these employees will choose the tools in their approved tool box
Of course they will.
Clients need to do their research, choose the tool they want, and then choose the consultant to help them implement it.
That's the way it works. Microsoft isn't the right partner to help you implement a solution based on Google Gemini. Duh.
Or this could be an example of Jevons Paradox .
As AI makes employees more productive, and thus more profitable, would you fire them or hire more?
The ONLY problem is that not everyone else has done so yet. Government shouldn't be allowed to tax income and profit.
... as in: If you get in bed with them, you'll get screwed.
You really have to be a special kind of dumb to buy anything from Facebook. What did you expect? Their entire business model is selling YOU.
People who think Trump is the stupidest possible don't know about Ron DeSantis.
Sure. The reason for stupid ideas, like Lysenko, taking over is lack of competition, which is inherent to communism, In a capitalist system people are searching for ways to make money for themselves, so there are enough competing ideas being tried out with private money. If the money runs out before profits are made, the ideas stop. When government can keep subsidizing bad ideas they don't stop, they just keep getting bigger and more stupid.
Still, they're the Monsanto of software: if something would be worth doing and lucrative, but is not evil, they're not doing.
This scorpion doesn't seem able to change its stripes.
The military budget is literally a blank check.
It is figuratively a blank check, which is the opposite of "literally".
Has it ever decreased?
Many times. The late 1940s. After the Vietnam War. The "Peace Dividend" after the USSR's collapse, etc.
I don't remember the Global Warming Gang predicting that.
The Global Warming Gang is not in the business of predicting anything, they try hard to make it happen.
But if you mean scientists, just wait till you hear about AMOC collapse. No serious models anymore say it won't happen. And then, you'll have the heat that you wish for.
Obviously. I am currently looking for a data provider for various IOT devices, talked to all major providers, talking to ton of others. Major providers demand that equipment is approved by their networks, in conversations this is all about keeping cheaper equipment out of the country, that's all.
Not always. If you pay money to get a ticket into a movie or a concert, cause some sort of commotion, you will be kicked out and you will not get a refund nor would you deserve a refund.
That is largely true.
But in the case of games, I'm not on your property. And we already discussed servers - I might not even be on your servers.
It might help to clearly separate these two cases: Pure online games with servers hosted exclusively by the game publisher, and the 90% of other games (single player or multiplayer with player-operated servers).
Because you are such an entitled moron, you don't realize how wrong you are about pretty much everything.
And there we have it, the usual ad hominem of people who have run out of actual arguments. Signaling the end of the discussion, because why the fuck should I bother talking to someone who says such shit?
Goodbye.
The game server is in the domain of the seller. -- Irrelevant.
No, it's not. Nice of you to cut away the part that already said so. It is HIGHLY relevant if something you purchased becomes unusable due to an action of the seller or not.
Why should you be allowed to? Because you gave them money?
If you are new to this planet, this might be news to you, but otherwise: Yes, that is how commercial transactions work. You pay for something, you get to use it.
Just because you paid money doesn't give you permission to do whatever you want
No, but it absolutely DOES give me not just the permission but the RIGHT to use the thing I paid for for its intended purpose and for any other purpose I see fit. First sale doctrine and so on.
If refunds for a disabled games were to be a thing, they'd have to figure something out, because it's not the store's fault.
That is correct. But the store could either sell the same game again (in your case where the buyer personally was banned for whatever) or demand a refund from the manufacturer as is common practice when defective goods are returned. Really, there's not much to figure out, this is already a solved problem.
[the word "buy"] does not automatically mean you are now the owner of something.
Actually, that is exactly what it means.
Merriam-Webbster: (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/buy)
"to acquire possession, ownership, or rights to the use or services of by payment especially of money : purchase"
Seriously, why are you trying to defend an indefensible position ?
Recycling plastic is a scam, and has been known to be impossible 70 years ago when the idea was born. But reducing trash is an important goal, mostly due to plastic not decomposing for pretty much forever.
A dependency required for the software to function no longer exists (like when a game's servers get shutdown) is essentially the same as an object breaking naturally over time due to wear and tear.
There's where your mental model is just wrong. The game server is in the domain of the seller. Some hardware breaking due to wear & tear or abuse is NOT. That is an incredibly important legal distinction.
f you spent $50 when the game launched and played for 500 hours, should you get a refund when the game shuts down 4 years later?
What EXACTLY do you mean with "the game shuts down"? That is the whole point. The game SERVERS shutting down is not the same as disabling the game. If it's an online-only game, there could still be OTHER servers, not run by the seller. Official or unofficial. That is the whole point of "stop killing games".
If your license was revoked because you were cheating, breaking rules, and generally being a complete cunt in some online game
Again, this is relevant for online games only, and is not about the game at all, but about access to a specific community or server. Even if I am the biggest asshole on the planet and every ban was absolutely justified - why should I not be able to set up my own server, invite my equally assholish friends and play there? There is no reason to disable the GAME, only the access to a specific server. These can be two distinct things. You buy the game, but you subscribe to a server.
Come to think of it, how the fuck are they supposed to issue refunds accurately anyway?
They shouldn't create the need to refund. You're making up a problem here. Every refund ever was done at the point of sale for the price you paid. That's why invoices and receipts exist.
You can't steal a contract, which is all the license really is. Your payment gets you a contract.
But that's not what it says. Every shop ever treated games as a SALE. Steam doesn't label the button "buy" anymore, but most other shops still do, and even on Steam everything else is handled exactly like a sale of a product. Shopping cart and all.
Because they want to eat their cake and have it, too. I'm sure players would be more hesitant to part with 60 bucks if it clearly said: "temporary, revocable at any time for any reason, permission to play".
There is no way the businessmen involved in building these reactors are going to want to spend the time and money to properly maintain them let alone decommission and shut them down when they are no longer safe to run.
This is the actual problem with nuclear power. And by the time it comes around, the people who made the decisions have already safely moved elsewhere or into pension.
Almost anything derogatory you could say about today's software design would be accurate. -- K.E. Iverson
