• 3 Posts
  • 917 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 31st, 2023

help-circle




  • they exist, in large part, because articles like this normalize it

    This complaint is missing the forest for trees.

    Special classes of people have existed for as long as civilization has exited. Leaders and followers, kings and peasants, the wealthy and the poor, etc. As animals, it’s in the nature of some of us to desire a greater share of resources and luxury at the cost of depriving others from having the same.

    An article repeating the notion of people with specific skin tones are part of a privileged class isn’t the problem, it’s just a symptom of the problem. The problem is the bigots who put that into practice, singling out and causing problems for people with specific tones while providing benefits to those with other specific tones. Getting rid of public acknowledgement about class disparity isn’t going to get rid of class disparity, it’s just going to get rid of discussion about class disparity. The racists will still be there, being racist.





  • He’s the same with EGS. “A store with a 30% fee and a price-dictating monopoly is not ideal” is a simple message to agree with. Yet somehow he’s turned that into radioactive sludge.

    The somehow:

    • Creating EGS for the benefit of the seller, not the consumer
      • Lower fees are pocketed by the publisher
      • No public reviews
      • No forums or workshop equivalent
      • Refusing to add warning labels about things people care about (DRM, AI generation, etc.)
    • Failing to benefit small games
      • Poor on-platform discoverability for games
    • Using anti-consumer tactics to drive adoption
      • Paying third-party devs for permanent exclusivity
      • Paying third-party devs for timed exclusivity
      • Paying influencers to push narratives that “steam bad for you, Epic good”





  • Also not a lawyer, but in the past, I did a lot of research into how intellectual property works in the United States.

    I’ve heard it over and over that trademark owners are legally required to defend their trademarks from potential violators like this, or they can lose the trademark.

    This isn’t entirely true. As long as the trademark is actually renewed, it doesn’t need to be aggressively defended.

    There are a couple of reasons why they might choose to defend it regardless. One of the major ones is to deter other entities from thinking they too could get away with violating it. An actual, legally-relevant reason to defend it would be to prevent the mark from genericization. That’s when a trademark like a brand name colloquially becomes used to refer to an entire class of products, such as with the Escalator™.

    For an example of a company whose trademark was at risk of genericization, look no further than Nintendo. They saved it by defending the trademark tooth and nail while using marketing to reinforce that their product is the Nintendo and not a Nintendo. If people had kept referring to video game consoles as “Nintendos” like they used to back in the 80s and 90s, another company may have been able to successfully challenge the trademark and opened the flood gates for products like the “Microsoft® Xbox 720 nintendo”. Nintendo the corporation is still a bunch of overly-litigous assholes, but back then, they actually needed to be.

    In Eminem’s case, it’s probably as a deterrent. Unless people have started referring to Caucasian rappers as “eminems” without me noticing, his brand is at absolutely no risk of being genericized.



  • Agreed. The call trace shows it occurred as part of a drm_ function, which is related to the DRM (Direct Rendering Manager) subsystem.

    There’s a chance it might not be the root cause, but the more obvious answer is that the Nvidia driver managed to corrupt a kernel data structure.