LightHugger

He was dragged for persistently lying about it, doing everything in his power to shut down discussion of it, and being absurdly hostile on a personal level to the founder of the initiative unprovoked. Not for being against it.

what's the risk? "Oh no we might have to provide the product we sold!" Lmao. That's the right kind of risk to force on sellers in a market. Sellers risk getting penalized for not providing what they have paid for. Great. Fanastic. Sounds healthy for any market and may even increase average customer confidence enough for a surge in sales, one that can't be created by one company alone.

Ross has had a consistent vision for years and i'm not sure where this delusion otherwise is coming from. At this point i'm wondering if people like you are just astroturf bots funded by the ESA.

There is no reason to reply like this unless you are some kind of scammer with no ethics. I hope this bill bankrupts your business model.

the idea of a "shutdown bill" is absurd and irrelevant to the law being discussed unless you are a scammer being forced to refund people.

this is absurd and untrue. this is like being told you have to pour a concrete pillar 2 meters to the left of where you were planning so that you're not destroying some vital infrastructure, then bemoaning the loss of the concrete pillar industry.

Stop building games to self destruct. Once you fix your bad practices (which, you should not have been doing to begin with, pay for them once with some retooling and moving forward you don't need to pay more, then get some ethics and you will incur fewer costs like this going forward) there is no ongoing cost here.

> I'm surprised AdaFruit did something wrong here. They frequently blog about their stances on issues and seem to try to take the moral high ground on a lot of issues.

This aspect is not very surprising, it is usually moral high grounders who end up found to be doing something wrong, people like to compensate and try to put down others when they know they are in the wrong.

The car wasn't moving until they surrounded her car, that was the issue. She was blocking off traffic deliberately. She had to be arrested but tried to violently escape and was killed as a result of her actions. Please try to be more aligned with reality instead of just being a crazy person repeating false things then not acknowledging each and every time you're proven wrong, as you were here today.

The bodycam has been released, he was clearly hit by the car. The police had the car surrounded and were trying to make an arrest. She decided to escape through his body. https://x.com/nicksortor/status/2009683575298211979

Funnily enough I am a leftist, there are still some of us who aren't crazy or willing to lie for political ends :)

I just saw this as well. Here it is showing the car ramming the police officer, fortunately he was not injured. https://x.com/InsiderWire/status/2008974675171504504

She tried to run down the officer that was in front of the vehicle, not the one to the side that was holding the door handle. Turns out the bullet hole on the glass is on the front of the windshield, it's not possible if she wasn't accelerating towards the officer that fired. I can see how the video could be misleading though.

It's worth keeping in mind that the "market" for a particular player can actually be incredibly small depending on their interests. In the most extreme example, a player might be a fan specifically of a single IP or series of games. Call of duty is one good example because there really are a lot of people who are like this. Video game IPs are a government granted monopoly on a small scale, and the word monopoly is not there for no reason, there is only one place to get CoD if you are a fan of CoD. Predictably, these companies follow the OA's suggested strategy very closely!

Oh so releasing the game client is easy but releasing the game server is a legal/IP problem suddenly? I think you are concern trolling.

the racist DEI loving IBM/red hat employees and leadership did it to themselves

https://x.com/America1stLegal/status/1937994904132551029

I hope every last one of these people responsible lose their jobs.

That specific set of policies is being specifically implemented by IBM/Red hat. It's not exactly a small niche company, and it is very obviously directly related to the situation and the need to fork. It's also not a partisan interpretation, it's the only objective legal interpretation. Objective truth exists despite your efforts to pretend otherwise. Yes, there are stupid ignorant people who will see the words "DEI bad" interpret it wrongly. But it doesn't make them correct.

DEI doesn't just "piss some people off", it's outright illegal discrimination and red hat's concequences are currently working their way through the court systems. This strange equivocation from things that are clearly on completely different levels is tiresome.

If you personally are one of these people who think hurting people with racial discrimination is on the same level as typing "Together we'll make X great again!" then you are likely very deep in ideological capture. Everyone regardless of political alignment who is a decent person should be able to see that one of these matters and the other does not.

> The "no DEI" bit is a common "slogan" from people who by many are seen to want to ignore discrimination and pretend it isn't a problem, often because they are seen as quite happy for discrimination to continue. As such, to a lot of people when someone makes a claim like that adjacent to claiming not to want to discriminate, it rings hollow, and in fact often signals to them that the person using that language is likely to either be a racist or is fine with racists.

This very accurately describes the pro-dei faction, i'm not sure why you'd associate that with the anti-dei faction. You know, active lawsuits and real individual examples of people being harmed by ongoing discrimination are pretty solid evidence. In the end there's only people who are for prejudiced discrimination and people against prejudiced discrimination. I don't care which flavor you have but right now the truth is Xlibre is against it and red hat is for it. Anything else simply isn't aligned with reality.

I guess it just comes down to there being a lot of insane racist people in tech right now who view any opposition to their provable-in-the-courts racism as working against their broader ideological goals and therefore a valid target for attacks on every front. Very odd and unhealthy for open source. Hopefully these people get some of their own medicine.

"repeat words back to people" isn't the problem here though anyways, it's dishonest to pretend that's what matters here. not the mass bans, censorship, one sided articles, misinformational misinterpretations, zero acknowledgement about faces, and the insane double standards where on one side you have a guy who is "political" by saying he's anti dei and welcomes everyone of various politics and identities, and on the other hand you have the DEI corporation currently embroiled in multiple lawsuits for discriminating against real people not just based on politics but their skin color. It's an insane double standard.

the xlibre guy said "no dei" in a fork that is separating from a company embroiled in racist discrimination lawsuits for using DEI to hurt real people.

Is that really involving politics? In a way it is, sure, but again, unlike red hat, IBM and friends, he has pledged not to discriminate against contributors on the basis of politics. Red hat and IBM openly continue to discriminate against contributors and employees on not only the basis of politics but skin color as well. They wield their CoC like a cudgel to get rid of anyone they don't like with no semblance of fair enforcement. It's a series of struggle sessions, man.

So, if you're accusing him of being political, but you're not accusing red hat of being political, you're probably not really accusing him of being political, you're probably just either woefully misinformed or outright racist.

Can you explain why you think someone who pledges not to discriminate against people for politics (while forking from a corp that does, it's not just a random comment, it's part of the reason a fork is needed) is more political than a company that actively discriminates against people for politics and also their skin color?

It absolutely is character assassination in the context of what's been happening. News sites that have praised the xlibre author for countless articles are suddenly doing a 180 because the people who pay their bills are the same people running wayland and embroiled in anti discrimination lawsuits for abusing DEI to hurt people.

That you care more about "make x11 great again" more than red hat and IBM perpetrating actual cases of racist discrimination tells me a lot about you. You're either in an echo chamber and do not have all the information or are deliberately choosing to ignore it. Either way you aren't in the morally just position you think you are.

This didn't happen because redhat/ibm/microsoft took control of the project and decided they wanted to kill it. They have said this directly on social media that this is their explicit goal so it's not as if this is a conspiracy of some sort, it's just their publicly stated goal. They then deliberately stopped merging changes and left it to rot until the contributors got frustrated enough to fork it.

Now a massive gamergate-esque coordinated character assassination campaign against the creator of xlibre is ongoing even from publications that have many previous articles praising the same contributor at length. Corporate control of open source is very dangerous to the ecosystem as they also fund the "journalists" writing these articles who are willing to defend every decision they make.

I directly mentioned DEI, obviously i didn't leave it out.

If you support red hat's DEI program then you are defending systematic discrimination on the basis of race and other immutable characteristics. This is an ultimately indefensible position, and one that will come back to bite you. There is nothing extreme about this position unless you are a racist extremist yourself.

You are as a human being morally bankrupt if you're willing to touch a company with multiple active discrimination lawsuits that has shown zero remorse or policy changes, but are pretending that someone mentioning DEI is a real problem (the tool which was used to implement that illegal discrimination, which he personally had to deal with.) People have an inalienable right to defend themselves in every case.

He stated everyone was welcome regardless of their race or politics. This is only a strongly political stance if you contrast it with Red Hat, whose extremist, racist and illegal discriminatory policies they implemented under the banner of DEI now has them in hot water with 3x workplace discrimination lawsuits. Honestly i don't understand how people can call xlibre political but abide by red hat's active evil.

This is false, he we the sole person submitting large amounts of code for about a year and was widely praised, until he forked and red hat went nuclear on his account for opposing their corporate goals, he was not kicked out for bad changes or anything of the sort. Trying to revise history on this is malicious.

The people like OA are spreading misinformation because the developer stated everyone was welcome to contribute and would oppose excessive politics. Keep in mind red hat is currently getting sued 3x over for blatantly racist policies which they used to ban other contributors and forced on their managers, they are evil people.

This is pretty stupid, especially this will affect the smarter people who don't even make social media profiles to begin with! They'll get accused of lying for not having one, but they're really just smart enough to stay off facebook and twitter..

Uh, he has a detailed historical view of the forces that caused WW2 and argued that the rest of world powers at the time put germany in a position that was very likely to cause the second world war. woOoOo scary, the only allowed thought pattern is "ww2 germany bad" after all. If you want to debate him on details go ahead, but trying to use this as some kind of cancel-culture fodder is a waste of everyone's brain cells.

Character assassination campaigns like this are so pathetic on so many levels. What you are doing is already worse behavior than what you're trying to accuse him of.

And that you quoted him complaining about the russian developer bans is confusing. Why do you think "not wanting people banned by their country of origin" is a bad thing? What, are you racist?

Uh, proof: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKsesO3bdv4

So like, no? are you a denuvo associate? Or what's the story here, what are your credentials?

Not only has not not been debunked, it's been proven to be true. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKsesO3bdv4

I don't understand why there are people always defending denuvo every time it comes up. Are you associated with denuvo directly or indirectly? Are you an ordinary gamer but for some reason post falsities to try to look superior?

I don't think is exaggerated by gamers, if anything it's widely understated. The issue is that denuvo affects the 1% lows and latency much more than the average FPS. But the 1% lows and latency have an outsized effect on player experience, average framerate can be the same but if 1% lows and latency are miserable then you are playing a completely different game.

You are not wrong about the additional failure of AAA to keep their games optimized but the ways denuvo affects performance are particularly insidious.