According to the article, the owner who was sued stated in court:

when she was asked if she would accept a transgender woman as female if they had medically transitioned and were legally recognised as one, she “would not view that person as a woman”.

So it sounds like a case of the owner wanting to apply their own view without regard for how the law recognises gender in this day and age.

I’m not up to speed on the discovery you linked. It appears to be a vulnerability that can’t be exploited remotely? If so, how is this the same as Intel chips causing widespread system instability?

Very well made point, imo.

This is why we got Stadia. Imagine Netflix where you pay a monthly fee and still have to buy all the movies and shows at full price. That was Stadia’s model.

Thos erodes the concept of ownership so that it is substituted for rental, without stating that clearly. Stadia failed but in doing so it probably helped Microsoft figure out how to eventually get away with doing the exact same thing.

Games should clearly say if you’re basically renting them, not have it buried in the EULA. Let publishers full price and let consumers decide if they are prepared to live with it.

Totally agree. You always leave yourself room to negotiate down.

Imagine not supporting this because you think it’s unfair to the industry, given the very specific examples that have been given.

He talks about that. I think the gist is that a lot of games that are online services could run locally, the publisher just chooses not to. That’s why Ross chose the Crew 2 as his hill to die on: there’s evidence that an offline does/did exist and just wasn’t enabled. That’s a practice that needs to be challenged.

The argument goes that a game that relies on server side technology to run in any form shouldn’t be sold as a product that you can own. This needs to be reflected in the price and licensing model. That seems fair.

The big question is why TF we’re at a point where a company should be allowed to sell you a product and say you own it then remove your right to use the product arbitrarily. I bet there’s IP in the server side code, but having a system where a corporation’s IP and ability to make money from the IP is more important that the concept of ownership is deeply fucked up.

Technology Tangents did a video where a game he bought on CD and tried to play on period-correct hardware won’t run because there was DRM that called a server to check the date and to make sure it wasn’t leaked early. Decades after the release, the server is gone and the game can’t run, ironically, because it’s so far outside of its release date. That’s the kind of bullshit that absolutely shouldn’t be tolerated.

I have the receipts. Here’s false statements you made that I corrected using easily available resource you refuse to acknowledge.

not fucking one has presented any argument as to what this body will actually do to change anything.

And

Nobody has any fucking clue what powers it might have, its a blank check. Show one fucking piece of evidence that there is any public plan for what this “advisory body” can and can’t do, or shut the fuck up.

And

There is literally no scope included - they’ll decide after

And

And all this done by a group of people or an individual chosen through unspecified means with unspecified credentials.

All of these are defined and you have wrongly claimed otherwise. You’re a rube.

None of that actually says anything. Its just wide open phrasing that allows for limitless scope. Can you not see that somehow?

How? You refuse to explain. Every gap you identify I dispute and you go “nah man” and act like that’s as good as actual facts.

How does the No vote lead to the actual change you’re describing? You won’t even answer that.

Get a fucken grip and use your Democratic power to help, don’t throw your weight behind people who are making the world less inclusive ffs

I’ve been nothing but respectful toward you, even in disagreement. You’re being an absolute cunt. This is the no vote in a nutshell n

there is no limiting phrase around “powers”

There is! The power is limited to “may make representations”. It’s written in stone, what more do you need than official, published documentation that clearly refutes what you claim is the position of the Yes campaign?

Maybe because you keep claiming information hasn’t been made available when a simple google search proves you wrong?

Sure, but they can certainly give it powers to make or veto economic policy, make decisions on land ownership, environmental matters, regulations, or pretty much anything else, because there is no limiting phrase around “powers”

They can do that right now. Albo can legislate what you’re describing and the next government can de-legilsate it. If the referendum passes it has no bearing on what powers are legislated.

The referendum does not give the powers you’re describing and does not impact whether those kinds of powers are granted or revoked in the future.

You are misunderstanding what the Yes vote is. The referendum would only establish a voice in the Constitution that “may make representations” while specifically outlining that only “Parliament shall make laws”.

And all this done by a group of people or an individual chosen through unspecified means with unspecified credentials.

Again, all of this is explained in the resources I linked to earlier, and the only reason you’re ignorant to that fact is because you haven’t bothered to do your research.

Members of the Voice would be selected by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, not appointed by the Executive Government.

Members would serve on the Voice for a fixed period of time, to ensure regular accountability to their communities.

To ensure cultural legitimacy, the way that members of the Voice would be chosen would suit the wishes of local communities and would be determined through the post-referendum process.

Members of the Voice would be Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander, according to the standard three part test. Members would be chosen from each of the states, territories and the Torres Strait Islands. The Voice would have specific remote representatives as well as representation for the mainland Torres Strait Islander population. The Voice would have balanced gender representation at the national level.

So, again, what’s your issue here?

Interesting. I’m curious why you aren’t familiar with the details of constitutional amendment I linked to. You’re clearly not basing your opinion on primary sources, so what secondary sources are you consuming?

They will decide after how to establish the advisory body that has no legislative, executive, or judicial power and can only advise parliament (who will then decide what actions are taken or even if any action is taken at all).

They cannot make decisions with respect to giving the Voice Constitutional powers to make or change legislative, executive, or judicial decisions unless there’s another referendum. They can legislate powers, but they can already do that without the referendum.

What specifically do you object to about this?

Let’s stick the the topic and avoid juvenile debate tactics.

Show one fucking piece of evidence that there is any public plan for what this “advisory body” can and can’t do, or shut the fuck up.

Here is exactly what the referendum entails, and note that it specifically limits the role of the Voice (in whatever form it takes) to “make representations” and also that it specifically highlights that parliament - and only parliament - “shall… Have the power to make laws”.

Chapter IX Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples

129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice

In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander by peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:

there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;

the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;

the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.

I repeat: the Voice Has no legislative, executive, or judicial powers, and you have no legitimate basis to imply otherwise. We are 100% not being asked to vote on a Constitutional change that undermines democratic principles. If you vote No on that basis then it is because you are ignorant of the proposed Constitutional change and have been conned by the right wing and media.

not fucking one has presented any argument as to what this body will actually do to change anything.

The Voice is part of modest recommendations proposed respectfully by First Nations people via the Uluru Statement from the heart. You need to be cynical and unrealistic to think that accepting and supporting their views - with no downsides to you personally or us as a country - really won’t change anything. Are you really interested in the outcomes for First Nations people? If so, please explain how you expect to see change if the Voice is rejected?

Colonisation took everything from First Nation people, but all you care about is that recognition might end up costing you something. Sound a lot like that tribalism you reckon you’re want to avoid.

And what are you actually giving up?

There is no threat to democracy, The Voice is an advisory body. It has no legislative, executive, or judicial powers.

Referendums are described in the Constitution to allow Australians to change how it functions. So we explicitly can change how aspects of our democratic process works, and obviously should do so to reflect changes in Australian society since Federation 120+ years ago.

…casually failing to mention that the “one racial group” are the traditional land owners who lost their land and 50,000 year-old culture due to colonisation.

I just bought a ROG Ally.

There’s a lot of stupid stuff written/on you tube about it, but it’s great and clearly a notch up on the Steam Deck in most ways.

Being a republican doesn’t automatically make them an asshole

I’ve never argued or suggested this. I’m enjoying this thread and exploring this idea, but not a fan of strawman arguments :(

people are probably amenable if you use the right approach

Your original point was that that people aren’t responsible for the bad ideas of their party, so lecturing on on how to change people’s minds is disingenuous in this context.

your neighbor is throwing dog shit in your yard and calling you names, yeh, direct your protest and activisim towards them

And I think this is the core contradiction in what you’re trying to argue. Imagine your dog-shit analogy in another way: if a neighbour discriminates against you because you’re gay (let’s say makes comments as you pass by), you appear to support the idea that he is responsible for that view and presumably you can tell him to get fucked to his face. But if that same neighbour votes for a party that discriminates against you, while politely waving to you in the morning, you’re saying you shouldn’t hold him responsible because he’s probably a swell guy? The outcome is the same! You’re being discriminated against.

For the record I wouldn’t yell “Fuck you Bill!” in protest if this happened. But I absolutely have the right to say “Bill, we’ve been neighbours for 10 years and I enjoy having you around for BBQ in the summer months, but the fact that you support the party that wants to see my way of life restricted in this way is really disappointing and upsets me” and I absolutely would not be OK if Bill argued that he’s not responsible for voting directly against my interests. And to be clear, I’m not saying Bill shouldn’t be allowed to vote against my interests, I am just saying that I get to call him out on that. It’s unbelievable to me that anyone would say otherwise, but circling back to OP:

if you are talking to your neighbor, don’t make his party affliation equal to his personal belief

you might believe this country is fucked up. Every country have people who believe their own country has a lot of problems. It doesn’t mean you don’t support it.

Agree! Supporting your country =/= being complicit in all the bad shit done by or in the name of your country. That’s why activism exists, that’s why people can and will protest.

So how come this same logic doesn’t apply if the protests and activism is being directed at your republican neighbour?

The republican platform is fucked up, but if you are talking to your neighbor, don’t make his party affliation equal to his personal belief.

…is the part of your argument I am responding to. Saying “don’t five people a hard time for supporting fucked up things” is pretty fucked up.