Sure, but, what does that have to do with the AI answer? Wait… Are you an AI?

Removed by mod

Could you really understand Trump in 2016? I’m not asking to be mean. Wasn’t his character the same back then? I’ve tuned out of US politics since the DNC screwed over Bernie in 2016.

Are you suggesting that Deadpool vs Wolverine is an example of good storytelling?

Edit: I found it to be entertaining enough, I expected only fan service, and I’m glad I kept it at that. But story wise? I cannot think of a marvel movie that was worse in that regard. It didn’t need to, of course… I just did a double take at this being used as an example for a good story. The borderline omnipotent and omniscient antagonist wants to destroy the universe because someone relatively unimportant didn’t keep their word? groan.

I see. That’s not what “security by obscurity” means in my world, but the expression certainly sounds like it could. It’s not like I own the meaning of words, so it’s interesting to hear what it means to others. Could also have been meant figuratively, I suppose.

In what way does “security by obscurity” apply here?

Politically motivated threat of violence? What was the term for this again?

What side of distorted reality are they going for here? It’s become harder to tell. You’d think anti-Russian, right? Except Republicans are weirdly pro Putin because their orange clown has a hardon for dicktators.

If there is ever a legitimate use for its absurd existence, it would be in an effort to stop a literal fascist.

I’d agree, if it wasn’t for you having an obligation as a voting citizen to be somewhat informed of your decision. Anyone who votes for Trump has either failed to meet that basic requirement, or they’re a shitty person. The latter is actually fine, the former is not.

It isn’t hate. It’s leaving the evil, cruel, and/or misinformed alone.

That is indeed the joke.

But that’s what I’m saying, that choice is axiomatic. I think most people would agree, but it’s a belief, not an unquestionable truth. You’re choosing something to optimize and defining that to be good.

I’m not really arguing against this tho (perhaps the choosing part, but I’ll get to it). I’m saying that a goal post of “axiomaric universal good” isn’t all that interesting, because, as you say, there is likely no such thing. The goal shouldn’t therefore be to find the global maximum, but to have a heuristic that is “universal enough”. That’s what I tried to make a point of, in that the golden rule would, at face value, suggests that a masochistic should go around and inflict pain onto others.

It shouldn’t be any particular person’s understanding, but a collectively agreed understanding. Which is in a way how it works, as this understanding is a part of culture, and differs from one to the other. Some things considered polite in the US is rude in Scandinavia, and vice versa. But, regardless, there will be some fundamentals that are universal enough, and we can consider that the criteria for what to maximise.

I think it is easy enough to argue without making it circular. As for “good”, I don’t think an objective absolute and universal definition is necessary.

The argument would be to consider it an optimization problem, and the interesting part, what the fitness function is. If we want to maximise happiness and freedom, any pair of people is transient. If it matters that they be kind to you, it is the exact same reasoning for why you should be to kind to them. Kinda like the “do unto others”, except less prone to a masochist going around hurting people.

There is a different side to this equation too. Locally sourcing production. There is no surplus stock that needs to be thrown unopened. No shipping of some part that solves some particular problem. Replacement parts can be made for things that would otherwise be cheaper to buy new and dump the old one, etc.

I was.

Maybe this was an intentional leak. Now the Nintendo lawyers can claim they’ve used stolen proprietary code?

I suppose. If you are doing things against TOS and you suspect just might happen, by all means.

The license is with regards to “GOG Service”, not “GOG Contents”. You need the former to get access to the latter, sure. But what isn’t clear about this?

You still own the contents (though, as mentioned, individual titles may have additional blablabla). If you don’t think this distinction makes sense when it comes to GoG vs Steam, then maybe you’re just discussing something entirely different?

That’s for the gog service itself.