as an aggravating circumstance since there’s no terrorism conviction.
Depends on the client/instance I guess? I can see it in Jerboa just fine.
A constitutional republic is a form of representative democracy.
Why isn’t your smartphone conscious capable of experiencing qualia? Or a desktop PC? We’ve had chatbots for ages, those were never considered conscious capable of experiencing qualia by anyone. What is it about LLMs specifically that suggests consciousness they are capable of experiencing qualia to you?
They’re not disputing that the US is the bad guy. They’re disputing that it is morally correct to support the opposing side.