this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2024
531 points (97.3% liked)
Technology
59574 readers
3486 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
is this legal in US? that sounds absurd.
and is it legal for a judge to be involved in business?
Legal for the judge to be involved in a business yes. Not ethical for the judge to make rulings about that business but that requires ethics and morals and thanks to Rs even the US Supreme Court doesn't have that.
Below scotus level theoretically judges can censure other judges but idk that process.
This is why it's so vital to vote. Trump nominated (and got elected) six of the seventeen Fifth Circuit members, the most of any president from Reagan onward for that particular court. GW Bush and Reagan nominated five combined.
The president we elect will get to essentially decide who gets to be in which federal court. So much is at stake, as the judiciary threatens to rot from the top down.
The 3 Supreme Court appointments Trump got (ACB, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch)in his one term was also just shy of Reagan's 4 (william rehnquist to chief, Sandra day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, and Anthony Kennedy). Bush jr replaced rehnquist and Sandra with current shitstains John Roberts, and Samuel Alito.
'member checks and balances? America sure doesn't.
This is the US we're talking about; if you've clicked the EULA, it's probably legal for the X janitor to kill you and wear your face as a mask.
Worry about that later. There aren't any consequences for this guy anymore, why should he fuss over legality? If shit gets real ugly just buy a president.
There's a common thing known as "judge shopping". The big wigs and those with enough money can ensure that a trial goes to a court in an area that is likely to be favorable to their interests.
For example, if a company is going to court because of something environmental or anti-worker, they'll try to get the court session held in a conservative jurisdiction.
Some judges are elected some are appointed.
Valve did it first, but to be fair, they had a slightly wider net of just King County courts in general.
I fucking hate Musk, but its interesting to compare and contrast the responses here:
Valve: So amazing and pro-consumer, they got rid of forced arbitration!
Xitter: Is this even legal??
I mean, what Musk is doing is arguably much more insidious because his company isn't actually in that courts district, while Valve is firmly in King County (Bellevue). Still, curious to see such strongly different responses.
People don't care about facts, but feelings. Valve executives don't give a shit about people either and Valve is extremely anti-consumer half of the time, but people love them because feelings.
The number of people who don't realize that half the time Valve has done anything pro-consumer is because they were forced to do so to comply with laws is too damn high. They're definitely not doing most of it out of the kindness of their hearts.
What's your take on what valve has done for linux gaming and how much off it is open source?
That's purely profit driven. The biggest difference to other corporations is that they're privately owned, meaning they can pursue long-term strategies instead of short-term ones. Publicly traded companies have to pursue short term strategies because otherwise investors get itchy and want to sell. Doing something that costs money and will yield results in ten years is a big no-no for publicly traded companies.
Everyone and their mother who makes any computer has to pay money to Microsoft because they put Windows on it. There are only a few outliers, most notably Apple and a few vendors who put Linux or no OS in there.
Valve doesn't pay them shit, meaning they can sell the device cheaper, thus getting more customers. That's the immediate gain. When you provide a gaming OS that you want to offer to others, you're also the one getting paid for providing support. That's the long term profit.
And through it all, as a nice bonus, they stopped being reliant on a single vendor and gained unbelievably great PR from a group of gamers.
True, forgot about that. Anyway, if you want a truly pro-consumer gaming, go to GOG. Not because the company is the best in the world, but because you buy the game, get the game files and you can do whatever with them (not in the legal sense, but who cares).
A number of games on GOG have DRM now. They've also said they'd work on Linux support and that they'd open source Galaxy, but never did.
Nobody is clean.
Not single-player ones. Online multi-player itself is kind of a DRM and there really is no way to make it otherwise. Not for a company of GOG size, anyway. And I'd argue that even if Steam made some forced open-server requirement, they would be abandoned fairly quickly.
As I said, not because the company is the best, but because you have access to the game files and can do whatever. I'm under no illusion that they are perfect, but IMO the no-DRM-installers are the single most consumer-friendly move any game store has done. And no one forces them to.
Incorrect.
They've had DRM in single player games on GOG. Hitman was a DRM game on GOG. Cyberpunk had a lot of DRM-lilocked items in game. They retroactively updated Witcher 3 with the same DRM crap.
So long as the game is DRM free, which it isn't always on GOG anymore, yes.
Although that doesn't absolve them of lying about their intent to support Linux or their promise to open source their Galaxy client.