Yes. Our country is run by geriatrics who, among other things related to modern society, legislate on technology they don’t understand. We need younger members with more flexible minds who have at least spent some part of their younger lives dealing with problems we have a modern variation of today.

But especially SCOTUS members. Any kind of term limit on them would be better than what we have.

Careful now, here on this communist instance you could catch a ban for speaking openly about Russian aggression

It’s ironic that you should bring up not having nukes being dangerous because of the US, given that the entire reason Russia is upset about this is because Poland wants to use US nukes as a deterrent to the very real threat of Russian invasion.

I start almost every comment I make on those instances with

I know this will net me a ban

to play a bit of reverse psychology with the mods there, who don’t touch my comments when the denizens there inevitablely say

Oh yeah you think you’re so smart well we don’t ban opposing opinions unlike some places

And the mods there have their hands tied because banning me would prove their own guys wrong.

It’s worked pretty well so far.

Mate, you’re in a communist instance. People here aren’t going to see the writing on the wall because they believe Russia is the good guy in this.

You don’t understand that the only danger of further war is again from US/NATO

You… Don’t think war with NATO constitutes war on the European continent?

If you’re implying that US/NATO is a provoking factor and that Russia isn’t going to seek more than Ukraine, why don’t we ask Poland what happened in 1939 when Germany promised they weren’t going to want more than the sudetenland in 1938?

The idea that a fascist, invading state is just going to stop is not only ridiculously optimistic and a little irrational, it’s also historically unsound.

Blaming US/NATO for what is ultimately happening because of Russia is apologizing for a warmonger.

Fair enough

Unpopular opinion incoming:

I don’t think we should ignore AI diagnosis just because they are wrong sometimes. The whole point of AI diagnosis is to catch things physicians don’t. No AI diagnosis comes without a physician double checking anyway.

For that reason, I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad thing that an AI got it wrong. Suspicion was still there and physicians double checked. To me, that means this tool is working as intended.

If the patient was insistent enough that something was wrong, they would have had them double check or would have gotten a second opinion anyway.

Flaming the AI for not being correct is missing the point of using it in the first place.

That’s true, but games exist already where people can host their own servers. Pc gaming is kind of like the sandbox of platforms. Other major consoles solved that problem by sunsetting their free services so that you can’t just go play an existing online game for free on their platform.

It would be a gargantuan task to sunset free online connectivity as it exists in pc gaming today.

Honestly, I don’t think it’s that simple. Console online services get away with making you pay because the system is locked and you don’t have a choice. Pc gamers can host their own servers, and if steam ever becomes so anti consumer as to charge for access to your library, competitors will rise and the market will balance.

I don’t think that taking a cut for the sheer exposure of the platform is the same as exploitation. Even small devs make more money by an order of magnitude through steam than they would if they did not.

Steam costs money to operate. I really don’t understand why people think steam should just be valorous and noble and not make any money. Labeling them the middleman implies they don’t do anything. They provide a service in the same way a grocery store is there to make sure you don’t have to drive to a different farm every time you want a different kind of vegetable.

That’s really the only problem I have with what you said. Of course people shouldn’t be loyal to companies, I’m just pointing out the flaw in your logic that people should be loyal to people instead. Any type of figure that you don’t personally know is primarily a concept.

But also, “Behaving like a responsible consumer” is an idealistic fantasy that mostly fails because of the prisoner dilemma. If not enough people do it, the only people who suffer are the ones doing it. That base mindset might be overcame on an individual basis, but it’s rarely popular enough to gain the traction required for actual change, and it becomes more and more difficult the more people are content with the service.

It doesn’t help that steam is essentially the only game launcher that isn’t tiny or garbage.

By your logic, it makes sense to be loyal to Gabe, who has long thought to be the driving force behind steam remaining what they are and not falling down the capitalistic hole of exploiting their users for every red cent.

The US congress is freaking out about TikTok because of national security concerns about china potentially harvesting data on americans and influencing politics, not because TikTok is a monopoly.

This is not at all the same thing.

Here’s the difference. When we talk about companies dominating an industry, we’re usually talking about practices that keep competition from even forming. Monopolies are formed as a result of big companies buying out or making it impossible for their competition.

Steam doesn’t do that, which is a big reason they won their monopoly suit. They just provide a better model than anyone else is willing to, and they rake in the cash because of it.

Compare this situation to books-a-million in the states. Books-a-million doesn’t have a monopoly on books, they just have created a better environment for selling them. They aren’t stopping other book stores from opening or buying chains to shut them down, they just sell you a cup of coffee and give you a place to sit while you browse their massive selection.

That’s not a monopoly, that’s just better business.

I’ll never understand why some people look at the fact that steam is popular because of their policies, and can’t help but make a comment like this equating that popularity to cock worship.

Like, we get it bro. You’re thinking about cocks and you’re mad about a half decent game store. What compelled you to combine those thoughts on a public forum?

The weird thing is that this isn’t even the first comment I’ve seen like this. Dudes that are mad about steam want everyone else to know about steam’s massive, throbbing cock for some reason. This guy alone has posted 3 of these.

Does Dr Doom count for this? He believes he’s seen humanity perish in every reality except the one where he becomes the absolute ruler.

INTERROBANG

Seriously. Don’t let the sunken cost fallacy keep you from enjoying something premium that you bought

As an owner of both, the steam deck actually handles most switch games better.

Although, as I’m sure you know, the only way to legally do this is to already own the games you emulate.

Guarantee that the line of reasoning here is

We can stop the inevitable fact that people aren’t going to buy our shares by pushing them on the most chronically addicted users of our platform and disguising it as a premium exclusive offer

I mean, who else is susceptible enough to the sunken cost fallacy that they would pour actual money into reddit? The answer is the demographic that’s already put in a substantial amount of investment in the form of time spent on content creation.

To those people, they might very well bite because it means their useless, time consuming hobby finally might become a source of income.

It’s honestly an intelligent business move by reddit, even if it’s scummy as fuck and ultimately setting up their own best content creators to spectacularly fail and lose a ton of money when the shares tank.

Reddit still goes public. Reddit still pays their CEOs obscenely before they jump ship. Only the creators lose.