The French had a few thoughts about this, back in the day.

I've seen these figures all over the map.

The deaths of people in other countries are the result of their corrupt and evil governments, not Musk.

> 1,045,803 people

Amazing how specific it is! Come on, dude.

Rich man, PAC advertising

Political advertising has no effect on my vote. Does it affect yours?

Consider that Hillary outspent Trump 2:1 in the 2016 election, and lost. Same story in 2024, Trump was way outspent by Harris. Harris lost.

Advertising doesn't work if the message is bad.

But then according to the tenets of efficiency of a free market system no candidate would be spending so much on advertisement.

You can't have it both ways, (i) free market is ideal and efficient. Prices are correct and fair etc etc (ii) But doesn't apply to campaign spending.

> Political advertising has no effect on my vote. Does it affect yours?

Oddly, basically everyone says this about advertising in general, and yet it consumes approx 3% of world GDP.

Depends on your definition of a bad message. A lie can be very palatable.

I'm not worse off, just because some chucklefuck has a yacht or a jet. I'm worse off when their wealth lets them out bid me for things that are scarce. Housing is currently in short supply in in-demand areas. Access to doctors is another one. The rich still only get one vote, but let's be real, being rich means buying tons of ads pushing a rich person's agenda in the run up to an election. Also tax codes. The rich get to put their kids in private schools, rather than having better public schools. That goes for other public goods too.

I already pointed out that housing shortages are caused by government policy.

See Palisades, for example.

The cheapest option would be to leave them in place and stop monitoring. Removing them is costly, but prevents anyone from ever re-initiating the buoys. Like when they told NASA to burn up a weather satellite they did not like.

Work with some chukelfucks that don't know what they're doing and have no standards, and the cringe will go in the other direction. The gatekeeper serves a purpose. It's not arbitrary. We don't want bridges that fall down nor skyscrapers. Cars shouldn't randomly explode, either.

true. thankfully i’ve limited my exposure to annoying terribads like that.

Because they're changing out their backend CMS and have deemed it too expensive to port ask three old documentation over.

Does not explain the attempts to scrub from archives.

> the server binary doesn't start unless you have 190GiB of RAM and 38 available CPUs.

> So, we'd have to work on slimming that down

...why? My reading of the law is that you need to make the binaries accessible, you don't have to provide the hardware to run it on.

Community backlash will be fierce if it's not actually runnable.

Ubisoft doesn't have the most stellar reputation for example (I don't work there anymore) so people look at things we do by accident as if they are intentionally malicious.

Also, the California law is one law, the EU is also looking at this and it's likely to look different - that's why "Stop Killing Games" doesn't really mean anything yet, even people within the movement have differing definitions.

The key is communication. If the company says the binary has a certain min. requirement, then the vast majority of people will accept that.

Of course there'll be idiots, but I doubt you'll see a stronger backlash than to a company shutting down the servers without any solution, like they can do now.

>My reading of the law is that you need to make the binaries accessible, you don't have to provide the hardware to run it on.

if no one can run the binaries, despite them being accessible, then the regulation has failed and there will be a new movement to alter the regulation.

the spirit of the law is that i can reasonably spin up an instance of the server for me and my friends to play.

If a game is popular enough for anyone to care, some turbonerd will get the server running on a massive cloud instance, and then people will be able to play the game.

Fans have reverse-engineered and stood up servers for tons of games with no access to the server binaries. The idea that they wouldn't figure it out when given much better resources (server binaries or source code) is crazy.

>The idea that they wouldn't figure it out when given much better resources (server binaries or source code) is crazy.

i wasnt implying they couldnt figure it out.

i was implying that you would have to be an incredibly rich turbonerd to stand up a massive cloud instance for some of these games. which sort of defeats the entire goal of the regulation.

Or maybe 100 years from now, your toaster will be powerful enough to run the game.

To me this is about both preserving the access to what consumers purchased, but also future preservation of art.

Copyright is not a natural right. It is a monopoly granted by the government to creators, specifically with the goal of the progress of art and science.

Games that completely die because their servers are shut off, in my opinion should just lose copyright outright. Why should the people via the government provide you with a monopoly on publishing something that you have stopped publishing?

Kind of depends on the definition of no one.

If the company puts an artificial proof of work demanding a rack of the latest data center GPUs, that should be illegal.

If the binary has the same hardware requirements that the company used when the service was up, I see it as totally fair.

true, but i think this would be exceptionally difficult (if not impossible) to enforce.

ubisoft would surely be willing to spend an extra $500k on server hardware while developing a $25MM game, and subtlety bloat their server-side code so that they can say "this is the hardware we had to use to run it".

there are a million ways to slow down code/increase hardware requirements that look plausible.

> if no one can run the binaries, despite them being accessible, then the regulation has failed and there will be a new movement to alter the regulation.

This isn't the 2000s. People can rent a computer out of a data center. This isn't some hard problem here.

>People can rent a computer out of a data center.

how much does 190GiB of RAM and 38 CPUs go for, hourly?

Cheapest I could find on AWS was $1.848/hr for the compute, no storage.

$1,349.04/Month

(m6g.12xlarge in us-east-1)

Same for the Porsche 914.