I don't like the moderation logs, because they keep the moderators who censor content anonymous. You can't tell people which moderator is being abusive, so ALL moderators have to be painted as a jackass. That isn't good, because good moderators have to be a human shield...and the community can't establish trust.
SabinStargem
joined 9 months ago
I probably will get it when Turkey Day rolls around. Anyhow, counter-suggestion: Check out La-Mulana if you like puzzles with your Metroidvania. They are extremely long and difficult games, but is worth your time if you got the lateral thinking to puzzle out the riddles and enjoy things like King's Quest.
The Touhou franchise strikes me as the modern Lovecraft. People are creating fangames, and go on to make them into commercial products. Around the 22nd or thereabout, "Shrine Maiden Wars" will be released, which is a take on the Super Robot Wars formula, but with the Touhou cast. It is an incredibly vibrant ecosystem of fanworks, where most people get to have fun AND profit.
IMO, the way it should be is that concepts and art should be free to be used by anyone. However, specific incarnations made someone can't be copied. For example, Nintendo can make a Pokemon game, as can Sega with the same characters. Naturally, Nintendo can make a Shin Megami Mario game.
The important thing is that the company or people behind an incarnation is distinctly labelled, so that people can't confuse who made what. In this way, variants of a media can fulfill niches that otherwise wouldn't be possible. Say, for example, a WoodRocket "Jessie Does James" hentai anime.
I am cool with everything stuffed into AI and freely distributed, whatever the form. Bluntly, I think copyright sucks, and want it gone. Nintendo shouldn't be able to patent game mechanics, and I would like to see more mashups of things.
Here, you can have mine. And keep it. Please.
It would make much more sense if our MIC developed these...
...huh. I find the missile-to-bust ratio to be implausible.
The freedom to be an asshole, specifically.
Also, the 1% are indiscriminate in their greed. Sooner or later they will forget who their power base is, and suck up the money that feeds it.
Conservatism has no sense of why conservation is good for an ecosystem. Be it ecological or fiscal.
If this is Yahweh's planning, then they are in dire need of a pink slip. We should try hiring on Cthulu or Ahura Mazda instead.
I have a feeling that this is different from Beeg's concern about client assets, but more about employee influence over the company? The idea of an equity limit might be a good addition to the Universal Ranked Income concept that I have cobbled together. Thank you. :)
In any case, my notes has two things about my own take:
1: Employees can vote for whether someone can obtain and retain their leadership position within their chapter and for higher rungs of the organization. Also, the pay grade of those leaders. Employees who are fired or retired from the company will receive 1:1 retirement pay over time, equal to the days and pay grade that they worked at the company, and can vote on any position of the company or those it has merged with. This essentially means that legacy employees can determine the leadership of the company, and cannot be made to 'go away' in a political sense.
2: Stocks when sold, have two components. The first is that they pay an amount over a fixed time, that is more than what they were paid for. It cannot be be sold nor traded, until it has been exhausted of this payback value. When exhausted of value, the share can now be traded to another individual for money, or returned to the company for the value it was bought at. The company cannot refuse the return, nor offer an increased price. A share returned to the company can be reissued, which allows it to start paying the fixed value again. Secondly, people who hold a share can vote for company leadership*. People within leadership positions at the company cannot own stocks from their own organization.
By requiring stocks to be held for a certain time before they can be traded, it makes it harder for stockholders to hoard and dispose of stocks when convenient. The gradual payout is a reward to people who buy stocks from the company. Presumably, the inability of stocks to have guaranteed value when they become tradeable will promote their return to the company.
*It is assumed that we are operating within an economic system, where there are absolute wealth and asset caps. There is only so many shares a person can possess, and holding shares can prevent someone from owning a yacht or bigger house - they have to lose the shares to make room within the cap for things they enjoy. This helps limit the influence of individual stock holders.
I like Windows. I like AI. But this like is based on me having ownership over them. Microsoft is what has convinced me to move to Linux when an official SteamOS Desktop is released.