Syrc

Yep, every time Dems can’t get enough votes from the left to win, because they aren’t “left/pure enough” for them, what they learn is to shift to the right to find votes.

And can you blame them? Who do you think is more efficient catering to, the right-wing idiot who went to vote for a rapist felon or the self-proclaimed leftist that didn’t vote to stop fascism because they didn’t like the alternative enough?

These last elections were already “right vs far right”, following ones are 100% going to be even worse. When the right wins, shifting left makes no logical sense.

Imagine a system where a fascist Boogeyman is held up every election and people reliably vote against them without regard for who they vote for. The other party could put up whatever shitty candidate they wanted whether they espouse the views of the population or not.

Except when the other party sees they lose 3/4 elections in a row by putting up fascist boogeymen, they will statistically stop doing that, since it’s a losing strategy. They can only keep doing that because Americans are showing them that they actually like it better than an actual human being.

only affect change if they become violent (see george floyd)

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.

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).

No, they’re right. Even after reading the article, it just assumes he voted, but there’s no confirmation.

In fact, The Guardian reports that he voted on Wednesday, so he effectively didn’t vote yet when this article was posted.

Smáralind

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.