Where did I say “oh well, nothing we can do?” You’re literally tying random arguments to my name.

Nobody here made the argument that what is legal is exactly what is fair. Nobody here made the argument that Nintendo being overly litigious is a good thing. The only argument made is that copyright law is flawed because companies abuse it and that lawmakers need to fix it.

I doubt that the Switch 2 needs emulation as it’s very likely to be the successor to the Tegra X1

He never said that creating an emulator was illegal. He said that Nintendo is legally in the clear to do what they did. In Yuzu’s case, Nintendo sued and both parties settled, and they reached an “agreement” with Ryujinx to take down its emulator.

As far as I’m aware, the Yuzu case isn’t settled law as it calls into question whether the use of dumped keys to “bypass” copy protections is legal under the DMCA. This question isn’t about emulation, even if it’s a step required for emulation to be possible.

Since there are many issues with copyright law right now, corporations have a free pass to bully people in a multitude of ways, and the Yuzu lawsuit and Ryujinx “agreement” are just new ways of doing the same thing. All OP is saying is that lawmakers need to re-create copyright and IP laws to make them more fair and make sense so that content creators and/or homebrew devs and/or fangame creators and/or emulator devs can do their work with a far less shaky legal foundation.

Windows is an option

Lobbying is a good concept corrupted by greed, as are many things in the US.

As someone with few USBs available, Ventoy takes me 2 minutes to flash, several minutes to copy a set of ISOs, and then any time I need it, it takes 0 minutes to have a working USB with some arbitrary ISO. Sure, it’s not up to date, but I don’t need it to be if I need to recover an install or use some random tool.

Defcon is a useful resource for networking and learning. It being run by and for good guys doesn’t mean bad guys don’t find the event useful. The vague risk of “getting caught” is probably worth taking, regardless of whether that risk is tangible, especially if they follow proper security practices.

I don’t think you fully understand right to repair.

Companies (most egregiously Apple, but Samsung, Microsoft, and other tech, farming, and medical companies as well) have been actively introducing barriers to self or third-party repairs for decades. Apple serializes their displays on iPhones, so if you were to swap the screen on an iPhone without Apple’s authorization or without specific hardware, your iPhone disables specific features on your new screen, even if it’s a genuine Apple part. Apple also has incredibly unfair and invasive contracts with their authorized service providers such that they have to provide a slower return window than Apple’s own service centers. Furthermore, Apple et al. don’t sell every part needed to fix phones, and even when they do sell parts, they are often sold as packages or bundles that make the parts unnecessarily expensive.

To be clear, it’s rare for companies to ban third-party repairs outright. However, the vast majority of device makers artificially limit who can buy spare parts and who can fix their devices via software, by tight supply chain control, lawsuits, or getting governments to seize the few parts that could be obtained. This means that most third-party stores can’t compete with manufacturers because they can’t get genuine parts without becoming “authorized”, and by becoming authorized, they can’t provide a quality service.

You’re ignoring the fact that it’s nearly impossible to implement this right now. Big pharma and numerous politicians want to keep the status quo for as long as possible. By the time we have more affordable medicine, numerous people would have suffered greatly or died because they couldn’t access the medicine they need. Having solutions that don’t require an entire rework of the healthcare industry is necessary so that we can save as many lives as possible.

I should’ve said “anything math-heavy,” but even then, it seems like switching fields or applications of math requires understanding a new definition of the same symbols, and a lot of that could be avoided with words.

What OP is talking about is readability, so in a situation where you’re taking your own notes and have your own set of defined symbols, full words aren’t necessary.

I personally lost all interest in math because there are way too many opinionated or non-standard symbol definitions

Something being accessible usually means that the results have a lower low-end and higher high-end, no? In the context of music, it would mean that there are bigger heaps of trash with a few hidden gems

If they have your records, then you can request a freeze in a variety of ways. Online is just the easiest way to manage all that.

I get your point now. I interpreted your comment as “he was born rich”. I also didn’t watch the exposé until after I wrote mine.

Then you should also not like how Google has a history of making their sites, which are market leaders in many cases including search, perform worse on browsers other than Chrome. That is considered anti-competitive behavior.

Just because it’s losing market share doesn’t mean it’s not a monopoly, let alone an illegal one.

It’s content from places like Netflix or Hulu, or anywhere else on the general internet.

Legroom is probably the most expensive thing to give on a plane, so if you want legroom, pay for the privilege and fly business class. Otherwise, at least try to enjoy the few concessions you get from the airline

I’ve been on some United flights that let you stream 4k video with no issue. It’s pretty uncommon, but it’s amazing when it’s there.

The problem is that a lot of companies are already launching dead-on-arrival live service games, so unless they’re willing to make something unique, all they will do is saturate the market further and keep burning money. I don’t think this law would change those incentives much if at all.