> Try open sourcing a code base that is built up over the last 15 years and most of the devs no longer work there. Thats what you’re asking for many online games.
Thats pretty easy actually.
All you have to do is go into the setting page on the git repo and change the settings from private to public.
I'm sure most game devs are able to figure that one out.
Everything else that resolves was that is merely consequences for which I have little pitty for.
The vast majority of people in the USA do not want to destroy the state of Israel so I am not sure why you are making some conspiracy about (((zionists))) controlling big tech companies.
Basically everyone in the US is a zionist. Especially once you point out that Israel has 200+ nuclear weapons and it would be a horrible idea to try and destroy them.
What? What kind of world view is that? Surely not a factual one.
I have no view here other than what I hear from people and news. What stokes me is that people like you are really shocked and surprised when confronted with the truth.
Saying that it's a bad idea to destroy Israel absolutely is Zionist.
It's accepting that Israel will exist and attempts to destroy it should not be enacted. In this case, because of the nuclear war.
> and is getting destroyed at this very moment.
No they aren't. Russia isn't going to collapse as a country. Thats ridiculous. The worst case scenario for them is continued economic damage and a full withdrawal from Ukraine.
But Moscow going under was never on the table, and yeah if it was actually truly threaten by an invading army, I'd absolutely expect nuclear weapons to be in the table.
To apply the same thing to Israel, sure in some wild world that isn't the current universe, I could see them being pushed out of, like their current Lebanon areas and for the fighting to stop in Gaza, ect. And nuclear weapons aren't going to be used.
But that's not the same as Jerusalem being threatened. Yes, if an invade army was taking over half the country, with boots on the ground, yes the nukes would fly.
It arguably almost happened in fact, in one of the previous Arab wars. Nothing even close to that will happen any time soon though (because Israel isn't losing).
I have met only a handful of Americans that thinks Israel should not exist. They have all been for a two state solution. Yes, basically everyone in the US is a zionist.
The movement is growing slowly but surely. More and more people want nothing to do with them, and to want to cease sending tax dollars that enable them to continue their atrocities.
The implication of stopping tax dollars from going there is that they will not be able to sustain themselves. This is obvious to many people at this point in time, and this latest war against Iran has awakened even more (let alone the ongoing genocide). There are many people in the USA who wish to see the end of colonization of occupied Palestine.
A nuclear armed country wouldn't go down without a fight.
I'm also not sure who is even left to do anything about Israel. The entirety of Gaza is rubble and southern Lebanon is soon to follow. And Iran can't destroy Israel with its dwindling missile stocks, they'd need a ground army for that.
But if it actually came down to it, they would kill every last one of their enemies if their existence was actually threatened.
Given that fact, anyone who's wants it to be destroyed must have a seething deep hatred for the Palestinians and all the rest of the arabs that would die in the process.
I don't think most people out there hate the Palestinians so much that they would want to see them all die in nuclear hellfire, no.
But hey, maybe you know more people than I do that wouldn't care about the millions of Arabs that would die in the inevitable nuclear war.
Yes we know about what they call the "Samson option". The west supported and allowed an extremely brutal, unhinged colonizer do whatever it wanted right after WW2 and now everyone has to pay the price. If they use it, the entire world will suffer, not just the neighboring region. This is yet another reason why they must be quickly stopped.
We of course care about human life (unlike the occupation). I don't know what will happen. The Assad regime fell in a 10 day period after a decade+ worth of war and conflict. Things may not need to escalate to a full blown ground war, we already hear about of a lot of internal rift among the occupation. They lost 100k+ individuals who left and never came back since 2020 or so. Unlike what the occupation likes to make up, the Palestinians (and Muslims in general) do not have an issue with cohabitating with jews[1]. Many of isarelis are atheist/secular anyway, so their so called claim to the land based on that argument is non-existent, and they would probably be the first to migrate out as we see happening slowly.
> This is yet another reason why they must be quickly stopped.
Nuclear weapons are meant to stop countries from being destroyed, for every country that has thems.
Thats why countries get those nuclear weapons in the first place. To use in a last resort in case they are destroyed. They even have fancy words for it, like "mutually assured destruction".
I doubt you have invented a nuke shield. Meaning that, for all countries that have nuclear weapons, destroying them is a very bad idea.
> We of course care about human life
If you are talking so cavalierly about destroying a country that has nuclear weapons, it would not seem like you care much about the arab lives that live there. It seems like you would rather the arabs throw there lives away, for nothing, for decades to come. All for some silly obsession with destroying a nuclear armed country, no matter how many women and children have to die along to way to fail to do much of anything against them.
Just look around you dude. Gaza is entirely rubble. Most of Israel's enemies are in shambles, and former enemies of Israel from decades past have strong alliances with Israel now.
The axis of resistance failed. And coping about it will just get more arabs killed for nothing. Most people don't want to throw their lives away for nothing. They want to move on and have peace. And it is rich to see foreigners so giddy about the idea of more dead arabs sacrificing themselves for the cause.
But hey, its not like it really matters much anymore. I expect that Israel's enemies and Gaza's fate is sealed at this point, and when immigration opens up in a couple years 1/3rd to half of the population there will resettle outside of palestine. Its sad, but hey, most people there don't want to live in tents forever.
> The Assad regime fell
They didn't have nuclear weapons. And if they did, most people who aren't stupid would be hesitant about trying to destroy them.
> the Palestinians (and Muslims in general) do not have an issue with cohabitating with jews
Then the solution is simple. Give up on the idea of trying to destroy a nuclear armed country. Easy right? Just accept peace instead of risking the lives of all the arabs in the region for a doomed goal that only will kill many many many more arabs if it ever came anyone close to being enacted.
Politics shift extremely quickly, and it's very well known that only a handful of people in power support the zionist entity. There are no real alliances with israel from Muslim nations if that's what you are alluding to. Maybe one or two rulers are attempting to form some sort of deal, but this does not sit well with the population at all. Remember that you have ~2 billion Muslims, and the Palestinian issue is one of the most important, if not the most important issue for all of them.
WW2 left a lot of destruction, yet things got rebuilt and the world moved on. The mongols left a trail of destruction and atrocities, but the victims recovered. What's happening today is no different. This is not to make light of the suffering of the victims of the zionists, but it means that they will not give up.
This is not an Arab issue, it's a Muslim issue. The zionists are trying to make it a racial issue (as a form of projection), but it's far from it.
> They didn't have nuclear weapons.
They had chemical weapons that they used on civilians.
What these latest conflicts have shown is how weak and frail the occupation is, it has always been the case. The internal rift going on there may very well expand to a civil war. There are many ways out of this instead of brute military force that eliminates everyone.
Iran is still standing, and the war that now the whole world knows israel is behind, has made so many people stand up against them. We are seeing people convert to Islam from all different racial and religious backgrounds. Injustice will not last forever. There are even American politicians making it clear they do not receive funding from AIPAC when they run. Give it a generation or two, their public perception is down the drain, and they know this all too well, and they're panicking.
> Then the solution is simple. Give up on the idea of trying to destroy a nuclear armed country. Just accept peace instead
We have no issues with peace. Give back the land to its native people, and they will decide who stays and who leaves. The western nations that enabled this genocide and colonialist project can take in those who leave.
> The western nations that enabled this genocide and colonialist project can take in those who leave.
The much much more likely situation is that a third of gazans leave based on plans that western governments have made for gaza that are already public.
Thats the outcome that those groups are currently on a clear trajectory towards, that might not even be stoppable at this point, TBH.
Then what? More yelling online about "zionists" doesn't rebuild the mass rubble that gaza has already been turned into.
But hey, feel free to check up on gaza in a year and see if things have gotten any better, or if it has instead just been more people sacrificing their lives for nothing with no progress towards a better future.
Decades of unjustifiable regional conflict used to manufacture consent for Israel to invade and indefinitely occupy portions of Syria, Jordan and Egypt?
Because that's the precedent that Israel has set for themselves. It's not a very popular plan outside of the Knesset, as this war has proven.
There are not large 40 thousand plus armed terrorists groups that have been being armed for decades and have been shooting rockets at Israel for years in either Jordan or Egypt. And Syria has significantly improved their relations with Israel recently.
Nobody in those countries are seriously suggesting that there is going to be some war with Israel anytime soon, and relations are as good as they have ever been.
They are actually designated as a terrorist organization by a very large number of countries. Almost every country in that region does, and around the world.
Also, they do all sorts of things. The big one was contributing to the deaths many people in syria. I think thats more than enough for countries to call them a terrorist organization as they do now.
Nobody in those countries believes that Israel is fighting a defensive war. They refuse to assist Israel until the US steps in, and even then they draw pretty hard lines in the sand. Jordan doesn't trust Israeli administration of the West Bank; Syria wants the Golan Heights to stop expanding into Al-Quneitra, and resents the Druze separatism that Likud supports.
Every politician in these countries are preparing for a long-term campaign of Israeli interference, subterfuge and misinformation. Even the US is preparing for Israel's forever war.
The yelling is not only happening online, we're starting to see a shift in policy. As I mentioned, the sentiment for the zionist entity in the USA is in the dirt among the younger generation. This isn't just about Gaza, it's about the entire world now. The entity has no issues literally dragging the world in to WW3. People are waking up.
There isn't a non-military, non bomb use for the amount of Uranium that Iran was enriching up to the levels that they were doing so.
All the things that you talked about do not require doing what Iran was doing. Meaning that... the only motivation left would be the 1 single thing that does require that much enrichment to those levels.
Hitting this from another angle, it doesn't make any strategic sense as for why Iran would sacrifice all that it is throwing away, just to get some medical research benefits. That would be a poor deal, and Iran isn't stupid.
Israel has a modern military and 200+ nuclear weapons that they would absolutely use in a last resort scenario (like all countries would). They are not going away anytime soon, nor are their days numbered.
Like geez, we can't even get rid of North Korea, how are people expecting to successfully destroy a nuclear armed power without getting everyone else in that area killed? Its delusional.
Unlike North Korea, Israel is highly globally economically integrated. I’ve only ever seen anti-Zionists propose defeating the state the same way the last apartheid state (and Israel’s nuclear weapon development partner) was: a mix of extreme economic and diplomatic pressure.
> a mix of extreme economic and diplomatic pressure.
None of which matters if the demand that you are making on them would amount to (in their opinion, not yours) their own destruction. There is no threats that you can enact on them that would ever cause them to voluntarily do what they believe would destroy their own country and the people/military living their would rather go out fighting. Of which they are capable of doing so, with that modern military and 200+ nuclear weapons.
Thats the thing about those strategies. If the other party just refuses to budge, it doesn't really matter how much diplomatic or economic pressure that you put on the nuclear armed power. They can just refuse the demands and you are out of luck.
> 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.
> What are the legal consequences of not releasing a functioning server if for some reason you can't?
How about "the government forces you to release the code"? That's seems fair.
Unless you hid your source code in USB drives under your bed, the government can probably just force GitHub (or similar )to release it. I bet they've got it backed up.
The government will release it with all the copyrighted code and assets that's owned by a bunch of third-parties?
Ex. if I license my artwork, music, characters, code library, etc. to a game developer and they don't create a legally releasable version of their server, then the government will forcibly break our licensing agreement and I just get screwed?
So you're assuming game devs write every line of code in their server infrastructure. First, could be using a third party library you have license to use on a limited number of machines that make up your backend servers. Second you could be paying for third party API access to something like snowflake.
You either have to rip out the code (which may or may not break the server, but still requires developer time to do) or write replacement code which likely takes even more dev time to do or you would have done it instead of paying for the library/access to the service.
Of the 7 AAA games I’ve been part of making, not a single one used HTTP (well, not as a primary driver of anything), HTML, CSS or anything that could be construed as a “web technology” so, what are you talking about please?
What I'm saying is you have programs running on user machines, and programs running on your machines. There's an interface between those two over a network. There's a problem that consumers face today where they pay to play games that are not functional without data flowing over that interface.
There's a claim that implementing the backend side of that interface is so complex and impossible or too difficult/time consuming/etc to design in a way without 3rd party dependencies.
I'm asking: what are those 3rd party libraries doing? And why can't you design server APIs and client code in a way to provide a different backend if consumers need to do it themselves when you stop supporting the game?
I'm not interested in hypotheticals. In AAA games that you have worked on, concretely what 3rd party code did your servers rely on that would prevent you from distributing either the server itself or sufficient description of the servers' behavior to allow a reimplementation?
And even if we're talking hypotheticals: stupid example. I haven't worked on a backend where the actual server infrastructure wasn't open source, trivial to open source because it was first party, or irrelevant because the only thing that matters would be the API and protocols, which again, trivial to make open.
I'm actively trying to remove my own ignorance of the domain which is why I posed the question! You're not breaking confidentiality by saying "I need X to solve Y problem which is offered by Z and we can't expose even the application layer interfaces." Right now it sounds like you don't have an answer, or even understand the question.
Getting all defensive and not answering it doesn't really help your industry's case here.
Web servers, message brokers, physics engines, anti cheat, fraud detection, flood mitigation, ranking systems, chat moderation, match making systems. There are thousands of possible components which may have been licensed in any given game server system. In some cases the entire game engine runs on the server.
I guess what surprises me here is how much of this is 3p code that couldn't possibly be distributed. Like why would you not be using an open source web server, or widely available message broker? Things like chat moderation/match making/anti cheat/etc seem like add on services that would be implemented per game (well, maybe not match making) and aren't relevant to the problem that the "stop killing games" people are trying to solve.
Frankly it's none of your business why, and it's completely irrelevant. The fact is that this 3p code exists and this law needs to account for it or it's unworkable.
This is kind of needless aggression that doesn't help non domain experts understand.
I've worked on a lot of complicated and deeply optimized networked applications. They're almost all closed source. I know exactly how I would design a system to support these kinds of initiatives. What I'm curious about is why that's impossible for game developers, because either I'm missing something, or game developers are just bad at software design.
The "server" being the computer program not running on a user device. The intent of the initiative is to allow people to substitute or replace that program to allow the game to continue to function even if the original publisher/developer disables access to it.
It's pretty obvious to me as a gamer and engineer what the intent and design constraints are here, so I'm just wondering what makes this seem impossible?
And how do they force release of all the proprietary dependencies? Overriding contract law is a hell of a lift, and a terrible precedent.
The whole "Stop Killing Games" movement is deeply misguided, and most of the people supporting it have absolutely no clue about how software or anything computer related actually works.
> do you really believe a basic income funded by it will make up that loss? It won't.
Almost definitionally it would. If society is saving a bunch of money on all that saved labor, that extra value is still there, it just needs to be appropriately redistributed
It doesn't have to be criminally illegal. Instead it could simply be civil. The apartment complex, which you do not own, would be the ones setting the rules here.
And you, of your own free choice, would have the choice to either follow the rules or go live somewhere else. The person you are responding to doesn't have an issue with you smoking in your own purchased home. Instead this was about apartment complexes.
And it wouldn't even have to be a law applied to you. It could be applied to the apartment complex. Apartment complexes already have to follow lots of laws. So they could simply be required to have this as a rule.
And then you, could make your libertarian choice to live there or not. Its not your apartment complex after all. And since its someone else property, they would absolutely have the free to make you not do this in their own property.
You aren't being forced to do anything that you didn't agree to. You aren't the apartment owner, you instead just signed the contract and have to follow the apartment rules.
I don't see why you get to complain about what someone else is doing with their own property. Its their property. What laws apply to them are none of your business as you simply signed the contract.
How would society benefit if all the benefit collects to the top of the pyramid? Same old trickle down? The technology isn’t inherently bad but if it comes with massive unemployment and creates social unrest while a few at the top profit… That’s what is what makes me uncomfortable.
C'mon. You know what they meant. They are clearly saying that the EFF used to to focus on pretty specific, arguably more bipartisan ideas and initiatives and now it has switched to a much more broad strategy that has strayed from its original mission. Surely, you should be able to understand this pretty basic point.
I do not agree that your statements are implied by GP, I do not agree with the suggestion that the reason for that is my incapacity to understand, and I do not agree with the new statements that you are introducing here either.
"but EFF has changed from neutral rights-focused activism into questionable political activism. "
This is saying that they strayed from their original mission. They were focused on a narrow set of beliefs before, and then it changed to focusing on unrelated and more partisan politics.
An interesting thing about this era is that things which were bipartisan in the 2000s are now seen as partisan. Some examples of things that I remember as bipartisan in the 2000s which are now seen as left-leaning ideas: NATO membership, suffrage for women, freedom from state religion, the Forestry Service, national parks.
Thats pretty easy actually.
All you have to do is go into the setting page on the git repo and change the settings from private to public.
I'm sure most game devs are able to figure that one out.
Everything else that resolves was that is merely consequences for which I have little pitty for.
reply