AnyOldName3

Conspiracy theory: they realised this news was about to break, and removed the comment section because they expected a shitshow where every one of their customers saw comments pointing out their crimes.

As a dub watcher, the comment section was important. The dub comments were the only place to see what an unsubtitled background sign said or which scene had been cut from the manga that explained why something weird happened without there being comments from sub watchers full of spoilers for a couple of episodes later, which they don't consider spoilers as the subtitled version of that episode was a week old.

There's no such thing as a Nobel Prize winning economist. Economists got upset that there wasn't a Nobel Prize for them, so came up with The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, and then pretend it's the same thing.

It makes sense, but it also makes sense to design society so that situations where it's helpful happen as rarely as possible. If some people are predisposed to being a good firefighter, it doesn't negate the fact that you don't want buildings to catch fire in the first place, so you still want to teach children not to play with matches, teach adults not to keep lighter fuel near their heater, and ban companies from selling combustible cladding to insulate tower blocks. Prevention is better than cure. You just then have a load of people who aren't great at being anything except a firefighter, ready for fires that never happen, and under the current system, forced either into jobs they're bad at, or into chronic stress to get consistent productivity.

I said he more-or-less killed him, not that he actually killed him. Care was not taken to ensure he'd be revived or revivable. He was left forgotten in a pocket. The likely outcome was that he remained forgotten and didn't get wet until he'd been dropped under some furniture, crushed like a stock cube or gone mouldy. Maybe he had dependents, like a young child who'd have died without their parent. It being theoretically possible to revive someone later doesn't make turning them into a dehydrated cube meaningfully better than making them dead if you don't have a strong plan with a failsafe to make sure they stop being a cube. Even with guaranteed revival, if they're a cube for long enough that they notice the lost time, it's just like roofying someone and holding them hostage for a while. Do not turn museum guys into dehydrated cubes.

If not for an accident where he ended up in a washing machine, he'd have been left as a cube indefinitely. From a cube's perspective, there's no difference between being a cube and being dead.

Upstream Firefox doesn't comply with FDroid's rules (thanks to the 'proprietary bits and telemetry' Handles mentioned), so is only available from the Play Store or as a loose APK that won't auto-update.

A plumber or a sparky doesn't just maintain one house, and if they're just doing maintenance, probably work on hundreds of houses a year. Maintaining your own house takes a fraction of the time and effort of working a housing-related trade full time.

He did more-or-less kill, and then steal the identity of, the museum guy. He's not a paragon of virtue, either.

A big part of the reason was that Facebook offered game studios a big upfront sum if they made their games work on whatever headset they were selling at the time in standalone mode with no major caveats. The headset only had an anemic mobile GPU, so was only capable of as much as mobile games were doing at the time. A bunch of studios took them up on this offer, and cut back their projects' scope to be viable under the hardware constraints, so nearly everything that got made was gimmicky mobile-style minigames, and obviously that's not what makes people want to drop hundreds of dollars on hardware, as they can get their fill by borrowing someone else's headset for an hour.

Mobile GPUs have improved, so standalone headsets aren't as terrible now, but we missed the expensive toy for enthusiasts and arcades phase and soured most people's opinions by making their first VR experience shovelware.

The arguments used to make the First Sale Doctrine apply to books a hundred years ago are equally applicable to games and other software, and consumers should demand they're given the rights they deserve to use the copies of media they've paid for. You should be able to sell on a used video game once you've finished it, or lend it to a friend, just like you can with a book or a DVD.

That said, the title's a little misleading. Libraries only lend each copy of a book to one person at a time (if it's a physical book, it's pretty obvious that it can only be in one place at once), and the ruling the headline refers to says that a copy of a retro game can only be lent out to one person at once, which is understandable, even if it's a massive pain when plenty of games don't have many working copies left in circulation.

It's not realistic to demand to own games in the same way as a spoon any time soon. It is, however, pretty reasonable to demand you own games like you'd own a book. You can chop up a book and use it to make a paper maché dog, but you can't chop up the words within to make a new derivative book (or just copy them as its to get another copy of the same book except for a single backup that you're not allowed to transfer to someone else unless you also give them the original). The important things you can do with a book but not a game under the current system, even with Gog, are things like selling it on or giving it away when you're done with it and lending it out like a library.

About a hundred years ago, book publishers tried using licence agreements in books to restrict them in similar ways to how games and other software are restricted today, but courts decided that was completely unreasonable, and put a stop to it. In the US, that's called the First Sale Doctrine, but it has other names elsewhere or didn't even need naming. All the arguments that applied to books apply equally well to software, so consumers should demand the same rights.

The vfs of MO2 isn't the thing that's hard to port. FUSE would make it fairly straightforward and the main reason USVFS is complicated in the first place is that there's not a way to make a fast VFS under Windows due to the higher overhead of going back and forth between kernel and user mode, so it has to resort to hooking most of the multitude of functions in the Win32 and NT filesystem APIs instead of just providing about twenty callbacks like you'd do with FUSE.

A mod manager looks much simpler than it is as it looks like you're just keeping track of lists of files, but mods come in the most insane packaging formats ever devised (e.g. with mad compression schemes and custom scripting languages) and mod managers need to selectively pretend to have all the bugs of every other mod manager as mods get made that rely on a particular bug in the mod manager their author used.

MO2 has a particular extra complexity when thinking about porting it to Linux in that it uses Win32 APIs in lots of places it doesn't really need to, and also does so in a few places where it's genuinely much more convenient that it does. It also uses a custom build system generator generator because its CMake and dependencies are too complicated for a human to practically deal with, so it would take loads of work to even build a completely unusable binary on Linux. We have people volunteer to do the work a few times a year and read a warning I write that looks like this comment and claim to have the willpower to do it anyway, but none of them have ever submitted a single commit.