How can we know the IRA “won”? The country changed a hell of a lot over the course of the Troubles and by the time of the GFA in 1998 I don’t see how it is so clear that the reforms wouldn’t have also been achieved via other peaceful and democratic means.
What makes it giving up sovereignty? I understand it creates the potential for separation in future but not yet. The devolution of Scotland and Wales happened peacefully a couple(?) of years later, and Scotland may also separate in future.
We've banned this account for breaking the site guidelines badly. You can't post things like "No you fucking idiot" here (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48432385), and that's just one example of many.
(This is not about the current comment I'm replying to - this one just happens to be the most recent comment by the account, so I'm putting the information here.)
It also looks like you've been using multiple accounts to comment in the same threads, which is abusive and not allowed.
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?
Both sides always assume that people must fall on one side or the other instead of disliking both and wishing they would stop trying to make their hundreds of years religious regional conflict the world's problem
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.
> because businesses just love to turn down free money
Unfortunately, yes. Example - try getting publishing rights to No One Lives Forever franchise (GOG already tried that). It's not rare for publishers to sit on their IPs without doing anything with them. And it's not exclusive to videogames as well.
> make them last longer
You can look at it differently. "Last longer" can mean "getting support from the publisher for longer period of time". Nobody demands this. Or it can mean "have an EOL plan", but then it's a weird way to phrase that. But yes, this meaning is the one that SKG uses.
I also want to add that proposing people to buy an IP from a company (or pay it to keep supporting it) is very disingenuous and even borderline trolling. That's not how it works even remotely. Companies do not "negotiate" with consumers about it. So even bringing this up shows the amount of dismissiveness and bad faith that SKG "deniers" bring to the discussion. Utterly baffling...
Is it really disingenuous to point out "haha, well obviously you guys simply aren't willing to put up enough cash to make this attractive for the rightsholders"?
I think it is simply the truth of the matter. The financial incentives don't line up, the rightsholders are not keeping you from playing games just because they're evil.
But I think you missed why I brought this up, I did so only because you specifically claimed that financial incentives are irrelevant in your earlier comment here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48582196
I was referencing the comment which proposed to buy out the rights to the game. This is absurd (and hence disingenuous), because again it's not how it works in real life, and it's not just with games. You cannot just approach a company willy-nilly as a consumer and politely ask them to sell their IP to you - that includes games, movies, books etc. They are not going to respond to it unless you are another big company.
Regarding my comment, I already replied right there that I'm willing to pay more money for the games if it means they are preserved. You again misunderstand (probably on purpose) what it's all about...
Gaming industry is not poor (although they like to tell you that). They rack billions on exploitative mechanics like lootboxes, gachas and live services, but don't want to keep their games alive even though it would cost them a fraction of what they earn to do so. This confirms that this is not about money, at least not in the way you are trying to portrait it. Also remember that gaming companies love to evade taxes. Yeah, they are (totally not evil) entities who act with pure goodwill towards their consumers...
>> 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.
> 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
How so? If I'm sure that a game is not going to die, I will be more willing to pay for it. The more such games exist, the more money I will be willing to spend on them. Hence more taxes from me. Otherwise I will stick to older games that don't have this problem, which will bring less taxes from me because of the cost.
> cost of your gaming itself would be subsidized
By whom? I know there are currently tax returns (or exemptions is more correct term probably) for gaming companies. But how does having end of life plans change this?
> There is no guarantee that they will be a big part of the stock market. It is not "absolutely" sure, for them or for any new public stock
It's really hard to believe that you'd be writing this in good faith.
In reality, even without being publicly listed(!), these companies have already managed to become an absolutely massive part of the market. After the IPO? Hah.
>It feels like you're being willfully dense about this. I can see why the other person accused you of being AI.
No, you fucking idiot. Not everybody who disagrees with you is AI.
"Engagement farming" is a term of art with a specific meaning, basically just the adult way of saying "ragebait". People engagement farming on IG or TikTok are typically doing so by posting deliberately controversial content designed to troll upset viewers into writing upset comments. It is inherent to the technique that it only works on platforms without downvotes.
You don't see anyone "engagement farming" on Reddit either, it's always specifically "karma farming" because farming karma requires positive engagement. Engagement farmers do not care if the engagement is positive or not, the required approaches are completely different.
You're conflating engagement farming and rage-baiting. Engagement can be both positive and negative. I can't find any online sources that agree with your definition.
Here's one that I think sums it up pretty well:
"Engagement farming refers to a range of deceptive practices on social media designed to artificially inflate engagement metrics such as likes, shares, comments, and followers."
"Engagement farming employs various tactics to exploit social media algorithms, with the intent to appear more popular than actual user interest would warrant. Examples include posting controversial content to provoke emotional responses, repurposing successful posts without originality, and using automated systems for mass liking or following." [1]
If you don't think this is happening on HN (especially to mass downvote posts) you're naive.
Maybe look at how people actually use it? Not sure why the Indian blogspam is worth looking at.
"Engagement" has a specific meaning. It's different from "like farming" or "karma farming". Some platforms specifically reward engagement, making it a reasonable thing to farm on those platforms.
> using automated systems for mass liking or following
Clearly the author was clueless, this has nothing whatsoever to do with engagement farming.
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.