TheChargedCreeper864

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 months ago

Idk why, but this is the hardest I've laughed at an internet post in a long time

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago
[–] [email protected] 23 points 2 months ago

The app doesn't even come with any removed channels?! What's next, ban VLC because it can play illegal videos? Ban Windows because it can connect to the internet and play pirated streams? Ban eyesight because you can watch an unlicensed broadcast? Removed politicians

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Deliberately broken by default?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Years ago I used to use an app called "AdSkip" or something along those lines that used the accessibility API to automatically mute and skip all YouTube ads. I'd imagine the screen black-out would be trivial to add on top

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I don't know if this would 'satisfy' them (I know it wouldn't, I'm referring strictly to the legal stuff). From what I've heard, the point Nintendo was making wrt the encryption is that aquiring prod.keys in any way, shape or form is illegal. Of course, creating an emulator for a system that only runs games that contain encryption which can only be undone with prod.keys requires the developers to have this file. Since they've successfully made an emulator, this implies that the Yuzu team has in fact obtained a copy of this file and done something naughty.

The problem is that, regardless of whether or not the decryption happens in Yuzu or in another completely separate program, modern Nintendo games do not come unencrypted. This means that someone at some point has to decrypt the files, and thus has to use prod.keys to do so. According to Nintendo, using and creating any emulator for a modern system requires someone to do something illegal at one point in the chain, and therefore emulation (by parties not explicitly authorized by Nintendo) cannot legally exist.

I say that Nintendo should piss off after I've bought something from them and that I should be allowed to do with my property as I please, but even the most legally and morally correct way to emulate is not okay with them.

This raises the following question: if Nintendo does not respect in the slightest our property rights by pulling such stunts, why should we as end users respect their intellectual property rights? Why go through all the effort of clean room reverse engineering a console instead of blatantly copying as much of the official code base as possible if the legal system punishes you all the same? Why limit yourself to only emulating games you personally ripped from your own cartridges if the act of ripping has already placed your actions into the "illegal" category?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Now I'm curious, what age were you before you thought you turned 36?

[–] [email protected] 25 points 4 months ago (3 children)

I remember Duo and Allo coexisting at some point in time. Duo had always been about video calls, and Allo had always been about chatting (unless it had a secret video callcall feature I forgot about).

Still a good joke though

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago

On my Android 13 device browsers save in sd card/Android/data/com.my.browser. This folder can only be accessed on the default, hidden file manager or on a PC. Not even read-only access, but straight up nothing. At this point I just don't bother directly downloading to my sd card anymore, I just download to internal storage and move it all to sd card/Downloads every so often

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

Total Drama Island (2023) x Xenoblade Chronicles DE. Dunno how to feel about that one

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

It took me so long to figure out what you meant about accounts and stuff until I remembered you were talking about your own product. I get it now. Do you think it's a similar situation here, where the site is reliant on these third-party cookies to function at all?

[–] [email protected] 13 points 5 months ago (7 children)

How would blocking the pop-up be violating the law, though? If the pop-up doesn't show, you're not able to agree to cookies. You don't provide your explicit consent, therefore the website must assume you don't want to be tracked. The presence of the pop-up shouldn't be changing anything for people not willing to opt in, should it?

Or perhaps they're self-aware and have set it up to only opt you out by filling out the form, which you can't do if it isn't there. Or they just want you to agree to those "required" cookies? I don't know.

view more: ‹ prev next ›