There’s a lot of people in the world. If they offer international shipping, I’m sure whatever company you’re thinking of has a sufficient customer base.

So what are you suggesting is in question then? The licences sold for games will differ from game to game; if one of then were legally unsound, that wouldn’t automatically make all of them legally unsound, and obviously that’s local to the legal system in which that finding was made. That selling licences to play games is categorically unlawful? I think that’s not a particularly plausible outcome, and is unlikely to propagate beyond the given jurisdiction the finding happens in if such a ruling were to happen.

the court system

There’s no “the court system”. There are court systems. You’ve only linked to US case law, which, for instance, doesn’t apply to me. This does just seem to be a legal fetish (in the anthropological sense, not the sexual sense). A court ruling something or other doesn’t even have worldwide legal implications, let alone worldwide epistemological implications.

As for what counts as piracy (a separate matter to the rabbit hole we’ve gone down), something being a legal term does not mean that the definition of the word matches 1:1 with its legal description. I’m sure we can both think of examples of murder which is not criminalised as murder by a given government, for example. Words are defined by their use, and people use piracy to refer to a method of obtainment.

That’s an insane litmus test of objective fact. I’d say a significant amount of court rulings go blatantly against reality lmfao.

You can’t test things in court that aren’t disputed because someone has to dispute it… Who’s gonna dispute that a contract is a contract? Read the text it says when you buy a game. It says what it says. No court can say a document doesn’t say the words it literally explicitly says.

What I’m saying is not in dispute is the fact that you buy licences to play games and that licences can be revoked. Both of those are objective fact. It’s a separate question as to whether or not a given state wants to enact punishment against a former licence holder.

Case law is specific to jurisdiction. I don’t know where you live, and I’ve not said where I live. The way buying and selling most digital copies of games is through buying and selling licences, though some software you do pay for the download itself rather than paying for a licence. That doesn’t require case law; that’s literally just what it is, like how if I sign a contract I don’t need case law to demonstrate that what I’ve signed is a contract, it just is. Case law adjudicates matters of law which are in dispute, not figuring out whether a spade is a spade.

In the first example, it is not fair use, because you don’t buy digital copies of games—you buy a licence to play the game. My Minecraft licence would have been revoked when I didn’t create a Microsoft account. Game companies can impose whatever conditions on a game licence they like (so long as the condition is not otherwise illegal).

That’s great though, because it makes cleaning the floor fun. You get to drive a remote controlled car instead of just mopping or whatever.

It definitely is, and I’ve done it several times.

One example is Minecraft, which I legit bought but no longer legitimately own, because when Microsoft took over they forced people to make Microsoft accounts and no longer allow Mojang accounts to be used to authenticate. Because I didn’t make a Microsoft account, I no longer own the game, so now I play a pirated copy because I can no longer legitimately play it.

Another example is some games made by studios that went bust and there’s no longer any legit distributor of the game, so the only copy you can download is a pirated copy.

It’s still piracy if it circumvents the intended method of distribution and validation that you own a licence.

Same. It removes the ability to have plausible deniability of “oh I just forgot to tag it”—no, if you tagged it “non-AI” and it was actually vibe-coded, you clearly deliberately and consciously lied.

It’s not as simple as just wiping out the global south and working class—the global north ruling class is only able to better survive climate change because of the labour of the global south and the working class. When climate change leads to a collapse in population and labour in the global south, it will seriously impact the people living in their air conditioned bunkers. The nature of being a parasite means you need a host to leech off of, and that’s us. They can’t live without us.

And I don’t believe climate change is going to literally eliminate every single person among these demographics. Some people in soon-to-be-uninhabitable countries will be able to leave and seek climate asylum elsewhere. There’s also permanent human life in every continent except Antarctica; there will still be some small communities clinging on in parts of the world largely departed, because humans can adapt to such a wide range of climates. There’s going to be a huge societal collapse and restructuring of society, but not extinction.

It is completely unrealistic to expect humans not to be greedy, or to subscribe to left leaning philosophies of human love, human rights, the right to a home or distribution of wealth. In the end we all are monkeys, more now than ever, given how the far right has become so mainstream. It is simply what people want.

“Human nature” is not transhistorical or actual nature. Our material interests change based on the mode of production we live in. We live according to the logic of capitalism because we live within capitalism. Climate change will lead to at least a fundamental change in capitalism, if not its collapse, which will also change humans themselves and our behaviours. Capitalism atomises us so that the economic subject is the individual, but in another mode of production such as communism, the economic base of society would be different such that the economic subject is not the individual. Humans aren’t inherently greedy, nor are they inherently altruistic.

I’ve never seen it on the official web app. I suspect that, if they existed, I would’ve seen them used by now.

But mandating [NOT AI] means that people have to go out of their way to declare their work is AI-free. It requires active lying rather than lying by omission—I think there are a non-zero number of people who would be inclined to omit an AI tag but would not want to go as far as explicitly lying about their work being AI-free.

I would support those tags. Does Lemmy support some equivalent of post flairs that can be filtered?

The only scars I have are surgery scars. Surgeries involved going all the way through the skin to what’s beneath. All the other injuries I’ve gotten must have been too shallow to form a permanent scar (some formed temporary scars that disappeared over time). If your skin biopsy is just a “tiny little cut” then it most likely won’t scar unless you’re prone to scarring.

I second the recommendation for silicone treatment; that’s what I used for my surgery scars and they helped a lot. For the surgeries I’ve had, it’s not possible to not scar, but silicone scar treatment has made my scars change colour to the same colour as my skin so they blend in very well now.

if I aggressively block each offender in my logs permanently, then the next person assigned this IP who may be a legitimate user will be unable to access my site.

temp bans exist for this reason. You can use something like fail2ban for it, or that may be overkill for your purposes, but any mechanism that blocks the IP address for a short amount of time will work. My f2b blocks spammers’ IP addresses for a day, and I don’t see repeat bans which means the spammers aren’t coming back on the same IP address, so the short ban works to stop a given spam attack.

I don’t sit on corner sofas regularly enough to have a standard seating position. In that picture I think I feel inclined towards the junction of the sofa.

Because they benefit from eating animals (they enjoy eating them) whereas they don’t benefit from having sex with animals (they don’t enjoy having sex with animals).

Never used Snapchat but there’s a lot of porn bots on social media. Not really sure where they come from but I guess it must be profitable and some gullible and horny people are falling for them because the bots haven’t gone away. It is very unlikely that a real woman would just be messaging random accounts with unsolicited nudes.

Unfortunately your nieces are probably getting similar bot spam. I don’t think it’s demographically targeted at all; they just seem to message everyone. I’ve gotten them as a woman on social media too (albeit a gay one, but I don’t think these bots are targeted at gay women lol, I think they’re targeting men). It might be worth trying to introduce your nieces to some fun hobbies so they don’t feel the need to spend so much time on Snapchat, but I get that it’s a social thing too and it’s hard to opt out if all the other kids are on it.

He’s not a cop anymore is he?

It’s basically bullying like you say. They enjoy the power they hold over a woman to be able to say degrading things about her without consequence.