Everybody’s dead, Dave…

Some subversion of 3, which is fundamental to a lot of software found out in the wild.

It’s taking away right of ownership. A direct license of ownership, a copy or copies, defines the parameters of which the user is allowed to operate.

Running locally with access to installer that can be archived allows for more individualistic control. Having access to a Steam library is one thing, but having a local Steam backup is also possible.

However, if a game relies on online functionality it could be frustratingly because it was a “live service”, “online only” or subscription based. In either of these cases, you’re being deprived of value, of control. It vests all the power in the distributor over the contents value at any given point and time, with control over scarcity and accessibility.

As such live services and subscriptions should be disparaged, because it only makes you subservient. Laws should be put in place to guarantee access to games executable and for them to be stored and run locally.

I say this because I think people at large are getting swindled right now and it’s so saddening.

If you subscribe to play video games, you’re an idiot. Musicians want to exit streaming now, while game publishers sees prime real estate for exploitation.

What? There are plenty of communist Lemmy subs you can ask in. I just think you haven’t tried hard enough.

To answer your question tho, no - because there would be no need. Communism does want mandatory participation, but if checked and balanced correctly everyone would work within their limits and not be relegated to a lower class of living - because that’s sort of the point of communism. You’d work within your means until there was time to retire without being limited in access to services and goods. Theoretically, under a functioning communist system, there would be no manufactured scarcity.

Tbh I believe both communism and our current form of capitalism centralises power and ownership way too much. Social-capitalism, or even libertarian socialism, might be the ticket. It would undo at least 200 years of psy-ops and gamed laws designed to favour the rich and vesting power in them, which is the issue of centralised power that we’re facing today - in what some call “late-stage capitalism” - or what I call the breaking point of society under a predatory, exploitative and imperialistic form of capitalism that seems more like the privatisation of the aristocracy than the supposed liberalisation of economy. Transparency, accountability and consequences for people in power and wealth is what’s sorely needed.

PS: New public management is a con-job disguised as decentralisation meant to encumber governments under the guise of checking and balancing them, being effectively a psy-op in of itself to make people hate public services and taxes. As per usual, goddamn liberals - and I include socially conservative liberals in that polifical grouping. Dems and pubs are the same, want the same institutions and promote US imperialism - not fiscal independence, no matter what justification and mental gymnastics they put in the form of spreadsheets.

PPS: Also, additionally, commodification of the housing market was a mistake. It will always be stupid and harmful towards society.

My shareholders!

I’m assuming this may be a Flatpak issue. Have you turned on fractional scaling?

If you or your loved ones suffer from NFTs, order your inside garden tray so that they can have therapy at home by increasing the likelihood that they tou h grass.

That’s what people always say about my life.

I think it was an attempt at a joke… basically that the user introduces a faulty juxtaposition that doesn’t make sense. One is a CSS framework specifically tailored to SPA’s (or heaven forbid MPA’s) by providing many generic classes that can be re-used, where as the other 3 are CSS pre-processors designed to simplify writing CSS, though technically speaking tailwind also does pre-processing, since it provides a boilerplate css reset, use of variables, functions, concatenation and compressing them together and oh god I’m the joke… I’m the joke here. I’ve served the punchline, which is a copypasta in of itself.

Well done, @devilish666@lemmy.world. Well done.

I was supposed to come here and write “Lemmy Lemmy Lemmy when lemmy. Lemmy? Lemmy.”

I have no idea what that is code for, but my brother is lying in hospital with a brain aneurysm because of you sick and twisted people. He keeps saying “when it tueahday” over and over.

I HOPE YOU’RE HAPPY!!! YOU ARE ALL SICK!!!

Just look at that lineup. Plasma 6 is absolutely awesome.

Paralelle universe Tucker Carlson at a Russian supermarket

Check mate, liberals.

When Lemmy is Lemmy with Lemmy:

“Wait, Lemmy is Lemmy?”

“Lemmy.”

When I reveal my wooden junk to a prospective mate.

A friendly reminder that gatekeepers are walking, talking mindrot.

haha it was to appease daddy dearest… oil was just a bonus.

Man, have you seen the prices of a Sega Genesis lately?

And let’s not forget TicketMaster, the overseer of stages.

My god. Corpo propaganda, here we go. HERE WE FUCKING GO!!

Let’s make this absolutely clear, piracy of any kind, including music, is no longer unethical. Why?

Who owns the majority of musical intellectual property out there? The artists? Gtfo here with that bunk. If you got signed by anyone, chances are that you’ve lost any right to royalties, because it’s been absorbed by the publisher or the studio.

Why don’t they own it? This is a careful reminder read contracts and know that unless you’ve got an army of lawyers, you will in some way, shape or form get screwed.

Then you have Spotify, whom you pay to publish your music and you probably won’t see a single cent of it back, because that is Taylor Swift’s money.

Most artists and bands make their money two ways:

1. Shows
2. Merch

That’s it. Other than that, market precedent set by predatory publisher’s makes it so very, very few musicians make money off publishing.

So put it on SoundCloud, upload it with CC Attribute Non-Commercial and give it out for free. Then your music is more widely available, and if someone wants to use it commercially, you want a standard contract at the ready that is non-negotiable.

That is if you follow Hollywood rules, in that you don’t want “from the profit”, but for net gain. Why? Because these mfs cook the books to make sure they don’t have to pay you squat.

And this is fair, since you’re expected to be your own content creator, marketing department, etc. You do all the work, but some asshat who networks that work is supposed to make the big bucks?

Fuck off, you and your New York lawyers. Fuck all of em.