That is patently not what I was arguing. If they don’t raise the price past $60 they’ll just be incentivized to get it through predatory micro transactions.
And by arguing a business practice is unsustainable I’m not saying that entire industry pays employees in an equitable way.
If she marched for the cause of BLM adding another person from that group wouldn’t add a novel view point if that is already one of her own. As for the other groups you mentioned I think that they would be good additions. A homogeneous cabinet is pointless.
Perhaps my bolding and italics wasn’t enough. Was is in the past tense. As in not currently.
Cabinet positions are advisory and have little actually power. And not everyone “who was a Republican” is a fascist.
I agree with the sentiment on wages keeping up but I think ultimately the price isn’t as important as the value. I’ve bought a games for $60 that I’ve got 2k+ hrs in. That’s about 3 cents an hour, which I like to compare to a $15 dollar movie ticket that’s ~2-3 hrs of entertainment ($5-7.5 hr)
Obviously not everyone, myself included, gets that much out of each game. But if some games costed $140 but did give 2k hrs of gameplay (7 cents per hr) I wouldnt be bothered. To be clear I don’t think disposable AAA should jack up prices, but if the price reflects the value offered I see no issue.
On the volume thing I think we’ll probably start to plateau in the next 30 years w/ % of the total world pop consuming games, and inflation will continue. I only wish to point out that the eternal $60 price tag is something that probably should end in our lifetimes.
Not sure this is really Onion material. Diversity of thought is very important. If elected a cabinet of yes men might do her some harm. Even one dissenting voice can at least demonstrate how non partymembers might react to her plans. Allowing her to cater them to better appeal to a larger amount of the nation’s people.
The fact so much of the games industry has latch to $60 as ‘the price’ for decades is shocking. It’s an unsustainable practice and will increasingly make companies lean more on post launch predatory practices.
Word of mouth
Modern designed production firearms have internal safeties that prevent the firing pin from moving forward if the trigger isn’t pulled.
That video is on single action revolvers which have been out of vogue for over a century.
Skip to 1:40
No American court is going to hold an American company who fired (presumably) an American who (presumably) works on American soil liable under that. You’d be better off looking for local statutes that offer protections.
Webster offers a lay definition not a legal definition. Often in law words are interpreted to have meanings different than they normally would. For example a company would be considered to be a person for the purposes of a law saying “No person shall dump oil in the river”.
You don’t need permission for true parody but changing the lyrics (unless you do so to comment on the original work or author) isn’t that.
Take Amish Paradise. It commented a bunch on the Amish. But it didn’t say anything about Coolio or Coolio’s work.
The issue is there is not clear commentary on either Cash or the Barbie song. Perhaps it’s meant to be contextually interpreted in a specific situation to act as commentary on something else, where it might be satire. And the fact that the two melded together offers a funny juxtaposition isn’t necessary commentary.
What does the author think of Johnny Cash or the Barbie song? What does he mean when he has the Beach Boys sing 99 Problems? The Red Hot Chili Peppers video from 10 months ago probably would get parody status. Because what they sound like to people who don’t like them is actually commentary on the band. But so many of his works we can ask what should society walk away with from “Hank Williams sings Straight Outta Compton”? There simply is no message or commentary in most of these.
While a parody targets and mimics the original work to make a point, a satire uses the original work to criticize something else entirely.
If anything granting it satire status is generous.
It’s a composition in the style of Johnny Cash that’s meant to be funny. That’s parody.
That’s satire. In the US for something to be parody it has to be a commentary on the original work(s) or author(s). A parody of Johnny Cash would be something like if they used AI to copy his song note for note but had lyrics that criticized him for portraying himself as bluecollar in his music despite his wealth.
Parody receives higher protection than satire because the parodist is actually trying to make a statement. Most “music parody” like that of Weird Al is satire, which is why Weird Al asks for permission from the original artists.
The video’s maker claims this is parody but seems more like just (at best) satire which receives less legal protections typically. It doesn’t seem that there’s any commentary on the work original IPs, given the rest of his body of work.
I think it’s just advocating for stability in nomenclature. They probably don’t want a situation where future people can’t find information we currently have because we’ve decided to change the names.
I’m fine with the down votes. Dissenting views are important even when unpopular or wrong. Many times in history those dissents have been used as a beacon, showing the way for future generations like Benjamin Curtis’s in Dred Scott.
If on occasion it means I lose fake Internet point for ensuring spaces don’t become echo chambers, that’s a price I’m willing to pay.
I’m the odd man out here. But I don’t see the issue here. If the shoe was on the other foot and Biden got hit in the ear, and the Democrats did this to show support to Biden people here wouldn’t deride them as they do the Republicans here.
There’s many things these politicians deserve criticism for, solidarity for someone having been hurt isn’t among them.
If Harris got cancer we wouldn’t mock senators wearing little pink ribbons.
one of the arguments you used.
It decidedly is not.
I don’t think characterizing them as all being far right hacks is very accurate.
I didn’t contend that if you follow a linear political view they’d be on the right side. I argued with the notion that all of the 3 justices were far right.
People don’t like when you punch down. When a 13 year old illegally downloaded a Limp Bizkit album no one cared. When corporations worth billions funded by venture capital systematically harvest the work of small creators (often with appropriate license) to sell a product people tend to care.