Not so sure that it can’t be tailored to big businesses. Regulations carve out exceptions all the time based on employee count, annual turnover, customer count (hits), etc

Not gonna lie, this is kinda a refutation of the whole open source model. I was led to believe that it shouldn’t matter who writes the code, as long the code is able to be interrogated/corrected.

If this is any guide, maybe there should also be an upper age limit, too.

Well the devil is in the detail. However, what appears is being mooted is it will only affect big social media corporations. A Lemmy instance is hardly big business. Not that I’m discounting creeping regulation moving into the fediverse.

I was shocked about the amount of content when I browsed BBC’s Iplayer service. They even have films. If you want to save some well known movies and are in the UK, you could exhaust their selection before even having to put your hand in your pocket to splash out on extra privatised content.

Not seen this before, looks like Audacious on steroids. A bit like Photoshop vs MS Paint.

I was told that it was convention to use the highest government title that a person received once they leave government. Personally, I don’t think that explanation holds much water. We don’t really hear, for example of President Obama any more. Nor do we hear Secretary of State Clinton. On a practical matter, it can cause confusion so outside propaganda, I don’t see much utility in it.

It’s a storage agnostic protocol for sending, receiving and enumerating to/from cloud storage. Think off it like email. Email service providers allow for a number of ways to access your email, be it pop3, IMAP or web. The underlying technology is abstracted away. In the same way cloud storage allows for web, s3 and/or WebDAV. Amongst others. And likewise the back end is abstracted away. The s3 client you use doesn’t need to know how the data is actually stored. And there’s some pretty whacky storage back ends.

I wonder if some kind of mesh might work. Maybe like a secret Santa type deal. By that I mean everyone who connects, gets a randomised, anonymous partner or partners. Everyone in the swarm streams for each other.

I’m not sure. If that is their strategy they’re dancing on a razor. I mean, the market is pretty slim. Basically, you can get a pretty sweet gaming PC for the price they’re offering. And if you project the amount of games you’ll get and estimate the price differential with prices of the same games on a PC you might be able to uprate the specs a few times. I would say that a PS5 with a reasonable amount of games is probably worth a similar amount to a $1k PC.

Without knowing why people change their wallets, it’s hard to nail down a solution. But, perhaps a smart contract wallet whose access is controlled by an underlying wallet that can be swapped out may help. In any case, all transfers or smart contract execution attracts a fee. Even sending money between wallets.

You’re right. But, all this good stuff is to obfuscate the central fact that you don’t own the property you bought. Sure, Valve has claimed that should they go away, as their last act, they’ll provide the ability for users to own their purchases, but who actually believes them?

And now, the physical licence path is even less accessible. The thing with the physical licence key is it’s transferrable even if the actual data is stored elsewhere. It’s a thin veneer, I mean, Sony could gate access to this data to the first account/machine that activated it. So even this advantage is taken away.

This is yet another nail in the coffin of physical media. Or, in other words games you actually own instead of long term lease.

I think Sony never wanted a physical media PS5 console. The design made it seem like an after thought. Like a growth on the side of sleek lines.

While you’re correct that laws are created by the legislature the judiciary is where they are judged to be just. At least in systems based on English common law. Look up jury nullification for more info. Also, prosecutorial discretion is a thing. Basically if any law isn’t enforced either through jury nullification and/or prosecutorial discretion then it is vestigial and should be amended or repealed.

That’s quite a privileged point of view. Take a look at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation#Notable_hyperinflationary_periods. In the crypto world, this is the very definition of a pump and dump. Except the pumping in the fiat world is the money supply and a dumping is the value. As for scam coins, I disagree, the scam isn’t usually the currency (we’ll, not more than fiat) it may be created and used to facilitate a scam, but unless the creator programmed in a flaw that can be taken advantage of, it currency itself isn’t the scam. And since scam creators are usually lazy, ignorant, or just optimising for returns, most of the code behind their coins have been forked from other, more legitimate crypto projects.

Sweet! Although I do wish they could expand the access, at least give read-write access even if it is only for that session.

While it’s a bit off topic regarding the question, if you want a quick glimpse of what’s out there, try https://distrosea.com/

What I am trying to get through to you is, just like how the LIBOR scandal doesn’t implicate fiat, scammy crypto projects doesn’t implicate crypto. My criticism of fiat is it’s fundamental systemic weaknesses. It seems your criticism of crypto is it’s used by scammers. A criticism that, incidentally can also be levied at fiat.