Just your normal everyday casual software dev. Nothing to see here.

  • 0 Posts
  • 170 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: August 15th, 2023

help-circle
  • 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




  • 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 agree that it’s a great investment, and it will definitely get people on board for if the platform really takes off. I think they’re definitely assuming that the majority of their people who pay the $400 aren’t going to remain on the platform which is probably a safe bet, once they get somewhat established and have content that’s more for the everyday person, I would probably recommend converting the lifetime license over to an extended long-term subscription.

    So like a subscription that lasts five six years at like the price of 3 years of the monthly subscription price, I know if YouTube offered something like that I 1,000% would buy it in a heartbeat because I know that YouTube will still be around in that time frame and it’s a no-brainer cuz I use it daily,

    That being said if they did end up having a significant amount of people that are still using the lifetime subscription, they may revert to adding features to the monthly subscriptions like how Discord does that entice you to switch to a new plan with a retroactive sub and then you just can’t switch back again.


  • The lifetime access option shouldn’t exist for an app like that, not unless they have another primary form of income (usually ads). That type of service costs a lot of money to host and if you have a user base that does a one off purchase you stop having a good chunk of that income relatively fast

    That’s just the main red flag I see from that, I would be super hesient starting on a platform that isn’t self sustaining and doesn’t have a parent company willing to chuck money at it “till it works” like Google did






  • Honestly starting with the re-overturning of “money is people” also known as Citizens United would be a good start. This act more or less made it so money is considered free speech which allowed any type of Corporation to spend as much as they want on political groups, it was spearheaded as a thing that the country needed to avoid blocking things such as smear campaigning your opponent. But what it actually did was more or less remove the $5,000 limit that packs and super packs had on financing campaigns and and political donations, because all the Super PAC has to do now is say they aren’t politically aligned with a party and they can just funnel as much money into that party as they like, which obviously puts any party that remotely goes against profit(in most cases the democratic party because they generally want more social styled programs) at a significant disadvantage

    Not to mention the federal committees that were intentionally implemented to stop corruption that happened within the government because we knew that we couldn’t be trusted to deal with important things such as communication and Airline Administration are being gutted by the same system that was supposed to protect them. While everyone’s using the excuse of well they’re not doing anything so why have them. They’re not doing anything because they can’t, hell the FCC has tried and the court system is saying they don’t have the right to rule over the department that they’re a committee over. It’s ridiculous