john_strinlai

7 ms·

91.
by john_strinlai 1mo ago
compared to #short, they are long. https://signalundefied.bearblog.dev/everything/ https://signalundefied.bearblog.dev/is-it-meaningless-to-apo...
92.
by john_strinlai 1mo ago
sure. it's a lie to say you received no benefit from the transaction. you either played it for more than 2 hours (benefit) or you are allowed to refund it via steam's standard policy. do you have a reply to this comment? https:&
93.
by john_strinlai 1mo ago
> Compatibility with my fridge might be the reason I bought that game the game specifically said it only supported windows . that means it explicitly does not support other platforms. they waived their responsibility to cater to your u
94.
by john_strinlai 1mo ago
if i manage to install a windows-only game onto my fridge, and then the game gets updated and doesn't work on my fridge anymore, it would be ridiculous to suggest i should get a refund. this is getting silly though. i am saddened that
95.
by john_strinlai 1mo ago
the amount of hand-holding people seem to want is actually blowing my mind. the developer says it is windows only. a 3rd party, not the developer, says the game can work on non-windows. who should you believe? a real mystery. maybe the kids
96.
by john_strinlai 1mo ago
a totally reasonable ask is that people read the system requirements already visible on the store page of every game.
97.
by john_strinlai 1mo ago
like every other product you had a refund window . you can't buy a shirt, wear it for 9 years, then return it.
98.
by john_strinlai 1mo ago
> I would deserve a refund because it doesn't work for me. do you not believe in any sort of personal responsibility? on the same page as the "buy" button, it tells you that the game only supports windows. > If I buy a
99.
by john_strinlai 1mo ago
> Valve should. Valve is the one making these games available for purchase on non-Windows platforms. it sounds like you're suggesting valve should be restricting which games they sell depending on the platform you are viewing from?
100.
by john_strinlai 1mo ago
> I paid for a product and I did not get it you paid for a windows product. the product still works on windows, right? if ubisoft advertised linux support for this game, i am 100% with you on the refund. as far as i can tell, they did n
101.
by john_strinlai 1mo ago
okay, if you agree with that, i am confused about your initial comment comparing anti-cheat to a font. it appears like you are saying "if you trust the font to be okay, you should trust anti-cheat". but we've just cleared up
102.
by john_strinlai 1mo ago
trust is not binary. i trust my preinstalled system fonts more than i trust vanguard, as an example. different goals, different people involved, different scope of access, different amount of review, different amount of use = different leve
103.
by john_strinlai 1mo ago
> Honestly Valve should have a stricter warning if a game is Windows only the "system requirements" section is right there, with "OS" being the first line. i dont agree that this is a valve thing.
104.
by john_strinlai 1mo ago
of course that would be possible, but i can't see ubisoft opting into that. it'd be an additional expense for a very small % of the player base of a 9 year old game.
105.
by john_strinlai 1mo ago
> account for their mistake in selling you the game. i hate ubisoft as much as the next person, but if they listed the game as only supporting windows when it launched, and someone bought it for linux despite it not being supported, ubi
106.
by john_strinlai 1mo ago
i believe ingestion is the primary concern, but the smoke can also lead to symptoms, yes.
107.
by john_strinlai 1mo ago
> Why do you think a random person being affected by Pegasus-like spyware is that low? because no one is risking their exploit chain, wasting their multi-million dollar tools, on the chance that the random person they infected makes
108.
by john_strinlai 1mo ago
indeed, all of those platforms should be avoided when you want to make jokes of that nature. they should probably just be avoided in general!
109.
by john_strinlai 1mo ago
yes, and whichever god you believe in might be listening in and come down to personally smite you! but there is significantly different chances of those events happening. there is a 100% chance snapchat reads all of your messages. a random
110.
by john_strinlai 1mo ago
the people the joke was sent to were not the reporters. in fact, no human reported it. the tactical advice is that if you want to make such jokes, do so using a platform that doesn't scan your messages with ai and auto-report to the
111.
by john_strinlai 1mo ago
what would the benefit of this be over using something built for purpose like signal?
112.
by john_strinlai 1mo ago
i think the lesson is to just not do it on snapchat, rather than bottle it up until breakdown. (face to face > signal > .... > snapchat)
113.
by john_strinlai 1mo ago
its been fun to watch the resurgence of mapquest. first their refusal to rename the gulf of mexico, and now lake ontario, has absolutely skyrocketed their popularity (currently showing as the #1 free app on the apple app store)
114.
by john_strinlai 1mo ago
> It defeats the whole purpose of these communities. ...how? you realize significantly more information than this is on reddit or a quick google?
115.
by john_strinlai 2mo ago
funny you should say that, given the history of the creator (dave plummer)
116.
by john_strinlai 2mo ago
"Every core, honestly", "Not just used. Accounted for.", "More signal. Less hunting.", "Your machine. Your phosphor." anyways, after scrolling through all of that stuff, it is not clear to me what t
117.
by john_strinlai 2mo ago
did you read the part where nonethewiser said "And even if they were [neutral] that doesn't mean the US shouldn't sanction them for supporting terrorism." ? the double-negative might be confusing, so we can reword it t
118.
by john_strinlai 2mo ago
from this comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49479169 on, i was talking about the neutral providers and the claim that neutral providers should also be subject to sanctions. > without any deliberation or really
119.
by john_strinlai 2mo ago
indeed, that would be a very effective way to reduce terrorism to 0.
120.
by john_strinlai 2mo ago
upthread, nonethewiser said "They aren't some neutral infrastructure provider. __And even if they were that doesn't mean the US shouldn't sanction them for supporting terrorism.__" emphasis mine. my assertion is t

More ›