Imagine buying a new luxury car's worth of virtual currency for your kid on your company's dime. sure, I wanted a Viper as a kid, but I don't think that would be a good enough reason for this.
It has less to do with the devs having fun at their job and more to do with if they'll even wake up to go to their job tomorrow. Layoffs are never fun.
We are in fact finding out precisely why natural language sucks in real time, as we have all kinds of catastrophic errors with people who think this is finally the time for complex language to prevail over pesky nerd language. The only difference is that more people seem to prescribe to the "you're holding it wrong" handwave when said catastrophes are pointed out.
Their model is DRM, but they have no vendor lock-in (in theory, at least). You can use a Valve product (or non-valve product) and never use Steam, or use Steam on any of the 3 major OS's. You can't say the same for an apple product.
I say in theory because yes: Steam in reality has a monopoly in the PC gaming market. And while many games are on multiple stores, odds are many games will only be on Steam. That's a more invisible hand form of a walled garden, but there's definitely an argument to be made there.
Why not? The best way to repeal bad laws is to sling them against those who otherwise benefit from it. The best case here is that the law is thrown out entirely. The "worst case" is an unsympathetic target getting their just desserts.
I don't disagree, but this was Nintendo of America. Nintendo's main branch has some of the best worker retention and satifaction in the industry (thanks to actual Japanese labor laws). NoA meanwhile, is identical to any other American company in how it operates.
It's honestly a great example on why we need proper labor laws; it's the only way to truly keep companies "honest".
I hope the union admins weren't foolish enough to let in management that way. My best faith assumption is that the mole got in, grabbed the content, and shared their account with management.
That still feels like a form of entrapment, though. Unless this story is fuzzy and the mole themselves simply shared the chat logs hemselves. But the story makes it sound like the Abid Ansari himself got in.
Entrapment is usually defined as when the investigator encourages the accused to commit the crime, in such a way that they were not already predispositioned to do so. If the management employee encouraged others on the forum to share company secrets, that might be entrapment, but simply being there and catching them in the act is not.
I suppose more information will come out in court, if the matter is settled beforehand.
Sure. 20 years ago I would agree, and even 10 years ago I'd say there are some nuances to explore.
Today, though: governments are actively pushing policy to restrict the internet, legalize backdoors, and normalize mass surveillance. We're in the levels of obvious privacy violations that would make for an overly alarmist dystopian novel if published. There's not much nuance to worry about as of now.
1) there's a lot of money to be made with data, so there are a lot of incentives to jump over any gates setup to protect privacy. If not actively tear down the gates and lobby to make it illegal to build more gates
2) The policy makers have a lot of power to be gained with data, so there are a lot of incentives to at worst, legalize backdoors so they get access to data, and at worst make it illegal to build more gates
Two powerful incentives in lockstep for once means an uphill battle for the force that is society. There's a lot of points brought up, but it mostly comes down to (the articles's points) 4) and 8). In my eyes, everything else is secondary and only serves to justify the ends of 4) (which includes 8, the only real barrier in the way).
reply