You don’t need an app to use a loyalty card…
But yes I am against supermarkets that only provide discounts if you use their loyalty program, which in turn allows them to track your purchases. Especially since many items are priced with the discount as the “fair” price and the full price is really just a money grab.
You could always take the performance hit and install it on a virtual machine. I’ve even heard of people who have an APU (CPU and GPU on the same chip) along with a discrete GPU, or just two GPU’s, and they run the base operating system on the weaker GPU then run the VM and dedicate the entire good GPU to it, which gets near to bare metal performance allegedly.
I still have one that isn’t paywalled (gratis) but I don’t think it’s had any new games in a while. I hardly ever play on it though and haven’t kept up much.
When accessed by BleepingComputer, however, the link returned a 404 (Not Found), and according to several others who tried to access the URL, no content ever existed at the location from the beginning.
This really doesn’t mean anything, it’s not unheard of for malicious actors to not set up their C&C servers until later on. This has actually been exploited by law enforcement in other cases also, they simply registered the domain themselves and took control away ahead of the attacker.
There’s a risk with setting up the C&C that it could be traced back to the attackers. By not setting it up until it’s needed you avoid that risk until it becomes necessary.
I don’t think he quite did that, actually. From memory he ran a few “shops”, but these didn’t really sell anything and were just download portals to install pirated games directly from the internet (rather than downloading to a PC first and then copying to an SD card or installing over USB). However, I think he did take donations for early access to new titles, which would have been hard to get elsewhere at first.
Yeah I read this article on another post, I’m not sure that’s the whole story.
From what I remember, he was running a few “shops”. These don’t actually sell games, but they can be accessed by a piece of homebrew software on the switch, and then you connect to the “shop” to download games directly to the device - this was done instead of manually copying install files to the SD card, installing, and then deleting the original files to save space; or instead of installing over USB. The shops were much easier, not least because removing the SD card to copy games from a PC required a reboot, and rebooting an OG hacked Switch could be kind of a pain.
I think the “sales” he did were actually just donations that got you early access to titles that weren’t widely available yet. However, it’s generally when you start taking money for these things that the shit hits the fan and the hammer comes down.
He didn’t just use the product he paid for in a way that doesn’t hurt anybody, he sold pirated Nintendo Switch games. This is literally at the start of the article.
It then becomes very easy to say he took revenue from Nintendo (the “they wouldn’t have bought it if it cost money” argument doesn’t apply), but above all selling pirated material is a shitty thing to do.
Microsoft are unlike Facebook and Google in that they make you pay for the software they use to steal your data.
My experience is limited, but not no experience. In any case, it’s not like Windows 10 will be immediately unusable when support ends.
What are your plans when end of life /support comes to Windows ten?
Switch to Linux and run virtual machines when I need to use Windows.
Right now I don’t quite have the drive to do it, but an end to support for Windows 10 would push me over the edge. I just can’t stand Windows 11, not even because of all the bullshit but just the way it mandates the UI structure - last time I tried it my dealbreaker was that you can’t just have it always display all taskbar icons, you have to manually force each one to show. If a new icon comes up, it will be hidden.
I’m sure I’ll be there with you soon enough.
/me Laughs in Windows 10.
Thanks, yet another reason why my example was a bit off hah.
If the US only awarded actual damages like most of the rest of the world, instead of inflated punitive damages, then this would pretty much be a non-issue. Rightsholders in the US see targeting copyright infringement as a source of income, not a necessary indemnity.
I said you came in to correct me but didn’t actually deliver any corrections. You just talked about the things you know.
I didn’t say the same thing you said, I provided the correction that you left out.
I dunno, allegedly people actually vote for a man named “Trump”.
Because of enshittification lol
It looks like you haven’t really digested anything of the conversation here before you came in to reply with corrections.
Previous rulings are a precedent in Common Law systems like the US, UK, Canada, or Australia.
Only Supreme Court rulings become a precedent in Civil Law systems like the EU, Russia,most of the rest of America.
Sure, but we’re talking about Brazil. You haven’t established whether Brazil is common or civil law. Also, we’re talking about a Supreme Court ruling.
Not all of the EU is civil law. Ireland and Cyprus both use common law systems.
While common law countries often have roots connected with the UK and are very similar, civil law countries are far more varied. Many civil law countries are distinctly different and arguably should be a separate class of legal structure - even ones with French roots (perhaps the most prominent civil law country).
Ultimately, though, the differences between civil and common law structures are almost entirely technical in nature. The end result is largely the same - in a common law country, case law can continue to be challenged until a Supreme Court ruling, and as such it isn’t really proper case law until such a ruling, just like in civil law countries.
https://guides.library.harvard.edu/law/brazil
Brazil is, in fact, a civil law country. However, they do follow case law from Supreme Court, which would make this ruling about requiring a representative valid case law. Which is what I said to OP.
The EU at its top level creates “Directives”
This is exactly what I said.
The EU made GDPR law (well, strictly speaking they made a directive, then member states make laws that must meet or exceed that directive)
The EU made a directive, this directive led to GDPR laws made by member states. However I was apparently mistaken, it wasn’t an EU Tribunal court case that led to cookie splash screens through case law, it was Recital 66 (lol Order 66), essentially a 2009 modification to the 2002 ePrivacy Directive, followed by roundtable discussions that heavily favoured the advertising industry over civil interest groups leading to its formal implementation into the directive in 2012.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/truth-behind-cookie-banners-alexander-hanff-cipp-e-cipt-fip-
To summarise:
Like I say, it really feels like you didn’t read very far before you made your reply. Your comment reads more as a statement of tangentially related things you know with a thin veil disguising it as a correction. If you’d just made those statements without the veil, or if you’d followed through with the corrections and actually explained what was wrong, I don’t think I would have found your reply so objectionable (although I may also have woken up on the wrong side of the bed to your comment, sorry about that).
But then, I also wouldn’t have looked into the specifics of Brazilian law or the full origins of cookie splash screens, so thanks for the motivation lol.
Yes and no. It only really applies to Twitter/X and Twitter clones. You wouldn’t call a Facebook post a tweet, no matter how short, nor would you call a reddit or lemmy post/comment that.
And even then, Mastadon has its own term, toots, and BlueSky calls them skeets.
Until Twitter comes up with a new name in line with their new branding, I think the business should still be referred to as Twitter. But the business should go bankrupt before that happens, hopefully, the lenders need to call in their debts already.
The main thing this article is talking about is supermarkets in the UK that lock all their sale offers behind the loyalty card. Until about a year or two ago, you could go in and buy things on sale or buy one get one free or whatever offer, and then use (or don’t use) your loyalty card on top (to collect/spend points), but now you don’t get any discounts if you don’t have a loyalty card.
The article/campaigners are spinning this up into something about smartphones, because that’s how most people use these loyalty schemes now, but they still have the old style cards so that’s a bit of a red herring. The real issue is the way they’re tying their standard offers to the loyalty program, and making it more difficult for consumers not to get caught out paying full price.