Do you have proof that this is fiction? I don’t think so. There’s no proof that it isn’t either, sure, but this sub is mainly just for laughs and the story doesn’t require being true for it to be funny.
Coming into threads and posting stuff like that is like going into malls at Christmas just to tell kids that santa isn’t real. (Or worse, since you don’t even know if you’re right in this case).
The definitions of several concepts are fuzzy, and therefore can be circumvented or challenged or abused by all sides of the equation.
They are, but it’s not like they’re very definite nowadays either.
What is a ‘similar product’ that is allowed after 30 years (and therefore what is a ‘dissimilar product’ that would be forbidden before),
I’d say “similar product” is anything that doesn’t try to pass off as the original one, and is mechanically different enough. Palworld for example, or all the other Pokéclones that popped up in recent years.
how would a non-profit that just pays high salaries to its managers fare between the marks of 30 and 50 years (and just gives some little money to research or charity).
They wouldn’t, in that period I’d allow stuff like piracy or free cultural events, stuff like that. Obviously the copyright holder would still be able to profit off of their own products, but everyone else would have to ask them to do so.
And again, why give artists and creative companies so much more time of IP protection than we give STEM inventors and companies time in patents (this random site claims patents last 15 to 20 years only) ?
Because those are things that humanity needs to progress. I do think they could be longer in a different way, like “they can be used by anyone without consent from the inventor, but they need to pay a small percentage in royalties” or something like that, just to ensure they have a permanent source of income that’s enough to live off. I’m not knowledgeable enough about that to talk though, so I can’t really answer that question without going into baseless speculations.
I still think if copyright laws weren’t so oppressive, 50 years would be fair (And still a huge improvement from the current situation).
Maybe have it in tiers or something? First 10 years: full copyright - until 30: similar products allowed, but no blatant reproduction - until 50: reproduction allowed as long as it’s not for-profit - post 50: public domain?
If we’re talking PvP, battling has constantly evolved through new abilities, even without gimmicks the way the game is played changed a lot through the years.
In single player they also changed a lot of stuff since gen 4, although the positive changes were mostly in gen 5/6 and the later ones like wild areas and the switch to “””open world””” were… not as well received.
However Pokemon came out in 96, that’s 28 years. There’s been very little innovation in their games since.
First, not really, there’s been a LOT of innovation in Pokémon, as much as people want to deny it.
And second, 28 years is really not that much. We’re not in the Disney realm of copyright-hogging, I think 50 years is a fair amount of time. The issue is that it’s often way too broad: it should protect only extremely blatant copies (i.e. the guy who literally rereleased Pokémon Yellow as a mobile game), not concepts or general mechanics. Palworld has a completely different gameplay from any Pokémon game so far, and (most of) the creatures are distinct enough. That should suffice to make it rightfully exist (maybe removing the 4/5 Pals that are absolute ripoffs, sure).
It’s the studio Nintendo chose as lead developer for BDSP.
I can’t think of a single first-party Nintendo game that’s released riddled with bugs in recent memory
Literally Pokémon. SwSh, SV and BDSP are all a bug-ridden mess. You will probably find more bugs playing SV for an hour than in all gen 3-6 games together.
Although yeah, it’s a (huge) anomaly and the rest of the first-party games are extremely polished. It just sucks to be a Pokémon fan in the 2020s.
Whoa, of course he tried to spin it as a win, but it’s still impressive that they forced him to admit he doesn’t want to debate Harris again.
His fans will probably believe his “version” of why he doesn’t want to, but for everyone else it’s pretty clear and that’s what counts.
Where? In the article I see
“Are we going to do a rematch? I just don’t know,” he told reporters Wednesday afternoon. “We’ll think about it.”
His comments suggest he is not altogether serious about a sequel. In a morning phone call to the co-hosts of “Fox & Friends,” he said, “when you win the debate, I don’t, I don’t know that I want to do another debate.”
“I wouldn’t want to have Bret and Martha,” he said, before proposing Sean Hannity, Jesse Watters or Laura Ingraham instead.
Trump told reporters Wednesday afternoon that he would theoretically show up for a debate hosted by either NBC or Fox, but first “we have to determine whether or not we even want to do it.”
“Obviously, he likes these debates and he’s good at them, so I wouldn’t be surprised if he wants to step back in the ring, but I also wouldn’t be surprised if he doesn’t. It’s his choice,” Vance told Fox News.
Which definitely shows insecurity, but nothing definite (unfortunately).
My guy I live in Europe. And you’re totally out of touch with reading comprehension, that’s literally what I said in the rest of the comment you cut out.
Nobody in Europe is Pro-guns end of story. Not even a possibility.
He’s “pro-guns” as in, “pro-being able to own a gun under the right circumstances”. No one is trying to outlaw guns in Europe, because they aren’t as much of an issue if you actually check who you’re giving them to, like Bernie proposes.
Almost every EU party and politician is pushing for green energy, not oil, not nuclear. Even Germany while being governed by the center-right decided to close nuclear power stations.
…so they’re against nuclear and only want fully clean energy. Like Bernie.
The EU does a lot in healthcare for addicts, most countries only consider it a crime if you’re carrying a large amount because it would be considered trafficking.
Not really? I have a friend with those issues in Italy and every time he tried to go to psychologists or clinics they all pinned every issue on drugs and wanted him to quit cold turkey before even starting to treat him. And we’re talking about cannabis, which would be legal under Bernie.
Nobody wants to legalize anything except for the far-left extremists in a few countries.
There’s been discussions for legalization of cannabis from the left, but none for everything else. So again, the same position as Bernie.
As for war and immigration sure, I didn’t say all positions. But I still stand by the point that most of those are definitely not right-exclusive positions in the EU.
Care to argument or are you just going to say “no u” and dip? In which european country are most of these up for serious political debate?
Hell, if anything in Italy there’s discussion about nuclear but it’s the left that wants it banned while the right is pushing it.
Well, most of these positions are shared across the political spectrum even in Europe. (Also apparently he regrets his decision about Afghanistan). I’d still say that would place him left/center left in most of the continent, imo.
Thanks for the list though, I rarely see people bring out legit points against Bernie, it’s good to have a nuanced discussion.
yeah and I could point to his right wing non-economic views
For example? Legit question, I’ve heard him being pretty supportive of stuff like LGBT rights, Climate activism, Gun laws and legalization of Marijuana, but I’m European so I might not have the full picture.
No…? 4-day work week with no reduction in pay is very much a left/far left concept even in Europe.
The person claiming this is @TheBestFigen. And who is that? Why are they reporting this? You don’t trust random sources on twitter for news.
Idk but they have more than a million followers. If someone with that reach posts misleading information it’s good to correct it.
I mean, I’m not completely against that… but Crowdstrike is an American company. Did you comment on the wrong post?
Another one I could see is that he wanted to vote Republican but at some point realized that Trump sucks ass to put it mildly. So he tried to somehow push the Rep party to at least get back in touch with the idea of sanity by killing him?
I could see that happening. While I still dislike it, conservatism by itself is a valid ideology. Maybe he believed in the core principles of the party (small government, free market, christianity, etc.) and was sick of the main candidate being a lying fascist that is the spitting image of the biblical antichrist.
Did those even change anything, actually? I just remember some statues being torn down and the police just doing their business as usual. They also need to be aimed at the correct targets for them to be effective.