ohyeshedid
If we're talking about the Gold Box series; were those long development times?
7-ish games in 4ish years doesn't seem too bad, and the the engine evolved with each game.
[1]: "On Ubuntu, all pre-built binaries intended to be loaded as part of the boot process, with the exception of the initrd image, are signed by Canonical's UEFI certificate, which itself is implicitly trusted by being embedded in the shim loader, itself signed by Microsoft.
On architectures or systems where pre-loaded signing certificates from Microsoft are not available or loaded in firmware, users may replace the existing signatures on shim or grub and load them as they wish, verifying against their own certificates imported in the system's firmware."
[1] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UEFI/SecureBoot#How_UEFI_Secure_Boot...
One preinstalled mitm cert, or sketch CA, is within the realm of feasibility.
In math, sure, but he specifically asked about a court of law. Irrefutable in math doesn't mean admissible in court. Then there's the 1, 6, 12, or however many random people that decide the case; they likely need the math explained to them, and two sides get turns convincing them the other is wrong.
Depending on what kind of library you're referencing: those books were purchased, and sometimes/often at more than consumer retail.
History is full of sentiments like that, from power structures that were never able to stop subversion. The game itself is perpetual, so there's always another turn coming.
I figure they'd have to be.
They'd need more than a solar system's worth of raw resources to build the sphere. They may need more than a solar system's worth of resources just to build the tools and craft to be able to build the sphere. They're going to need an insane amount of production facilities for various components, and that's going to take a massive amount of resources. That's going to require exploring quite a bit of a galaxy.
Ok, but defining the implications of 1st party statements to 3rd parties is tricksy business.
> People seem to shit on Mozilla/Firefox often, and often without any evidence or useful data to work with. And they often say they use Chrome instead, run by an organization that those same people would probably say is user-hostile.
Except ravenstine didn't do any of that, so you're applying your issues with other people to the wrong conversation. They responded with depth before you posted this.
> It's like seeing people criticize corruption in Western democratic governments and declaring they're avoiding that mess by moving to Moscow.
You sure you're in the same conversation as everyone else?
For a great many sites, I remove headers, footers, sidebars, etc.
You asked cpsns a bait question. Your "rational argument" was a setup, and it's dishonest in conversation. You had no intention of engaging in conversation, you wanted to prove your point no matter what was said.
Even knowing it was bait I forced myself to respond with the little good faith I could muster with "seems like".
You ignored the entire context of what I said, focused on the sentence that you seem to have misunderstood, and tried to snap that trap shut with a weird response where you repeated my own abstraction point back to me for some reason. You then ignored the last line, which was a list of actions that are in no way inherently political. You started off disingenuous, and continued to be.
No, the physical action that I was intentionally clear on, is not political. Tipping the glass, and swallowing the fucking water is not political. Nor is laughing, tying my shoes, pulling my socks up, seeing a bird fly by, etc.
All things make up everything, afterall.
My water came from the well I had dug in a rural area, that I had tested to make sure it was safe for my own consumption. There was no governmental involvement; not local, nor state, nor federal.
Outliers are included in everything.
At least we're lucky that the government keeps the moon in orbit and the sun burning.
As I said, be right, enjoy it, that seems to be important to you. I find your approach to conversation in this subthread dishonest and myopic. Do your thing, but miss me entirely with all of that sketch.
I'm not interested into turning conversations into competitions, especially when you're ignoring most of the list to focus on a single thing you can lean into to be right.
Enjoy being right, I don't care to waste my time with dishonest discourse.
I don't know your intent, but this seems like a disingenuous setup.
If someone were to say: Drinking a glass of water. You could abstract the concept into fluoride, costs, access, etc; None of that applies to the action of me consuming the water. The same goes for sitting, standing, breathing, blinking, scratching an itch, waving to my neighbor, etc.
That doesn't mean they can't, won't, and don't, shift cultures in many other ways.
In the US, dependent on location, a person may be living under several different governments.
Governments recognize and/or create holidays, and holidays can go on to be cultural events.
Governments organize and finance festivals and events, which can and do become culture of a place or people.
They built statues, museums, parks, libraries, theatres, etc; all with several different levels and layers of culture.
You'd need to start defining parameters of what is a government, what is a culture shift, etc.
I think what you're picking up on, is that some folks don't differentiate between commercial email filtering services, and personal spam filters.
There's conflation of email 'I don't care about and don't want', bulk UCE, shifty list operators with shifty 40 page terms, etc.
Sure, right after you show me where I mentioned a second company, and that they should be able to access Apple's network without compensation.
Hell, I'll accept you showing where I mentioned a first company by name.
You can do better than low effort trolling.
My first response to the first version of that loaded question: "_I wasn't saying they should_..."
You respond with: "If Company A builds a product/service, why should Company B be expected to utilize Company A's work without compensation?"
Am I to believe you're being genuine here? Should I really repeat myself again, in text, to save you a scroll up?
I didn't say that. I never implied that. I stated the exact opposite.
Why are you asking me to rationalize and explain a stance I've never taken, and don't have?
Are there third party tracking device manufacturers with free access to these systems?
Are you talking about stolen or bootleg goods?
The latter is a much more complicated topic, for sure.
If they don't provide the network: what value do the tags, you bought with money, provide?
Depends on which startups. Making the statement of "Startups do not pay less.", in reference to someone stating their experience to the opposite, comes across a bit, err, stiff.
Crowd-sourced autocorrect dictionary on display. :\