Home
Artists
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register
Partychan Telegram ThePornDude
Home Artists Posts Import Register

Stop Killing Games | Cold Take (Patreon)

Published:
2024-04-22 15:07:51
Imported:
2024-05

Content

This week's episode of Cold Take is now available!

Files

Stop Killing Games | Cold Take

This video is brought to you by Ground Branch, out now in Early Access on Steam: https://bit.ly/GROUND_BRANCH Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/SecondWindGroup Second Wind Merch Store: https://sharkrobot.com/collections/second-wind

Comments

Tim Wilson

Hi, English Lawyer here. I absolutely agree with the premise of the video and the signal boosting, but I do feel compelled to provide a bit of correction to common law v civil jurisdictions. Both legal systems actually create, pass and enforce laws in very much the same way, through the legislature (Parliament, the Senate etc.), the difference comes in how the Courts interpret those laws. In common law jurisdictions, there is a greater weight given to ‘precedent’, which is prior decisions on the same issue. In theory, this provides consistency, because if a higher court has decided on your specific issue before, then you know that it will be decided the same way unless you appeal to the same, or higher court again. However, the law itself (in the UK at least, the US is weird about this due to your Supreme Court relying on the constitution as a higher power than your legislature) is still decided by the most recent statute passed. If there’s a gap or something that wasn’t considered, then the courts can essentially use caselaw to fill that gap, but can’t use an old case to directly contradict a more recent statute. Civil Jurisdictions instead have a much greater reliance on the actual statute passed (there’s a whole historical reason for the change relating to revolutions and Napoleon that I won’t get into), which basically means that the judges have more freedom to decide in individual cases but less consistency overall. However, the actual national culture and values, with the government of the day will be far more important to what laws get passed than how the courts view them. Technically, in my opinion at least, common law is better suited to adapt older laws to newer situations and technology, but it happens that the Netherlands and Holland etc. hate lootboxes more than the rest of the world and so legislated against it (I believe they’re also Civil, but this wasn’t a factor in their willingness or ability to legislative). Hope that was of interest to the 4 people who bothered reading this far!

Rich Francis

I really don't care if they turn off old games. They won't turn them off if they can see people are playing, so they are only turning off things that lose them money. Use it or lose it. I treat games like a beer, I buy it for the here and now, and once I'm done that's it.

Reilly O'Brien

Describing our system of crony corporatism as capitalism is completely absurd at this point. Don't blame the collapse of an empire on the economic foundation and philosophy it abandoned a century ago, look at the actual corruption of a globe spanning empire after a few generations of world domination. If you let the government incroach on controlling videogames in any way whatsoever, I guarantee that over time the rules will be written to favor the big corporate players and it will only get worse. Seriously stop buying ubisoft games, or any other company that thinks it can get away with this. Just saying "I'm still gonna give them my money either way, but I want the government to make them be nice if they try to do it again." isn't how this is going to be solved.