Sure, didn't say they would, capitalist companies gonna capitalise.

In the same way capitalist governments are gonna capitalise....by serving the interests of capitalist companies.

Hit me up when these magical regulations of yours get applied and enforced for a value more than the profits produced by ignoring them.

I mean it, I'm all for the regulations, I just don't think it should be the only basket in which to place eggs, but you do you.

Meanwhile , i'll also be not spending money on products that don't serve my interests, it's not the definition of "being fleeced" that I'd use but you seem confident enough that I'll look it up and check.

And by all means, you can buy your PlayStation's (not the disc ones obviously, that would be stupid, unless the regulations for that are also imminent?) , ready for the day when those regulations come in to force (in the near future, I assume).

Because NOT buying user-hostile products is for chumps who don't believe their government has their best interests at heart... or something?

You know he didn’t have to resign right? He literally only did it for honor.

Ah, i see the confusion now, you're talking about the "honour killings" kind of honour, the excessive toxic pride kind, like "leaving before you're kicked out to try and save face".

"I don't think i can win so i won't compete", isn't honour, it's pragmatism.

I'm not even throwing shade for it, it's a good call.

I was thinking of the idealised honour where you do the subjectively right thing, for the subjectively right reasons.

The uk political system is driven by honor.

Its driven by money/power/control, same as any modern political system.

They even pressured Boris Johnson to resign. Could you imagine a US president resigning before their term was done?

See the "leaving before you're kicked out" section from above.

The UK hasn’t had a single prime minister fill out their full term since 2015

I'm not sure how this is relevant but it is factual.

In principle that application of a face camera holds up, subjectively.

In practice that won't be it's primary use case.

It absolutely will bes sold, even if they are banned from saving face profiles directly (which ostensibly they are, for now) it'll just be "anonymous'" data collection. Until they get caught, then they'll pay a cost of doing business tax (fine) and continue on their way.

It's just another vector for creeping changes that invade privacy for the benefit of corporations out the continued tightening population control of governments.

In this case, think ring doorbells + GPS as an opening gambit.

Like how courts orders for "all of the phones in a particular area at a particular time" are a thing, but with a mandatory face cam.

edit : because these are the type of activities that go on at these companies, unchecked mostly.

edit edit : God dammit ford

Good spot, i should have said "truly believes" instead of "claims".

popularity as the only criteria or as one of many criteria ?

The “God’s design” line wasn’t meant as a literal argument! Lol.

That's a very poor choice of phrase for a conversation with no cues outside of text.

And you've managed to go through my entire previous reply without mentioning that you didn't actually mean it, which is additionally confusing.

So i'll assume function restoration and harm reduction are the line for you, now i can answer the statement i skipped.

My counter would be the opposite. And this is really the core. If cleft lips became a fad and people willingly cleft their own lips when they were normal before. That’s insane, IMO. That’s jumping off the cliff because Bobby Jones did.

I wasn't comparing cleft lip restoration to tattoos, piercings or split tongues because that's a terrible comparison, one is functionally restorative and the others are aesthetic aside from the split tongue which is also functionally additive.

I was using it as an example as to why "god's design" is a poor argument.

As it seems "god's design" wasn't an actual argument you were making, this is less relevant.

I would point you back to my arguments about psychological harm reduction in it's many forms, some of which are societal in nature (fitting in, for example).

I'm not advocating for caving to peer pressure against someone’s will, I’m saying that voluntary personal choices that include societal considerations can contribute to a foundation of long term psychological harm reduction.

In simpler terms, finding your people and fitting in can help you feel better both mentally and physically.

As you've stated you're not forcing your opinion on others, we can agree to disagree on where the lines are with no real consequences.

Might be worth considering that not all harm is physical or immediate, when assessing what constitutes harm reduction.

They aren't mutually exclusive concepts, both can be true.

The point was that guarding ideas didn't start with formalised copyright.

Are actions gold now, last i looked they were still a bit shonky?

The name is very specifically a reference to america

Randidly Ghosthound, from the series with the same name.

The book is great as well, there is also a prequel book "The Boy On The Bridge"

Isn’t this what bootstrapping is for? Manually set up the system to the point it can be taken over by ci/cd

Indeed, was just wondering if there was some industry standard i was missing that was a bit more managed.

No worries if not.