It's not even just the US, that just happens to be where most of these companies register their copyrights, and therefore, where the "infringement" occurs.
Many Western countries subscribe to some form of "contributory infringement" law, where someone can be fined tens of thousands per-work-infringed for simply developing or distributing a tool that can be used by someone else to infringe copyright. It's absurd.
While I completely agree with the general hacker consensus that you should be able to do whatever you want with your hardware, up to and including buying and selling mod services, I cannot for the life of me understand this guy's thinking.
He's running a business modding people's devices, Nintendo catches on and sends him a cease and desist, and so he stops. Congrats, you have narrowly avoided certain financial ruin, and made a bit of cash in the process!
All forms of business and economic-self-preservation logic would tell this guy to continue ceasing and desisting, but he opens the shop back up shortly after and Nintendo, as they are known to do, sues his ass off.
What exactly did he think was going to happen here?
I'm inclined to agree with you. I modded my Switch. I steal from Nintendo whenever possible. I think they are a terrible company, but this guy should have known better.
I’ll go one step further: what makes you think it’s an average auto-translate job? I didn’t notice anything weird, felt like your average, slightly ranty HN post. I’m not a native speaker though.
I'm curious, what was the bug that was so critical the publisher decided it was best to perform such a (what I assume was) costly operation post-distribution?
I'm aware of one game that the company I worked for made that nearly released and that would have broken every GameCube that played it, Nintendo had to pull 50k discs from distribution just before they were sent to retailers and destroy them.
The issue was that one programmer used an unauthorized system call to make the disc drive spin twice as fast, as they thought it was a great way to resolve some of the data streaming issues the game had. And yeah it worked - but after few hours of playing it would kill the GameCube. It wasn't really noticed because no one tests the game on actual discs right until actual gold master is made(usually), and then when the devkits died it was considered a random hardware fault and Nintendo just replaced them.
Honestly it was just before my time at that studio so I don't know exactly how that was done, but everyone knew about it because it cost us a lot of money and damaged our relationship with Nintendo somewhat. The game actually went on to be pretty successful after that, but yeah, would have been a disaster.
It was a crash bug, but I'm not really sure the details (and it has been some years...). Even at the time, I wasn't personally involved in it, just heard about it through the grapevine.
But yes, my understanding is it was quite expensive and the publisher was none too pleased (:
It's a bad argument because it's a bad argument. It also happens to be a bad argument from people who traditionally and historically have made similar bad arguments.
It actually is circular as written, especially the part where they claim that the source has a history of bad arguments. As there's no evidence they evaluated the argument at all, we can assume this history is also based on reasoning of the form "it's bad just because" this this boils down to "it's bad just because, just like everything else they say".
Also, you're being too generous to assume there's an unstated justification for why it's is a bad argument. Pretty obvious that there isn't, they just assume anything said by the authors must be bad because tribes.
It can't be circular reasoning because it's not an attempt at reasoning. It's an incredibly common English phrase that means "The argument is independently bad on it's own merit", not an attempt to show a logical incongruity. Others have already explained why the argument does not hold up, I don't need to repeat their work here.
And if we want to be pedantic, "especially the part where they claim that the source has a history of bad arguments" would make my "argument" an ad-hominem fallacy, or perhaps poisoning the well, but not circular reasoning. But again, as I said, the argument is bad independent of the people who made it.
That's a common speech pattern and often the intent is basically as I stated.
Cato does, in fact, produce many bad arguments. Now they don't get it all wrong. They have produced good material. That said, I personally do not consider them reputable.
What is rational about being cynical that I want to spend my money on things I think are cool?
Maybe there's merit in asking why I think it's cool to begin with (and in this case I hardly think mcdonalds is responsible for people who like gameboy games), but there doesn't seem to be much to gain in asking myself why I want to spend money on things I like. What else should I spend my money on?
They made a Gameboy game and now you're buying hamburgers.
If you're doing a 'vote with your wallet' thing to try to convince them to make more retro games that at least makes sense, even if id argue it's a little naive, but that's not even what were talking about. They made a videogame and now people are pledging to buy their hamburgers.
It makes perfect sense. McDonalds did something unconventional and apparently popular. People that found that valuable send the strongest signal you can send in an economy - money. "Corporate profits" take a look at the bank and they think "hmm, that seemed to work, we'll do more of that". They might not produce another gameboy game, that signal might need to be calibrated over further attempts to figure out why people bought more hamburgers. But certainly some signal concerning the approach they took will be loud and clear.
McDonalds obviously made the game in the hope that it will sell more hamburgers. If you buy a hamburger, their strategy worked, which means they (and other companies that are watching) have a reason to do similar things in the future.
What’s weird about incentivizing behavior you like in the hope that you get more of that behavior?
The behaviour in question isn't simply producing retro games. It is producing something unique and interesting that their competitors are not offering. It is an edge.
If their competitors copycat McDonalds' marketing, they totally didn't get that message, because by the time they clone it, the uniqueness McDonalds demonstrated does not apply to them - they've made a copy, or even a shadow of what came moments before. The edge McDonalds had is their cliff to behold unless they find something unique to counter with.
Acknowledging that it’s a multifaceted mega-corp (and some of the facets are bad) is it really naive to associate excellent marketing with moral goodness? What is this marketing doing if not signaling that at least some of the company reflects values you support? Deciding to support the company by buying hamburgers logically follows.
I’m enjoying the corporate apologetics personally. I’ve heard there is a Christian resurgence among the youth, and this makes me wonder if there will be a resurgence of pro-capitalism sentiment as well. Ideas, values, culture: it all evolves with time.
>The laptop includes a properly supported wifi card that isn’t hampered by a dysfunctional antenna solution that has become standard in most laptops for a while now. The antennas remain in the traditional and optimal location just behind the screen so your wifi performance isn’t impeded by the base of the laptop.
Is this actually solving a problem anyone has ever had?
I pay a lot of attention to the laptop market and I've never heard of internal "antenna placement" being an issue before.
>In the Western world, "modern women" want established older men to take care of them, or complete independence and hookups that they consider "empowering."
Uhhh… Being taken care of by an older man is not modern sensibility. That’s an outdated gender role thing. Complete independence and hookups is a much more modern aim.
Totally bizarre that they invested a team of 50 in exploring entertainment in what was never more than an uninhabited collection of billboards and For Rent signs
>General worker apathy is endemic everywhere I go people seem aggravated I would dare to check my order and point out they didn't put in the ketchup i asked for, or the napkins, or whatever. Or when I dine in the tables are dirty. Or the gym is filthy, the cleaner just drags the mop around looking busy but accomplishing nothing. But in many instances they keep asking for more tips.
I don't think I'm off base in asserting that _this_ attitude is a major contributing factor to why the world feels "in decline" to you.
Perhaps if you went through life with a little more empathy for people who are almost certainly living in or around poverty, you'd feel a little more of a sense of community and less hostility toward strangers.
Many Western countries subscribe to some form of "contributory infringement" law, where someone can be fined tens of thousands per-work-infringed for simply developing or distributing a tool that can be used by someone else to infringe copyright. It's absurd.