ImplyingImplications

Someone's morals push them to dictate having the 10 Commandments in classrooms. My morals push me to oppose that happening

It's not like we must choose between a law mandating everyone must do something or a law mandating its forbidden. There can also just be no law or some nuanced law. It's not black or white. Saying you're against a law requiring the 10 commandments being in all classrooms doesn't mean you support a law banning the 10 commandments from all classrooms.

I'm a vegetarian. If I asked everyone to sign an initiative called "stop killing animals" that sought to make it illegal to sell animal products wouldn't that make me a dick for trying to dictate what companies can sell and what people can consume? You think it's morally wrong to shut down an online game. I think it's morally wrong to eat an animal.

There's nothing wrong with voicing your opinion, but trying to push through a law that conforms to your moral view of the world is weird. It's exactly the same mentality of people who want it to be the law that the ten commandments are in every classroom.

I'm fine with having more consumer protection and making it clear if a company is selling ownership or temporary access. Right now it's often not clear and that is definitely an issue. But completely making the sale of temporary access illegal is just strange. If you dont agree to temporary access, then don't buy it. There are many games that are being sold DRM free, you own them completely, and they'll work forever. Nobody is forcing anyone to buy something they don't agree with.

I watched a mahjong anime and it was pretty good.

This argument is more along the lines of what is actually being argued by AI companies in court. Style cannot be copyrighted. They argue AI is simply recreating a style.

The problem with this is that, in order to recreate a style, AI needs to be trained on that content. So if an AI starts reproducing art in the same style as a popular artist, it must have inherently been fed a whole bunch of that artist's work. Artists claim this is a violation of copyright since they never agreed for their art to be used in that way. The AI companies argue fair use also allows use of copyrighted works for teaching or training. An art class can use a popular artist's work as examples of how to recreate a certain style. Of course, training AI is different than training a group of students. Is it different enough that fair use doesn't apply is the question being decided on in court.

My guess is he wants to monetize the onlyfans posters. "Subscribe to my subreddit for $5 a month!"

Tragedy of the commons

I'm honestly impressed that an orc learned to type.

Maybe it's Orange Crush?

Osaka, no! That isn't what a light lunch means!

"Wait these are edible??"

*disappointment*

The exact opposite happened to me. My work was having an employee appreciation BBQ and said they'd be serving hotdogs and burgers. I packed my own lunch since I'm vegetarian. I ate my lunch in the cafeteria alone to avoid explaining why I wasn't eating hotdogs and burgers. I went out after to hang out with everyone and as the BBQ is ending the manager threw out a bunch of food and staff were like "Woah what if someone wanted to take those home??" And the manager said "they're veggie dogs and burgers. I guess nobody is vegetarian here". He even said he made sure the meat was kosher/halal so anyone could take part in the staff appreciation BBQ. Like...bruh...thank you.

Lol. I had a chemistry prof in university that every year, when teaching dilution, mixed up a solution of arsenic that was 2x the lethal dose and then diluted it over and over and over and then drank the water.