Magiilaro

That is called disenfranchisement and there are laws for that already.

Murder is never a valid solution to the Paradox of Tolerance.

What I say is that death should always be the last option, not (one of) the first. There is almost always a better alternative available.

And if someone calls for the extinction of people only because they have the wrong beliefs or opinions, because they say the wrong thing or even tell lies, yes I then say that it is wrong.

It was wrong when the Nazis did it, it was wrong when the Soviet Union did it, it was wrong when the Chinese did it in the Cultural revolution, it was wrong in every single case where it ever has happened and it will always be wrong when it will happen again.

My first steps were with Debian 2.0 and a Suse Version from about the same time. But that was not very successful so I went back to Windows for about a year and then really got into Linux with Gentoo. I had a year of not much to do, had to wait a year to get into University, and I decided to install the complicated Linux Distribution that I could find.

Reasoning was: It will break a lot if it is so complicated, due to this I am forced to learn while repairing it.

You can’t use the tools and methods of the enemy without becoming the enemy. Trying to build a free society by use of oppression and mass murder is something that is doomed to fail and to turn into the thing it has sworn to fight. One day you might by able to comprehend that.

1. Freedom of speech (and with that the right to get information from every legal source) is a basic human right
2. Your examples are punishments for breaking laws, but censoring what older people can watch, hear or read is a limitation of a basic human right enacted without any prior law breaking.

So your examples are all reactive while censoring older people would be proactive. That is a huge difference.

Oh and saying “stabbing people is bad, now go to time out” or “don’t drink raw milk, you’ll get sick” is not limiting the behavior of people, it is giving them information to change the behavior on their own… or they don’t and then they (and the people around them) have to live with the consequences.

The law the grants freedom of speech exists to protect opinions and texts that some (or even most) people find offending or don’t agree with. A law that only protects speech that everyone agrees with is a law not needed, because nobody will ever fight that words or wants to censor them.

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Oh yes, I am sure that the Nazis back then said the same about cleansing the german nation, the benefits for the Volkskörper outweigh the losses that one generation would have to suffer.

The same can be used to ban alcohol for everyone:

See the trick is this: does “mentally fit” apply, even in the case of otherwise mentally healthy individuals? Addiction can affect anyone and the less tech savvy more so. We have no issues with limiting the physical behavior of the people we care about when they cannot handle it anymore (e.g. we’ll drive grandpa around when he can technically do it, but shouldn’t). While some do kick a fuss about it (for understandable reasons) ultimately, society at large is pretty OK with the whole deal.

Now we have them exposed to substances that are arguably harmful to their health and the health of the people around them (e.g. drug-related crime). At what point does their right to drink alcohol cede to their mental health? For anyone really? We cede rights to do things when they harm ourselves and others often. Why is this different?

So are you ok with a new prohibition

“We can build our utopia, we just have to kill everyone who doesn’t agree with us” doesn’t sound very right in my ears. It sounds like something where one should ask “are we the baddies?”

That is not helping or support, that is enforcing your will on someone else in the disguise of help. Oh and I am sure that they will be fully informed about that cost and its implications.

So what basic rights should we strip them also? The right to vote? I mean, if they are not capable of making valid decisions about what to watch/read/think then they can’t be capable of making valid decisions to vote! And lets remove Freedom of Speech fully, it only gets misused to enable nasty opinions and thoughts that “the correct and good” people don’t like.

There is a huge difference between “influence the behavior of our loved ones” and acting as a dictator who censors where the adult and mentally fit loved ones can get their information from.

Yeah, stripping adult people from some of their basic rights sound like a perfectly fine idea.

Official Mod support often gets added later, Starfield for example was launched without and it was added later. This is a general trend nowadays, mod support for Baldurs Gate 3 (as an non Bethesda example) was added later too.

I am sure Oblivion Remastered will get mod support, and I would be very surprised if mod support will not also come with Creations integration.

Atomic/immutable distros are just another tool in the tool box. It is great for systems with a limited use scenario like the SteamDeck or HTPCs. I also love to install immutable distributions on systems where the user (often IT-illiterate) and the administrator are different people.

On my desktop PC I will, for the foreseeable future, use a normal distro (ArchLinux in my case) but i am planing to look into changing my servers to immutable with docker. That could make updates/maintenance easier and reduce the risk for full server compromises

Atomic/immutable distros are just another tool in the tool box. It is great for systems with a limited use scenario like the SteamDeck or HTPCs. I also love to install immutable distributions on systems where the user (often IT-illiterate) and the administrator are different people.

On my desktop PC I will, for the foreseeable future, use a normal distro (ArchLinux in my case) but i am planing to look into changing my servers to immutable with docker. That could make updates/maintenance easier and reduce the risk for full server compromises

Blizzard tried this with the Dark Pathways Bundle for Diablo 4 before, 30$ to change the colors of the Town portals. Was not very successful!

I have paid (by donating to them) for many of the open source software I use, so I don’t think that everything should be free (as beer) but should be free (as freedom) and therefore open source.

The Bethesda feel is way I buy the games, the Bethesda feel is what makes the games. So I really hope that the Bethesda feel is still there.

Well… Yes, Steam has a (very stupid in my eyes) policy of “if the developer puts up an update, then everyone must update” but that is not (fully) invalidating my point.

The content of the update and the time of release of the update is still outside of Steams responsibility. If the developer decides to push an update that uses some crazy stuff that works fine in Windows but would need some obscure codepath that are not available in Wine/Proton and by that rendering a game with a “Great on Deck” rating to “unplayable” then there is nothing Steam can do about it. Or if the developer patches in some DRM that will not run on Linux. Well, yes they could put up some lines in the terms of contracts for the developers to disallow this kind of changes but i am sure this would not end well at all.

Another thing, that most likely could even less be regulated, would be if the developer pushes an update that changes the UI to something that looks great on a huge screen but is unreadable on the SteamDeck.

Yes, all this would be way less an issue if Steam would make updates optional or would allow (an easy way) to choose the version. So i am totally on your side with that point.