He said, addressing Russian leaders: “Don’t you have enough land? Eleven time zones and still not enough? Take care of better governing what is within your borders according to international law.”
I understand the sentiment, but I don’t like the pointless polemic. I mean, he’s the foreign minister, he very well knows that this stopped being a landgrab the moment the war wasn’t over within a week…
I’d say it’s more like your hairdresser tracking how long you are in their store and what haircut you get- but you do you!
I’m not married to the analogy, just totally flabbergasted that “Using your own software on your own computer when and how you see fit without being watched” appears to be a slightly controversial aspiration for no (to me) apparent reason. Evidently I’m missing something, not explaining myself very clearly or both.
I run all my games in Linux and everything but Steam goes via Lutris which I configured to, by default, launch them inside a Firejail sandbox with no network access (plus a bunch of other security related limitations) something which I can override for specific games if needed.
That sounds like a neat setup! And no messing around with firewall rules either. I’ll have to look into it.
That’s the thing, though. I respect the analogy, but the equivalent here would be if the game was also checking your drive for other games, for financial apps, scanning your browser’s cookies to see which sites you visit, etc.
If, while playing a singleplayer game, they’re recording what actions you take within that singleplayer game, it’s understandable some people wouldn’t even want that - but I also don’t see that as nearly so invasive as other data travesties. Worse, highlighting it here feels like a “cry wolf” situation where you’d desensitize people to the most harmful privacy breaches.
Again, I don’t doubt that you do not see it as an incredibly invasive thing. I’m lamenting that you (and many) don’t.
You’re doing something on your computer. Locally. In your own time. With a thing that is - ostensibly - yours. Why is it even remotely acceptable that some corporate entity is watching you over your shoulder while you do it? I’m running out of words to express how nuts this seems to me.
I’m sorry, but that’s a terrible analogy. In the gaming scenario, Ubisoft is collecting the data on their own product usage
Well, in the corporate software-as-a-service insane troll logic hellscape in which we live that could indeed make sense. Mind you, that’s not meant to be a rant against you but against the fact that this train of thought has indeed been completely normalized.
In the fantasy world of the past into which I’d like to go back to live happily it is precisely not Ubisoft’s product. It’s mine. I bought it - none of what I do with it is any of Ubisoft’s business. The business transaction has been concluded. If they want to know what I do with my game then they can ask me nicely about it. I’ll certainly not allow them to install a proverbial camera over the executable.
It’s not a good analogy, I agree, but I’m too angry to come up with a better one right now.
Based on the article text, it’s only citing things like how long you play. I thought most games collected telemetry like this?
A commonplace travesty is still a travesty and metadata is still data. If my hairdresser asked me “Hey, in addition to me cutting your hair and you giving me money I’d also like you to constantly keep me updated on your sleep schedule, your vacation plans, marital status changes and the myriad of other things that can be directly gleaned from aggregate timeline data - all the other hairdressers have started doing it as well!”, I’d likely look at them incredulously for a few seconds while silently imagining stabbing them with their own scissors.
Calling it “telemetry” has somehow normalized it over the past decades, I suppose? I just don’t understand how anyone could ever accept this as normal.
I don’t know but that’s what the post you were replying to stated and you just ignored it.
I do tend to ignore posts that come without references or explanations, that’s true.
But that’s beside the point I was raising - I’ll rephrase: I find it hard to believe that there is anything two Middle European kids vacationing in Hawaii could ever do to even remotely approach any sane definition of ‘working without a permit’ to warrant immediate deportation. Whether they did or didn’t actually intend to defraud the Federal Government over 20$ in beach bar tip money taxes doesn’t really factor into that argument, does it?
It seems like themselves admitted that they intended to work?
In what capacity?
It seems like a bit of a stretch to frame two teenagers wishing to go island-hopping as part of their post-graduation world trip as “intending to work” 😜
Deportation appears to be about as appropriate here as sending the SWAT team after someone who dropped a candy wrapper.
Was wäre denn die Folge, wenn die Mehrheitsbevölkerung in einem Land diese Haltung hätte? Man müsste eine feindliche Übernahme einfach akzeptieren. Dass es sich dabei wahrscheinlich für die meisten Menschen nicht zum besseren wendet und man an Freiheiten verliert, wird dabei nicht berücksichtigt.
Da das Buch noch nicht auf gängigen Trackern verfügbar zu sein scheint, kann ich das zwar grad nicht nachlesen, aber zumindest von den Zitaten her klingt es eher so, als würde der Autor sich explizit gegen Waffengewalt aussprechen und nicht für absolute Neutralität oder Konfliktvermeidung eintreten. Gibt ja offensichtlich tausendundeins andere - und diskutabel bessere - Wege, Interessen durchzusetzen und Regierungen auszutauschen, als tausende junge Menschen mit dem Schießgewehr in die Gräben zu schicken.
A hot potatoe that an autocratic regime living on borrowed time has to keep juggling out of self-preservation.
You’re styling it as “blow to pride”, but I’m quite certain that if that catastrophic drain on Russian resources and lives just… ended tomorrow without any tangible strategic gains (like a sustained destabilization of NATO) then people would literally start dying. Not the poor expendable footsoldiers, but people in charge. Can’t have that, so gotta keep expending that infantry.