On the visa and Mastercard thing I very much agree. In theory they are a business, and can chose who to do business with. But the free market pressures don’t exist to impact the decisions they make. So instead of them being influenced by customer sentiment, they are actually influenced by large organization with an agenda. That agenda is usually just a BS reason to build the organization and make specific people rich. It doesn’t represent the will of the people. So… they should be treated more like a utility. Places are refusing to take cash these days, so it is an easy argument that they function like a utility.

Interesting point. But in general, who are the people complaining in the wrong spot. I suspect people basically are complaining in thier echo chambers… social media. And likely noone cares. But then the media jumps in and picks it up. So is the media to blame? I read a story about a lady in Britain I think who had like 89 followers and made a statement. It went viral. Suddenly her statement to her echo chamber was in the news. It ruined her life actually.
So are we saying the media should be banned on reporting what is said inside echo chambers, or are we saying public posting of opinions should be banned?

People are free to pressure retailers on what to sell and what not too. Saying they can’t would be far worse. And the retailer is doing the job of making money… by following the 2ishes of the populace. This is the free market capitalist society we live in. Completly sucks, but it is consistent.

That is what he is saying while trying not to make it obvious he is saying that. Clearly hegseth ordered it.

The good of the one, or few, over the good of the many. This is a human trait. It is the same trait that allowed homo sapiens to become the dominate species. It will be hard to evolve out of it. Seeing reality is a major cause of depression in my opinion.

Someone who claimed to have played the game said the privates were sensored.
The game concept feels very political, not sexual from what I am hearing.
My guess is the AI just flagged it, and noone actually reviewed it. Now that it is news, they don’t want any bad press, so they are standing by the ban, when otherwise they might have reversed it.

Um, he didn’t say he was deciding for others, he said he could understand how others would be hesitant… sounded like he was supporting your very point that people have a right to have their own opinion.

I don’t think the bubble will burst like we are used to. AI is part of the arms race between nations. So they will shore the industry up at all costs.
As for the choice to shut down the brand. It will be years before all that infra gets built. Better to sit the time out and revive the brand when prices are reasonable enough that hobbyists and such are willing to pay them.

Well, you can sue for anything in civil court… But if they tried to sue the person, and not the gov, it would get tossed immediately. And the courts have established very narrow conditions to allow it if the act happened outside the US.

Time to break st Luigi out of jail.

What courts? The UN courts? The manual covers international law interpretation.

The manual is for interpretations of international law. Not US law. So no congress involved.

You saying how it “should” be. But nothing stops them ftom changing the standard retroactively, which is relevant because it means change the standard now, and judge people’s actions based on the new standard. They can do that. They shouldn’t, but they can. And this guy certainly would if it was in his favor.

I am willing to bet that nothing in it rules out retroactive changes. It’s a manual, not the letter of law. And really, it is more of a guide.

Perhaps the core problem is that the people expected to follow the rules get to make them too. That usually works out well.

When you start needing reading glasses, you’ll know. I have a phone for outside the house and a tablet for home. I would much rather just have one device be both.

So I looked it up. The DoD owns the manual. They can change it if they want. And it is an interpretation of international law. So technically, what was done is legal per US law. International law is pretty sketchy. Since it lacks robust enforcement, it pretty much means nothing unless a world power decides it does. So she may technically be right on that one. But of course the question shouldn’t be if it was legal. It should be was it “right”. Which it most certainly was not.

Technicality question. Doesn’t the sec def make the rules for the manual. Like he can just change them on a whim. And the manual isn’t law, congress didn’t vote on it right? So it might technically be legal under US law. Though I doubt the airhead knows anything about that. As for war crimes and such… the US has been killing whoever it wants for a long time now. But… throwing the admiral under the bus… that could have real consequences that I can’t wait to see.

On the flip side what choice will they have after sony’s AI gets them cut off by claiming rights to the pictures of thier own kids on facebook. They will need lots of tech to get back online. And we know there are people who will find a way to make it dead simple.

Only if the private biz sells meth