Pika

and what is that going to give them? The information that they have is yes, they have an account, and that’s also saying that they used an actual number and not a VOIP number for registration. but if they are asking via phone number, they will already have that information at hand. They won’t get any information about what chats that number is part of, or even any info really at all, anything about the account is encrypted and not visible.

If they are able to provide my phone number without knowing the info you said there, there is some other leak already involved, and either way they won’t get anything but a “yes he has an account and he was last connected on X”

In terms of end-to-end encryption I don’t mind if they have my phone number or not, if it’s done right.

Let’s use signal for example, because honestly they do it pretty decently, the most information that you can obtain from signal in a data information request is the date and time that an account is created, and the last time the account went online.

Actual content such as the user’s contact list, the people that user was talking with(including groups), and of course the messages that you sent are fully end to end encrypted meaning that signal does not have access to it meaning that they cannot give that information out in a data information request as they never had it in the first place.

The most that signal is able to confirm in a data information request, is yes this specific account ID has a signal account and this is the last time they went online.

I know you didn’t directly say it but it’s implied so I wanted to clarify.

telegram chat isn’t E2E, the only E2E on the platform is secret chats, which is only available to mobile users of the platform and not enabled by default. It does have client-server encryption but, in the terms of privacy that is worthless if you don’t trust the host (and it opens the host up to legal information requests as it has the capability of decrypting the messages)

Yeah but the two party consent states for recording imply that it’s in a private location, there is nothing stopping anyone from recording someone in a public location.

It doesn’t matter what the Stateside law of indicates whether it’s public or private, it’s already been decided by the Supreme Court that recording in a public area is a protection that’s given under the First Amendment. This right to record has been challenged a few times by state representatives such as the 2007 case in Massachusetts where it went up to the first district appeals court, and back in 2021 in the Fraiser versus Evan’s case which went all the way up to the Supreme Court.

As a general rule of thumb, if you’re in a public area there is no expectation of privacy so therefore anything goes, this protection generally includes someone standing in a private area recording an area that is considered a public area, and in some cases even include someone who is standing in a public area recording it supposed to private area due to lack of obstruction from that public area (such as someone standing on the street outside a house recording an unobstructed window)

But as you said IANAL

edit:

That being said, because I realize I forgot to add this to the post. I am super against the entire idea of AI based goggles that’s able to identify people in real time. That is such a violation of what should be basic privacy that honestly I think it’s too far

They realized that most people will just cave and not actually go through the hassle of Defending themselves in court, so therefore why not

that would be a trademark or copyright suit not a patent suit. Patents are strictly mechanics, they didn’t sue on design, I agree I think they had a better case on that, but the Nintendo lawyers decided otherwise

the problem is, palworld isn’t “pokemon with guns”, they used that slogan originally sure, but palworld 100% shows more similar mechanics and concepts to ark then pokemon, it’s a mix of pokemon style mechanics and Arks RPG mechanics. I would say they had a stronger suit against trademark than they did mechanics side.

The only game mechanic similarity between the two is the ball capture system and the fact that it’s called a trainer/leader when you battle the NPC’s anything else is already present in other games.

By this logic, any game that features the ability to tame or capture monsters would be a pokemon clone. That’s far too broad of a category to allow as a patent if challenged. I personally believe it will result in them losing the patent as a whole if it is that patent they are fighting with.

I use graveyard mods for it, gives me at least a chance but lowers challenge some

paralives is so slow development though, and the lack of teaser releases concerns me about the quality. I have high expectations for it as well but starting to grow concerned

That’s the downside of having the invisible boatmobile, they just keep coming

Yet another reason that copyright really needs to be revamped hardcore. You should not be able to retroactively revoke a license in that way and the entire idea of yeah I license you to be able to use this for x amount of years is ridiculous to me either you can use the Media or you can’t.

It’s monopolistic practice is soley due to its market share, that alone is enough to. It’s a monopoly that isn’t anti-competitive, it’s inherently not bad, as long as it isn’t being Abused, many misconstrue anti-competitive as monopolistic, the term doesn’t go hand and hand. Monopolistic competition exists when many companies offer competing products or services that are similar, but not perfect substitutes. This is valve at the moment with steam. Alternatives exist but none come even close to being a full substitute. but that’s OK it isn’t a bad thing, but it doesn’t change the fact it’s monopolistic.

As for the gog thing, maybe it is easier than I thought, if so I’m surprised that no other game store has done so, steam dedicated an entire division to it and it still has a lot of issues with functionality and usage.

I agree with almost all of your viewpoints , however I believe that steam has engaged in monopolistic practices. The difference in market share between Steam and any other game launcher is night and day, it is the online game store. That being said that’s not always a bad thing as they have shown

They have a higher than average fees that is for sure, but they also have a significantly bigger feature set than any other store out there. Like when you launch a game on Steam you have a game publishing with built-in DLC support, you have a built-in mod Workshop, you have the review system, you have a built-in DRM if that’s something that you wanted to do, you also have access to a community forum for bug reporting and discussions, not to mention you have the entire steam proton system and the VR system at your disposal both of which are Super complicated to set up stand alone.

Their Workshop, while it takes a 75% cut, is mostly for the Cosmetic items or the trading items were steam does almost exclusively all of the work for it. Basically the only thing the dev team has to do for it is upload the image for the item and the cost that it thinks that item is worth and then steam does the rest. At that point the 75% cut while steep, makes sense to me

Every other reason that they provided in that video, seemed to either hyperbolize the impact of it or disregard what is concidered standard. like for example pricing parity that’s an industry standard, any reputable shop has the same system, and if there is any place that’s different, they actively try to have similar pricing. Hell Walmart hires people strictly to go to their competitors to make sure that their pricing is the same as their competitors. The attribution agreement while I don’t believe should be legal, isn’t anti-competitive, it is anti-consumer but not anti-competitive. I am also super against the fact that technically every game is a license but again that’s not anti-competitive that’s anti-consumer.

I firmly believe that if a game competitor decided to have an equal feature set to the steam launcher, eventually they would be able to give steam a run for their money. Which is not something I can say the same of with companies such as Google which has been proven to actively manipulate the market and use their position of power as a way to keep competitors out, be it by making it so third-party browsers can’t use DRM, or doing things such as manipulating your web results that way your competitors do not appear. I have never seen steam do this

deleted by creator

I’m guilty as charged with using YouTube’s new AI feature to summerize videos so I don’t need to watch them

Only for premeire club and that was already a thing from what I understand

After reading the article and the links in the article, I’m not seeing anywhere where they stated the chats there requesting information on were public chats, did you have a source that discussed that I could read up on? It sounds fairly interesting to me.

wait mysims still exists? I loved my sims kingdom!

Sorry the typo on there was fully accidental, and a bit ironic concidering the context lmao

and yea if it works it works!

I might be able to read this on light mode but, on dark mode + that layout it’s hard

not as bad as the 1 word speed reader but still it’s almost impossible to focus on. I’m impressed that you are able to