Making motor vehicles without safety features illegal also removes choices/products.

Multiplayer video games ought to be designed up front for private servers after end of support, in the same way that motor vehicles are designed up front for the safety of occupants of that vehicle, occupants of other vehicles, and pedestrians.

A choice becomes a Hobson's choice when all sellers in the relevant market choose not to offer an option to buyers, such as an option to run a private server after end of support. A Hobson's choice is no real choice.

If the publisher of a single-player or small-group multiplayer game can't make a useful subset of the server software available to licensees, they should go out of business.

That's advertised up front as the equivalent of a rental. I draw a sharp contrast with buttons labeled "buy" that do not grant equivalent rights to those of the owner of a lawfully made copy.

Per the copyright statute of Slashdot's home country, Title 17, United States Code:
- A copy is a physical object in which a work is fixed. (Section 101)
- It is not an infringement for the owner of such an object to resell that copy. (Section 109)
- And it is not an infringement for the owner of such an object to make another copy of a computer program in RAM as an essential step of running it. (Section 117)

If the publisher of a movie or video game refuses to make it available in physical copies, am I justified in pretending that the work was never released?

If it becomes a crime or tort for the server middleware publisher to provide middleware that is "licensed and not redistributable", server middleware publishers will have to either change their standard license terms going forward or close.

Until you realize that to keep up with what your friends are playing, you need the equivalent of Netflix, Disney+, Hulu, Paramount+, HBO Max, Peacock, and a bunch of other services. Netflix streaming began as the online extension of Starz, and now Starz is its own separate subscription service.

I use DuckDuckGo Privacy Tools. I see every single advertisement on John Gruber's blog Daring Fireball and on Read the Docs. DuckDuckGo does not block them because these sites serve ads in a way that respects viewers' privacy. They are contextual, not behavioral.

However, larger sites with a more general audience can't rely on contextual ad placement. Instead, they feel a need to tailor each ad impression to each viewer's interests inferred from observing the viewer's interests across several websites. A 2014 article by Beales and Eisenach reported that behavioral advertising produces triple the cost per thousand impressions (CPM) compared to contextual advertising.[1]

Before Forbes, Wired, and The Atlantic went behind a paywall, they went through a phase of treating privacy tools as ad blockers.[2] The Atlantic's help page insistently mentioned "ad or tracking blockers" in the same breath.

A lot of times, I can get past misclassification of privacy tools as ad blockers by using an extension to turn off all script-in-the-browser for a particular domain.[3] Other times, I find that the website was deliberately made script-dependent. Articles on Reuters didn't load for me last I checked a couple days ago. Instead, I got a notice to reenable JS and turn off ad blockers.

[1] JavaScript Switcher by meetDeveloper on Mozilla Add-ons
[2] Doc Searls. "An invitation to settle matters with @Forbes, @Wired and other publishers" (April 15, 2016).
[3] Beales, Howard and Eisenach, Jeffrey A., "An Empirical Analysis of the Value of Information Sharing in the Market for Online Content" (January 2014). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2421... or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn...

"removes support got SysVInit scripts"

Well... there's an OS I'm not upgrading to.

SystemD STILL needs to absolutely die.

Which means you could have done that all along - you just didn't give a shit. It was more important to you to turn my machines into walking adverts for your products, trying to push everything I own into your cloud, and jump on every fad imaginable, rather than make an OS that would actually allow me to use my machine.

Which is why I don't have any Microsoft OS at home any more.

Oh, and I never had less than 64GB in a Windows machine in the last 8 or so years. But it was still a shitshow.

This sudden "lets make the OS actually work for users" drive is decades too late.

Until streaming providers start doubling the price of the monthly plan to offer a 50% discount on an annual plan.

Tesco's - one of the UK's largest supermarkets - came out a few months ago and said "We've migrated off VMWare because of the licensing". They did it in months. On the major backends running every store in the country.

They had a massive dispute with VMWare and are suing them (they say they bought a perpetual licence, VMWare then cut them off), but while they did that... they just migrated their ENTIRE infrastructure.

Sure, it's a big thing to do. But it's not impossible, doesn't take years and - like Tesco - you don't need to wait to do it. If it's THAT business-critical? All the more reason to have an alternative ready to move to at a moment's notice.

Companies CHOOSE to get tied in, they CHOOSE to only ever run one system, they CHOOSE to make the migration painful, they CHOOSE to hold back on it in the hopes they can negotiate to carry on just as they are. And those are all DUMB from a business-continuity point of view and no substantial organisation should be allowing that to happen.

Pretending that huge organisations paying Broadcom millions are somehow powerless in this is actual complicity in the worthless side of IT where everything is just absent of any redundancy, resiliency, independence, failover, etc. etc. etc.

These homeless shoppers are likely to get poached sooner rather than later. With the deep knowledge they build up of any given Walmart store's layout, they'd make good candidates to get hired into the store's online grocery pickup (OGP) department.

I don't know if HEB includes a tip, but I know that Walmart doesn't do tips. When I worked in the front end of a Walmart Supercenter six years ago, associates were trained to refuse tips, and if someone insists, to ring it up as a donation to whatever charity Walmart is collecting for at the time. Often that ends up being the nearest Children's Miracle Network hospital.

33% is more than enough to power the world without blanketing every inch in solar panels.

Love new technology, always have, but these kinds of advances pale in comparison to JUST PUTTING PANELS ON.

My house is a tiny, tiny (60sq m.... yes 60) house. My smart meter tells me - I pull at absolute max 10KW at any one time (and that rarely and briefly). I pull 8.5KWh / day, on average, over the last 4 years. My house is entirely electric so that's everything - that's heating, lighting, my computers, cooking, appliances, etc. etc. etc.

My roof space is ~30sq m (I have some extra panels on an outdoor shed, my front is NOT covered entirely in panels, I have about 8-10KW of panels). I can satisfy the above by covering my roof space at a less-than-ideal facing, tilted at a less-than-ideal angle, at a less-than-ideal latitude (the UK), and with less-than-ideal panels, having a battery pack consisting of less-than-ideal batteries.

In the summer, I'm constantly in excess (hell, I'm still in excess now and it's nearly October). In winter *sometimes* I have to fall back to grid (but my heating is entirely heatpumps, and they pull a maximum of 800W each, but more like 250W once the temperature is where it should be).

Oh and the above - is an entirely homemade system. I cut and crimped every cable, I lifted, railed and fixed every panel, I joined all the batteries together myself, I fused and RCD'd and MCB'd the entire thing. I operate them as entirely separate to my grid power system (though the new micro-inverters are about to change that as they've been approved in my country now).

If I can do that, so can much of the world, especially with professional deployment, and so SHOULD those portions of the world where it's viable be made to do this.

If you have three different compilers for a language, and you bootstrap a compiler using all three of them, the first generation (e.g. GCC compiled with QuestionableCC, ShadyCC, or SlopCC) should be functionally identical, and the second generation (GCC compiled with GCC, which was compiled with the other compiler) should be bit-identical. See "Fully Countering Trusting Trust through Diverse Double-Compiling" by David A. Wheeler. Some people have trouble trusting Rust because only the latest stable rustc can compile the latest stable rustc.