What in the world are you talking about? The rent only paying for the interest? You know buildings are not eternal, right? They depreciate in value. They have maintenance costs. And a hundred other things a good landlord should be taking care of.
Well, while USA failed, there are many countries where the combination of democracy and capitalism succeeded to various degrees. Not ever perfect, but way better than anything else tried.
Honestly, calling people like this Capitalists is like likening all communists to Stalin. The idea of capitalism is based on competition. If you are eroding competition, you are eroding capitalism.
But Marx tells us (in Das Kapital ) that the capitalist will always be seek to bypass regulations and ultimately capture the regulating government.
I am assuming he neglected to mention that the same type of people will seek to capture the government in any system. Socialist, communist, capitalist, feudal, doesn't matter.
The means they use to capture the government are different. To intention is the same.
Would you say issue of murders increasing to record numbers are unrelated because some murders are commited with a knife, some with an axe? The mechanism doesn't matter, the abuse it allows does.
Is what everyone in the US thought as well few years back. Now you have a person in jail for speaking up against cop city and police officers routinely stalking their wifes/girlfriends/exes via flock or phone geolocation. Not like few cases news are outraged about. Thousands of known cases. In one state that demanded police disclose their geolocation requests with reason, comparing numbers disclosed with number of request, 2/3 were undisclosed. Even though it was a legal requirement. So the system was probably abused to violate peoples rights more often than it was used to actually investigate crimes.
Plus, even if you are not the one whose speech is suppressed, or who is spied on by your deranged ex, political speech being suppressed still hurts you by getting more bullshit laws passed.
Now if you don't care about that, I guess there is no helping it, but I can't think of a political issue more worth caring about than this.
You are reading the text and not thinking what it looks like in reality.
I think scanning of media is not a massive spy apparatus. Breaking e2ee and scanning of all communications would be. If they want to monitor journalists and protesters by only scanning media they are doing shit job at building their spy apparatus.
What happens when the scan identifies an image as CSAM? If the answer is notify authorities with unencrypted chat, then it is a spy apparatus. The false positives are high enough that they will get to read countless innocent conversations and there are ways to intentionally induce false positives if you want specific conversations. And if it does not report, then what does it do?
No they are not, most of social media (if not all) has some direct message mechanism.
Those are rarely available to strangers by default and I have no issue in banning direct DMs to strangers.
Most kids don't report those things. This is part of the problem and Chat Control does address that by mandating better reporting systems.
So there is one decent thing in this law, let's pass all the privacy invasive stuff as well. /s I have no issue with better reporting, but the chat monitoring needs to go.
Chat Control only talks about identifying child users. I don't see anything there that mandates storing of IDs. Can you point me to the relevant part of the legislation?
Sure, so how is a company supposed to implement it? Only to government issuing IDs can realistically provide Zero Knowledge proofs. If they don't support this option, companies can't really use it. And companies generally need to keep records that prove they are complying with the law, which is again impossible while preserving privacy unless the government helps.
And I'm sure law enforcement already does that.
Just google how underfunded to agencies responding to existing reports are. They are not doing anywhere near what they could.
Chat Control was not approved yet, there are discussions to find the right solution.
The reason it did not pass so far is because of privacy advocates spreading awareness of how fucking broken the law is and creating push back. The time to consult experts and improve the law was in the EU commission, before putting it to vote in the Parliament. Clearly they did not care to protect privacy until people pushed back. The commission and other supporters are still looking for ways to pass it without addressing the privacy issue. See recent emergency measure passed using vacations to bypass a proper vote.
I am sure there are people that support the bill with good intentions but I have lost any fate in the EU to care for the privacy of its citizens.
If you think client side scanning is not a massive spy apparatus, you don't understand the technology. There is no such thing as purely on device CSAM detection. See Discord banning people for minecraft inventory pictures if you need an example how broken the automated part of the technology is. It's just sending messagis to law enforcement to read with extra steps.
As for the first part, Chat Control is not mandating age verification. It's identity verification. If a beraucrat decides lemmy.world is a risk, you will have to provide an ID to post here regardless of your age and the instance admin will have to use their limited abilities to store and protect them. Good luck with that shit. That is a spy apparatus. And it is unnecessary. The conversations are public. Instead of just letting the predators find a different place, create a better reporting system. Or hell, at least make it an actual age verification using Zero Knowledge proofs. But they don't want to do that, they want our identities.
Same thing with CSAM, you don't get born knowing the phone number of your local CSAM distributor. Law enforcement can monitor for people advertising. They can pose as interested people or distributors. There is no reason to break encryption over this. Nor is it even possible while open source exists.
I am not saying online grooming is not a problem, but as you said, it happens on public spaces like Roblox, where predators can find children. Chat Control is unnecessary to monitor those. Random youtubers have been able to do that. No need to build a massive spy apparatus. Instead, of adressing this, Chat Control tries to pry open secure communications like Signal used by journalists, protesters, etc. Applications where grooming is not much of an issue as you only communicate with your existing contacts.
Chat Control ignores the rampant grooming in plain sight while trying to spy on communications where it is rare. So tell me, am I paranoid to think they have different motivation to breach those and are only using "protecting kids" as an excuse?
Yes, various groups trying to solve a problem that barely exists by creating problems orders of magnitude worse but gives them more power. But surely there are no nefarious motivations there.
You may want to rephrase your comment so it doesn't sound the boost for AfD is the only bad thing about otherwise good news.
It is a sad state of affairs if your only two options are voting for people who insist your country must welcome even more people whose religion demands they kill you or the AfD.
The payout cost is probably less about the bank fee and more about accounting and other managing overheads. Remember that steam may have to handle refunds that happened after the payout. Would be a mess to chase a few dollars from a dev that doesn't have a proper revenue stream. Just not worth it to steam.
Also, correct me if I am wrong, but I am pretty sure the money not paid transfers over to another month, so you probably get most of your money sooner or later.
If you mean using same clothes for PCs and NPCs, some games do it. The Sims, Hitman games, Rimworld, many RPGs like Fallout and Skyrim.
As for the sliders, yeah. I have never seen something exactly like that. But I expect it just wouldn't fit well in most games and also wouldn't really be much of a sales point. People would always prefer just one of the settings, so it wouldn't be better than a game where it is the only option.
I can also already hear the screeching from game journalists and religious groups about adding such a slider.
True, but those options usually sell because they are somehow eye catching, bombastic, etc. The players want to stand out. They don't want to look like a random NPC.
In some games they can be the same, and in some they are. But in many games, that doesn't make sense. Maybe the NPC has a role, e.g. a police officer needs to wear a police uniform. Or maybe the NPC has a personality that the clothes help express. An innocent religious girl will not wear revealing outfit and a rebellious daring one probably will. Taking that away with a slider could really deform what the game is trying to express. Especially if NPCs don't get enough screen time, their looks are important to convey their character.
PS: There is also a technical limitation. It's not just artist effort that focuses on PCs. They clothing of playable character will often be more complex. Perhaps it is more detailed. Perhaps it can be combined (different top, bottom, accesories). Perhaps it deforms around character creation sliders. Perhaps it has physics enabled. All of this is extra load on the GPU and in many games is simplified for NPCs. So giving NPCs PC outfits may kill performance. If I again bring up GTA SA as an example (because I know a lot about how the game works under the hood), the main character CJ is the only one that has clothing handled separately from the player model. For most NPCs, their clothes are part of the NPC asset and can't be swapped as that would take extra effort and resources.
Now non of this means it is impossible, but for most games, it is just not worth it.
The playable character (PC) is the focus of attention and therefore gets disproportionate effort put into it. There is usually only 1, maybe 2-3 of them so making a 100 outfits for each PC probably means making a 100 outfits, maybe 300 in the absolute worst case.
If I remember correctly, a game like GTA San Andreas had around 300 different NPCs. So making just one second outfit for each (toggle, not slider) is extra 300 outfits. For most games, the effort is better spent either adding more outfits for players or more NPC types to improve variety (more gamers care about that than NPC sexualization). Or just bigger map, or more missions, etc. Of course it depends on the type of game.
Coding would be simple, the art wouldn't. You would have to make multiple clothing assets for each character/clothing set. It would be expensive and there is no evidence it would help sell more games
What in the world are you talking about? The rent only paying for the interest? You know buildings are not eternal, right? They depreciate in value. They have maintenance costs. And a hundred other things a good landlord should be taking care of.
Well, while USA failed, there are many countries where the combination of democracy and capitalism succeeded to various degrees. Not ever perfect, but way better than anything else tried.
Just capture the testing procedure and you capture the government. That is the fundamental flaw of "allow only X to run for office".
Honestly, calling people like this Capitalists is like likening all communists to Stalin. The idea of capitalism is based on competition. If you are eroding competition, you are eroding capitalism.
I am assuming he neglected to mention that the same type of people will seek to capture the government in any system. Socialist, communist, capitalist, feudal, doesn't matter.
The means they use to capture the government are different. To intention is the same.
Would you say issue of murders increasing to record numbers are unrelated because some murders are commited with a knife, some with an axe? The mechanism doesn't matter, the abuse it allows does.
Is what everyone in the US thought as well few years back. Now you have a person in jail for speaking up against cop city and police officers routinely stalking their wifes/girlfriends/exes via flock or phone geolocation. Not like few cases news are outraged about. Thousands of known cases. In one state that demanded police disclose their geolocation requests with reason, comparing numbers disclosed with number of request, 2/3 were undisclosed. Even though it was a legal requirement. So the system was probably abused to violate peoples rights more often than it was used to actually investigate crimes.
Plus, even if you are not the one whose speech is suppressed, or who is spied on by your deranged ex, political speech being suppressed still hurts you by getting more bullshit laws passed.
Now if you don't care about that, I guess there is no helping it, but I can't think of a political issue more worth caring about than this.
You are reading the text and not thinking what it looks like in reality.
What happens when the scan identifies an image as CSAM? If the answer is notify authorities with unencrypted chat, then it is a spy apparatus. The false positives are high enough that they will get to read countless innocent conversations and there are ways to intentionally induce false positives if you want specific conversations. And if it does not report, then what does it do?
Those are rarely available to strangers by default and I have no issue in banning direct DMs to strangers.
So there is one decent thing in this law, let's pass all the privacy invasive stuff as well. /s I have no issue with better reporting, but the chat monitoring needs to go.
Sure, so how is a company supposed to implement it? Only to government issuing IDs can realistically provide Zero Knowledge proofs. If they don't support this option, companies can't really use it. And companies generally need to keep records that prove they are complying with the law, which is again impossible while preserving privacy unless the government helps.
Just google how underfunded to agencies responding to existing reports are. They are not doing anywhere near what they could.
The reason it did not pass so far is because of privacy advocates spreading awareness of how fucking broken the law is and creating push back. The time to consult experts and improve the law was in the EU commission, before putting it to vote in the Parliament. Clearly they did not care to protect privacy until people pushed back. The commission and other supporters are still looking for ways to pass it without addressing the privacy issue. See recent emergency measure passed using vacations to bypass a proper vote.
I am sure there are people that support the bill with good intentions but I have lost any fate in the EU to care for the privacy of its citizens.
If you think client side scanning is not a massive spy apparatus, you don't understand the technology. There is no such thing as purely on device CSAM detection. See Discord banning people for minecraft inventory pictures if you need an example how broken the automated part of the technology is. It's just sending messagis to law enforcement to read with extra steps.
As for the first part, Chat Control is not mandating age verification. It's identity verification. If a beraucrat decides lemmy.world is a risk, you will have to provide an ID to post here regardless of your age and the instance admin will have to use their limited abilities to store and protect them. Good luck with that shit. That is a spy apparatus. And it is unnecessary. The conversations are public. Instead of just letting the predators find a different place, create a better reporting system. Or hell, at least make it an actual age verification using Zero Knowledge proofs. But they don't want to do that, they want our identities.
Same thing with CSAM, you don't get born knowing the phone number of your local CSAM distributor. Law enforcement can monitor for people advertising. They can pose as interested people or distributors. There is no reason to break encryption over this. Nor is it even possible while open source exists.
I am not saying online grooming is not a problem, but as you said, it happens on public spaces like Roblox, where predators can find children. Chat Control is unnecessary to monitor those. Random youtubers have been able to do that. No need to build a massive spy apparatus. Instead, of adressing this, Chat Control tries to pry open secure communications like Signal used by journalists, protesters, etc. Applications where grooming is not much of an issue as you only communicate with your existing contacts.
Chat Control ignores the rampant grooming in plain sight while trying to spy on communications where it is rare. So tell me, am I paranoid to think they have different motivation to breach those and are only using "protecting kids" as an excuse?
Yes, various groups trying to solve a problem that barely exists by creating problems orders of magnitude worse but gives them more power. But surely there are no nefarious motivations there.
The payout cost is probably less about the bank fee and more about accounting and other managing overheads. Remember that steam may have to handle refunds that happened after the payout. Would be a mess to chase a few dollars from a dev that doesn't have a proper revenue stream. Just not worth it to steam.
Also, correct me if I am wrong, but I am pretty sure the money not paid transfers over to another month, so you probably get most of your money sooner or later.
It's not ideal but it is understandable IMO.
If you mean using same clothes for PCs and NPCs, some games do it. The Sims, Hitman games, Rimworld, many RPGs like Fallout and Skyrim.
As for the sliders, yeah. I have never seen something exactly like that. But I expect it just wouldn't fit well in most games and also wouldn't really be much of a sales point. People would always prefer just one of the settings, so it wouldn't be better than a game where it is the only option.
I can also already hear the screeching from game journalists and religious groups about adding such a slider.
Let me first say that I do respect your preferences and opinion on them being innapropriate, even if I don't share these opinions.
But I have to push back a little on why do you believe they are harmful? That's quite an accusation, and one that contradicts existing research.
Yeah, I feel we are going too much into details that vary greatly between games.
True, but those options usually sell because they are somehow eye catching, bombastic, etc. The players want to stand out. They don't want to look like a random NPC.
In some games they can be the same, and in some they are. But in many games, that doesn't make sense. Maybe the NPC has a role, e.g. a police officer needs to wear a police uniform. Or maybe the NPC has a personality that the clothes help express. An innocent religious girl will not wear revealing outfit and a rebellious daring one probably will. Taking that away with a slider could really deform what the game is trying to express. Especially if NPCs don't get enough screen time, their looks are important to convey their character.
PS: There is also a technical limitation. It's not just artist effort that focuses on PCs. They clothing of playable character will often be more complex. Perhaps it is more detailed. Perhaps it can be combined (different top, bottom, accesories). Perhaps it deforms around character creation sliders. Perhaps it has physics enabled. All of this is extra load on the GPU and in many games is simplified for NPCs. So giving NPCs PC outfits may kill performance. If I again bring up GTA SA as an example (because I know a lot about how the game works under the hood), the main character CJ is the only one that has clothing handled separately from the player model. For most NPCs, their clothes are part of the NPC asset and can't be swapped as that would take extra effort and resources.
Now non of this means it is impossible, but for most games, it is just not worth it.
The playable character (PC) is the focus of attention and therefore gets disproportionate effort put into it. There is usually only 1, maybe 2-3 of them so making a 100 outfits for each PC probably means making a 100 outfits, maybe 300 in the absolute worst case.
If I remember correctly, a game like GTA San Andreas had around 300 different NPCs. So making just one second outfit for each (toggle, not slider) is extra 300 outfits. For most games, the effort is better spent either adding more outfits for players or more NPC types to improve variety (more gamers care about that than NPC sexualization). Or just bigger map, or more missions, etc. Of course it depends on the type of game.
Coding would be simple, the art wouldn't. You would have to make multiple clothing assets for each character/clothing set. It would be expensive and there is no evidence it would help sell more games