People are free to pressure retailers on what to sell and what not too. Saying they can’t would be far worse. And the retailer is doing the job of making money… by following the 2ishes of the populace. This is the free market capitalist society we live in. Completly sucks, but it is consistent.
That is what he is saying while trying not to make it obvious he is saying that. Clearly hegseth ordered it.
The good of the one, or few, over the good of the many. This is a human trait. It is the same trait that allowed homo sapiens to become the dominate species. It will be hard to evolve out of it. Seeing reality is a major cause of depression in my opinion.
Someone who claimed to have played the game said the privates were sensored.
The game concept feels very political, not sexual from what I am hearing.
My guess is the AI just flagged it, and noone actually reviewed it. Now that it is news, they don’t want any bad press, so they are standing by the ban, when otherwise they might have reversed it.
Um, he didn’t say he was deciding for others, he said he could understand how others would be hesitant… sounded like he was supporting your very point that people have a right to have their own opinion.
You don’t get to those high ranking positions without having an abnormal amount of personal ambition. So these decisions are nothing new, they just do what is best for themselves and carry on.
“People”… The majority of us don’t classify as “people”.
Or he knew Hegseth would throw him under the bus for the obvious violation of international law and he just wanted to save his own skin.
Probably also had inside knowledge of the long term plan to land troops on Venezuelian soil, and didn’t want his name part of that history chapter.
I don’t think the bubble will burst like we are used to. AI is part of the arms race between nations. So they will shore the industry up at all costs.
As for the choice to shut down the brand. It will be years before all that infra gets built. Better to sit the time out and revive the brand when prices are reasonable enough that hobbyists and such are willing to pay them.
Well, you can sue for anything in civil court… But if they tried to sue the person, and not the gov, it would get tossed immediately. And the courts have established very narrow conditions to allow it if the act happened outside the US.
Time to break st Luigi out of jail.
Poloticians seem to do this all the time. Is there some out under fair use or something that I don’t know about?
What courts? The UN courts? The manual covers international law interpretation.
Um… several countries with multiple parties use fptp.
The manual is for interpretations of international law. Not US law. So no congress involved.
You saying how it “should” be. But nothing stops them ftom changing the standard retroactively, which is relevant because it means change the standard now, and judge people’s actions based on the new standard. They can do that. They shouldn’t, but they can. And this guy certainly would if it was in his favor.
All said and done, her point is accurate. Young people are consuming more and more propaganda and less factual information. And that is really dangerous. The article doesn’t mention if she said atrocities weren’t occuring or anything, so I assume she didn’t. Sounds like a little pandering for a paycheck. But not the total sellout I expected. I have no love for the Clinton’s, but they were closer to old school poloticians that tried to walk the line but not cross over. Today’s poloticians just jump right over the line and start pitching propaganda for the highest bidder.
How about we all start voting third party until we can establish at least 3 major parties. 5 would probably be better. It would force them to work together to accomplish things.
I am willing to bet that nothing in it rules out retroactive changes. It’s a manual, not the letter of law. And really, it is more of a guide.
Interesting point. But in general, who are the people complaining in the wrong spot. I suspect people basically are complaining in thier echo chambers… social media. And likely noone cares. But then the media jumps in and picks it up. So is the media to blame? I read a story about a lady in Britain I think who had like 89 followers and made a statement. It went viral. Suddenly her statement to her echo chamber was in the news. It ruined her life actually.
So are we saying the media should be banned on reporting what is said inside echo chambers, or are we saying public posting of opinions should be banned?