walletdrainer

Calling someone a "fucking idiot" is far kinder than falsely accusing them of being a LLM poster, but I don't even see a flag on the comment which I was replying to.

Do you just have a preference for better disguised insults?

>It also looks like you've been using multiple accounts to comment in the same threads, which is abusive and not allowed.

maybe don't build systems that only serve to encourage behaviour which you would seemingly prefer to discourage?

lol

> How can we know the IRA “won”?

In signing the GFA, the UK effectively gave up on it's sovereignty over NI. That was never going to happen through "peaceful and democratic means"

>And even then mostly because a lot of people were supportive of their cause even if they were against their methods

But IRA didn't win because those people supported their cause, IRA won despite those people being against their methods.

It was the force they used which directly led to the GFA, without the bombs and the killing the British would never have surrendered.

There's no credit due for correctly reading your adversary?

Obviously the Israelis could have just kept their mask on, but Hamas was clearly correct in their calculation that they wouldn't.

[flagged]

>We tried that. That didn't work.

Ah yes, because businesses just love to turn down free money.

>Once again, nobody is asking that. So you are misunderstanding SKG.

If SKG really does not want games to remain playable after EOL, they're certainly piss-poor communicators. I thought the whole point was to "stop killing games", i.e. make them last longer.

>> You're suggesting a subsidy for gamers which everyone else would to pay for

>No, that's not how it works. Not even close.

As far as I can tell, legislation which enables you to play a game in perpetuity instead of for a limited time will likely reduce the amount of tax revenue your gaming-related activities generate.

A useful metric to focus on here is the cost per hour of entertainment. The price of the game itself might stay the same, but the cost of your gaming itself would be subsidized.

> but due to you actively portraying your opposition as malicious

It's extremely difficult to see how the statement quoted below is not fairly characterized as malicious

>The industry should only be allowed to comment after the laws have been written and fulfill the goals of European citizens.

If the opposition simply seeks to silence you, rather than to argue against you, how are they not malicious?

[flagged]

It's particularly funny because "monster-in-the-middle" appears to be a deliberately quirky marketing term invented by cloudflare.

Those sources feel more than slightly contrived.