Which version is that? The original Skyrim (aka oldrim) isn't even purchasable on steam and hidden unless you bought it back then. But some people still play that because some old mods only support oldrim.

Special edition is the main one now. It's holding 30k very steadily since 2020 https://steamdb.info/app/489830/charts/#breakdown

Many of modders also moved to gog version, myself included. Because I can permanently version control on gog unlike stream.

Most people don't actually understand how copyright works. And the actual right that's restricted is quite ridiculous but it is how it is...

Copyright is not a right given to the copyright holder, unlike every other right in law. Copyright is a exclusion placed on every other human being on earth from reproducing what you did (except few countries that didn't sign it but practically no one lives there or is a territory that effectively works under another sovereignty which does). This distinction is very important. That is, everytime something is created, every other human now has less freedom since they could do that thing before but no longer can. So if I create an original bunny like character, that is copyrighted to me. But I could always depict that and so could you--had you thought of it. But now you no longer can.

This means that virtually every thing made in relation to that original copyright becomes illegal unless you get permission from the copyright holder. There are exceptions such as transformative, parody, fair use, etc but I'll not get into that for now.

In other words specific to this case, every game footage on earth is illegal. But they only continue to exist by the grace of the companies not telling them to take it down. Some companies actually write into their EULA/terms that fan content, etc may be allowed, but again, those are the exceptions. The rule of law is that everything is illegal to start. And that only the copyright holder and its agents be able to request a punishment for breaking the law.

It's a system where it makes every normal human beings into a law breaking entity first and by doing so, it allows the copyright holder to punish anyone they see fit.

This is not a frivolous DMCA. And even if it was, there has been no case where that was ever punished. Even outright perjury for DMCA--which I've dealt with thousands of times doesn't actually get punished in practise.

Installer file is a direct link to an executable file from their website. They contain the full game inside the installer. There's no reason you can't download that on Linux as long as you have internet and a browser.

I have a 10KV electric fence. 5KV to 15KV is typical electric fence voltage in a farm or bear prevention fence. Can't feel a thing unless you actually touch it.

They are also not lethal. Very low current, just very high voltage. So it only hurts like fuck, but won't kill a human, cow, or any other mammal that touches it.

But nexus mod didn't do anything. The mod creator took it down.

Mehaffey also argues Shift Up and Sony's Stellar Blade trademark (filed in January 2023) is "confusingly similar" to his own Stellarblade trademark (filed in June 2023), citing similar colour schemes and a stylised 'S'.

Wait... What? They filed for trademark AFTER Sony and now demanding this? That makes no sense. It sounds like Sony should sue them for trademark infringement instead.

The most acid trippy book that survived to the current version! Bunch of books were removed over the ages when they thought it was too crazy.

You should check out book of Enoch for extra trippy. It's largely about fallen angels and many batshit crazy games and novels spawn based off of it, like Xenogears (which is awesome but also considered the most convoluted story JRPG ever).

Just get a rice cooker. It's worth it.

I wonder how many people on lemmy knows that singer is a sewing machine brand.

I would assume that they are saying in a bigger scope and just happen to divide down to a ratio of 1 to 32.

Like rendering in 480p (307k pixels) and then generating 4k (8.3M pixels). Which results in like 1:27, sorta close enough to what he's saying. The AI upscale like dlss and fsr are doing just that at less extreme upscale.

This comment seems to have a negative understanding of how accounting and taxes work.

You'd lose money if you do this. And your tax rate is unaffected since revenue and cost go up identically.

Reality has all of them. But the quality competitors are expensive and this keeps it to a niche audience. Then you have the race to the bottom competition that does business in quantity over quality and likely the one you grab since you're also likely to value price over everything else.

I've seen enough combat footage of real people dying to real bullets to know that they do just drop down.

Free market per wikipedia definition:

In economics, a free market is an economic system in which the prices of goods and services are determined by supply and demand expressed by sellers and buyers. Such markets, as modeled, operate without the intervention of government or any other external authority. Proponents of the free market as a normative ideal contrast it with a regulated market, in which a government intervenes in supply and demand by means of various methods such as taxes or regulations. In an idealized free market economy, prices for goods and services are set solely by the bids and offers of the participants.

It's not equal to lawlessness, but it is lawless within market. These two are not equivalent. Still, that is not to say it is without order. Free market is entirely an economic system and not a social system nor any other plethora of systems in a country. So the topic of those other systems are simply out of the scope. Therefore, laws can exist in the society.

Robbery is part of the free market. Along with whatever happens like tornadoes, fire, murder, etc. Including the cost to hire your own security if necessary. Police is against free market because it is an intervention by the government. There does exist a grey area like if a robber becomes a gang and becomes a businesses' external authority. Then they are impeding on the free market.

This is how free market is defined. So, to reiterate, if there exists any body that is redistributing your profit, it is against free market.

Communism is not a share of labour profits. Communism is more than just an economic system. It's also a social and philosophical one. But assuming we're only talking about the economic parts, it still doesn't mean to share labour profits. Quoting wikipedia once again:

Communism is [...] a socioeconomic order centered around common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange that allocates products to everyone in the society based on need.

The keyword here is common ownership. Everyone owns the entire chain of production together. Your view on the concept of profit even existing is out of line with communism. From wikipedia:

Monetary relations in the form of exchange-value, profit, interest, and wage labor would not operate and apply to Marxist socialism.

If we go with Marxist version, you already own everything together and nothing has monetary value. You can't have profit because there is no such thing as selling, and there is no money, so you can't profit on anything. The concept of the profit sharing would be anti-communism.

If we go with Lenin's view on state capitalism (which he said is not communism, but may be a necessary transition state to communism) where we accept that things have value but that only the state engages in capitalism, people still wouldn't get profit. Because people still wouldn't have money. You would simply have better status in livelihood in hopes that the state has used that money well for the benefit of the people.

Communism is not profit sharing, its very core purpose is to remove the concept of profit.

Sharing of labour profits at a nation level is called "labour share". And at a company level, it is called "co-operative business".

I think the person you're replying to is trying to say that:

It's NOT just pressing a button for the people making it

But to the outsider that look at it thinks it's just pressing a button because they only see the final ending.

Complete communism can't have free market by definition. And complete free market can't have laws to redistribute profits. That is the definition of these words. The theoretical maximum definition obviously differs from actual application as nothing is applied in a complete sense.

Revolutions and socioeconomic systems aren't human nature. Along with all your above examples. My entire point is that there is a difference between individual human nature and the societal nature. Your point of human nature wanting feudalism is opposite of my point. I'm stating that EVERY SINGLE social construct you can imagine or think of is not of the individual nature but the societal one, including feudalism. And that less of construct you require is closer to human nature. More construct required is further away from human nature. That is, communism requires greater management by the society than the free market to exist, and thus is further from human nature. You may choose to define "human nature" differently, but this is how I see it.

Yes, it's stupid. But it's so ridiculously commonplace when talking about animals exerting force of any kind, especially "bite force". Even in scientific literature to nat geo. They seem to actually mean force but I have no idea why they use the word pressure. I've seen some supposed experts on tv even interchangeably use words force and pressure in the same sentence.

I hate it.

That interpretation seems more like your own opinion rather than the opinion of those who actually say that. I see little causal relevance between charity and trickle down economics.

You have to think more impartially to understand why these two train of thoughts have little to no intersection. Do you know why these people you're characterizing are saying "people are generous"? Because like you said, greed is simultaneously said. If you get it, you'll see it's not about trickle down.

Additionally the general right wing argument for the structuring society around volunteer charity over forced social care is that volunteer format is enough from the view of the giver, not that they will get enough from the view of the receiver. If that happens to be nothing, they're saying so be it. If that happens to be a lot, that's great. The argument is also about having the option to choose where they help rather than a government body choosing it... Though I don't think individuals could possibly know though to choose well.

I am not making an argument for the right or left. I'm just fixing the polarized viewpoint of the other party.

Communism is against human nature.

Along with every social construct that we make including laws and traditions. We make these rules precisely to counter the human nature in an attempt to create a better society, though not all are by intentional design. What is good for an isolated sole single individual is very different for a whole society and a prosperous society benefits individuals to have different opportunities than a lone actor. For example, a society where you aren't constantly worried about theft allows you to engage in trade more freely and thus able to trade more. The act of limiting personal freedom (nature) to steal, in turn, allowed society to have an increase in ability to trade.

What is closer to human nature is going to be more easily accepted by humans. And free market is closer to nature than communism. That is why it was invented first and what has set place first. If communism is indeed what society as a whole feels is better for society, they will constantly shift towards it. Some may argue similar to Canada or Scandinavian countries. Though I wouldn't define what they're shifting to as communism because countries like Sweden, Denmark, etc. score higher than USA in economic freedom index (free market). But, that discussion would go off course from topic of what is true communism which has no end.

Last 2 panels of the OP's memes refer more greatly to individual actions rather than societal actions. I'm sure certain individuals will help and be charitable. Though as a whole would be obviously less than communism since certain definitions of communism would be a mathematical maximum of reduction of poor due to equalization.

Improbability principle states that the odds are fairly high. Highly unlikely events happen all the time, and as a sum of all the events it becomes a high chance. Among the masses, someone probably watched that episode and someone is going to post about that episode. Both happening together isn't unlikely but highly probable because there are so many individual probabilities combining together due to many actors.