That's because, to my understanding, the prerequisite to be able to launch one is "handle the raw, unfiltered firehose of all the traffic on the entire platform". A relay has to be a mirror of the entire company's hosting infastructure, and you'd have to essentially do it for free. It's no puzzle to me why no one's done it yet.

For a few years now, Windows has had the capability of marking certain directories as case-sensitive. So you can have a mixed-case-sensitivity filesystem experience now. Yeah. :/

I feel like the "we don't know what this function does" meme is kinda bad. There's no reason beyond maybe time crunch why you shouldn't be able to dissect exactly what it does.

Despite this, the notion of a load-bearing function is still very relevant. Yeah, sure, you know what it does, including all of the little edge case behaviors it has. But you can't at this time fully ascertain what's calling it, and how all the callers have become dependant on all the little idiosyncracies that will break if you refactor it to something more sensible.

It has been several times now where a part of my system of legacy code broke in some novel fantastic way, because two wrongs were cancelling out and then I fixed only one of them.

What is "holiday" on this list for?

It's not like this superficially either. That's literally what the word is.

finite - to have a limit, be bounded

The de- part is acting like it does in words like defraud. It's not a negative, like you might see in detox, where it means to remove something or undo something. Instead, it simply insists something has been done, not unlike the suffix -ify. You've been defrauded. In a manner of speaking, you could say you've been "fraud-ified".

You could say something that has been defined has been "finite-ified". The possibilities of what it could be were limitless, but you restricted them to something specific. You've made it finite. You've defined it. It is definite.

To hell with this obviously one-sided blowout match with Remy, I wanna see Stuart in his car race Ralph on his motorcycle.

At least in the case of fumos these days they're made-to-order. Buying 10 of them isn't snatching 10 of them from the carts of other potential buyers, it just means 10 more fumos will be made. If anything it's strictly increasing the supply and making them more accessible to people who couldn't make the preorder window.

This was absolutely not the case a few years ago, though. And just because you're technically not scalping doesn't mean you can't still wildly overcharge.

This thread alone is showing me how divisive this question is for a lot of reasons. Just the meta-question of "what's the definition of 'free speech' in this context?" on its own makes it a shitshow to answer, let alone the rest of it.

It says in the name. 'Free', 'speech'. If I can say it, you can't silence it. Anything more restricted is not 'free'.

If that's what it means to you, then no, "hate speech", whatever it may be, is included by definition. There is no ambiguity. But that's a pretty inflexible answer that doesn't satisfy.

Well that's a stupid and useless definition of "free speech". Obviously some things that can be spoken aren't 'free speech', because they aren't constructive, they're not good-faith conversational, they are a form of harm, etc."

Sure. Under that definition, it's totally possible.

But congratulations, by restricting what 'free speech' is in any way whatsoever, you've invented an implicit judge who rules what is and is not free speech. (And, likely as well, rules what is and is not "hate speech".) That only kicks the can down the road to the question of, "Is this a fair judge?" And now we are back in the shitshow where we began, we just painted the walls a new color.

"Free speech" as Americans in particular are so worked up about is a nickname given to one of the amendments of their constitution, which is a clause about disallowing the government from punishing anyone for their speech. Any implication of rights relating to speech outside of this context is a gross misunderstanding.

If that's the definition you're going with, then yes, obviously it's possible, because that's where many of us are at right now and have been at for ages. That makes it a rather nothingburger of an answer because it dodges the implicit question of whether we should uphold "free speech" as a principle outside of this context, whatever that may mean.

The way I see it, the two answers on the extreme ends are cop-outs that don't actually help anyone, and any answer that exists in the middle just becomes politics. Is it possible to allow "free speech" and simultaneously stop "hate speech"? Yes, with adequate definitions of both. Will any solution that does so be satisfactory to a critical mass of people, randomly selected from all people? Haha no.

It's basically a power strip:

but specifically for cables that carry Internet traffic instead of electrical power.

A more direct analogy would be a telephone switchboard (which is why it is called a "switch"), basically a computerized version of those old-timey operator ladies who used to sit in a room waiting for you to make a phone call, and they'd physically move a plug connected to your phone and plug it directly into the phone line of whoever you were trying to call. That, but for computers trying to talk to one another over network cables instead of making telephone calls.

Art supplies were historically not cheap. If you wanted to do this for a living, you were probably needing to aim for selling your art to the rich upper class. That implicitly meant catering to their fickle tastes and working on commission. You didn't make art for you and find your audience later, you made art for the customers you had or you starved.

And to put it bluntly, realism wasn't the fashionable hotness for most of human history. The more "crude" styles you may think of as objectively inferior to and less technically impressive as realism were in fact the styles in demand at their respective times. Fashion existed in ancient and medeival times just like it does today, and those styles were the fashion.

The idea of the independent eccentric artist who lives secluded in their ideas cave producing masterpieces for no one in particular leaving the world in awe at their genius every time they come out with something to show is a very modern concept. If any artist wanted to make a realism painting in an era where it was not popular, they'd be doing it purely for themselves at their own expense. So virtually no one did. Or if they did, their works largely didn't survive.

I'm pretty sure they're referring to the concept of defederation and how that can splinter the platform.

Bluesky is ""federated"" in largely the same ways as Mastodon, but there's basically one and only one instance anyone cares about. The federation capability is just lip service to the minority of dorks like us who care.

To the vast majority of Twitter refugees, federation as a concept is not a feature, it's an irritation.

It's speculated that the patent in question (or one of) is one that essentially protects the gameplay loop of Pokémon Legends Arceus.

https://ipforce.jp/patent-jp-P_B1-7545191

Running the first claim of the invention through Google Translate yields this massive run-on sentence description:

The computer causes a player character in a virtual space to take a stance to release a capture item when a first category group including a plurality of types of capture items for capturing a field character placed on a field in a virtual space is selected based on an operation input of pressing an operation button, and causes a player character in the virtual space to take a stance to release the capture item when a second category group including a plurality of types of combat characters that engage in combat is selected, and determines an aiming direction in the virtual space based on a directional input, and further selects the capture item included in the first category group when the first category group is selected, and the combat character included in the second category group when the second category group is selected, based on an operation input using an operation button different from the operation button , and causes the player character in the virtual space to take a stance to release the capture item when a first category group including a plurality of types of capture items for capturing a field character placed on a field in a virtual space is selected, and determines an aiming direction in the virtual space based on an operation input using an operation button different from the operation button, A game program which, based on an operation input of releasing the operation button pressed when having the player character perform an action, has the player character perform an action of releasing the selected capture item in the aiming direction if the capture item is selected, and has the player character perform an action of releasing the selected combat character in the aiming direction if the combat character is selected, and when the capture item is released and hits the field character, makes a capture success determination as to whether the capture is successful, and when the capture success determination is judged to be positive, sets the field character hit by the capture item to a state where it is owned by the player, and when the combat character is released to a location where it can fight with the field character, starts a fight on the field between the combat character and the field character.

Essentially, Nintendo has a patent on video games that involve throwing a capsule device at characters in a virtual space to capture them and initiate battle with them. In other words, they have a patent on the concept of Poké Balls (as they appear and function in Legends Arceus, specifically).

Palworld has "Pal Spheres", which are basically just Poké Balls with barely legally distinct naming.

If this sounds like an unfairly broad thing for Nintendo to have a patent on, I'm not so sure I agree. It's not like they're trying to enforce a blanket patent on all creature collectors. Just the concept of characters physically throwing capsule devices at creatures.

If you think about it, that's kind of the one thing that sets Pokémon apart from others in the genre. If there's anything to be protected, that's it. It's literally what Pokémon is named after--you put the monster in your pocket, using the capsule you threw at it.

Palworld could have easily dodged this bullet. They claim they aren't inspired by Pokémon, and that they're instead inspired by Ark: Survival Evolved. Funny, then, that Ark doesn't have throwable capsules, yet Palworld decided to add them. I'm not sure I buy their statement. And if this is indeed the patent being violated, I don't think a court will buy it either.

I'm not trying to be a Pokémon apologist here. I want Palworld to succeed and give Pokémon a run for its money. But looking at the evidence, it's clear to me Pocketpair flew a little too close to the sun here. And they're kind of idiots for it.

I'm just surprised they aren't getting nailed for the alleged blatant asset theft.