conciselyverbose

joined 2 years ago
[–] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Try right clicking and "save as"? On mobile Safari it pops up with view and download as options.

[–] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago

Not that other means of accessing the passwords aren't worth considering, but in the real world, it takes a lot more for someone to actually coerce your password from you than to use unencrypted storage.

I generally like xkcd, but this is a harmful trivialization of the value of encryption. In the real world, anything that isn't encrypted is negligent as hell. There's no valid reason not to do it, with maybe the exception of a thumb drive you're sharing across a computers you don't control and are clearly aware is not secure.

[–] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 6 points 2 years ago

Best guess literally a bag of precooked, pre scrambled eggs dumped in a warming tray for breakfast.

[–] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 81 points 2 years ago (11 children)

Absolutely insane.

I can understand extreme cases, like some sort of disputed IP where their contact to sell the content turns out not to be with the actual rights holder, resulting in no longer serving the content (with an unconditional full refund). But past that they should be legally required to host the content until the heat death of the universe.

[–] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 25 points 2 years ago (1 children)

If they didn't have the authority, why did you settle with them?

Noticing you failed to abide by the settlement you agreed to isn't new authority.

[–] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 8 points 2 years ago

Facebook will just disable the app with some warning and redirect people visiting from Safari.

[–] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 7 points 2 years ago

No, it wouldn't. The relevant companies aren't the ones that want that 30% cut back. They're the ones who want to be malware and are reigned in by Apple's policies.

Google lets them do whatever they want so they have no reason to add friction.

[–] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago

Nintendo is incompetent.

PS5 and Xbox both control what runs on their systems perfectly fine.

[–] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Of course I have. They just don't have any bearing in any context on what actual genre it is.

[–] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Marketing has literally zero impact on what genre a game is.

Literally nothing but the gameplay can ever, under any circumstance, contribute to the discussion of what genre a game is.

[–] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 13 points 2 years ago

They could have not given you root access and forced you to install your own OS for it to manage things that aren't on Steam. They could have locked the bootloader and refused to install anything they didn't sign.

Neither would violate the license provided they made the source available.

[–] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago (5 children)

I am, and you're wrong.

Developers can say anything they want. Genre is defined exclusively by players and how they experience the end result. Players label games.

If a developer makes Doom and calls it a JRPG, they're wrong regardless of what their design goals were.

view more: ‹ prev next ›