A waitress can get fired for getting caught withholding a cash tip from a tip pool if they have one. Hell, we even needed to have a law to prevent restuarants from taking the tips for themselves.

You did it again. Dodging the question. Again. You KNOW there's no clean answer to the Israel situation. You're blaming Biden for walking a highwire nobody would have walked better. And you seem to know it because you won't address the question head-on.

.......and then you change topic.

So at this point, you concede that Biden is as pro-Palestine as is reasonably possible? Or are you just going to keep spreading the Russian propaganda?

People also didn’t like the fact that she and the DNC colluded together to torpedo Sander’s primary at any given chance

And she didn't. People keep repeating this, but it's not a fact. The DNC started transitioning over to Hillary after Bernie already had statistically ZERO chance but before he formally resigned. A bunch of people (including Bernie) got pissed about that, but not only is it not unheard-of, it's downright sensible when Bernie wasn't even planning to run on the Democratic ticket no matter what happened.

As I keep saying elsewhere. It's really weird that everyone seems to hate Democrats who run for president more than Republicans who run for President, but for reasons they can never quite pin down to anything related to facts.

I personally don’t like her because of what the Clinton’s have done to the DNC over the last 2 decades, particularly their championing of 3rd way politics.

Bill was a moderate. Yeah, I know. Hillary was further to the left than her husband. Should we have given Trump the 2016 presidency because Hillary was married to a moderate?

Offhandedly blaming every valid criticism as Republican propaganda does nothing but drive people away

"Offhandedly blaming 9/11 on the Taliban does nothing but drive people away". There's no question 2016 was Republican propaganda and Hillary. I ABSOLUTELY have valid criticisms about the Democratic party. But that doesn't mean every stupid criticism should be taken as valid. The Republicans have gotten REALLY good at the propaganda game.

Hillary Clinton was obviously a bad candidate, this is self evident in the fact that she lost to a conman.

As "unpopular" as Hillary was, she was sladed to crush her by historic margins before you account for the Russian hacking scandal. You can disagree with me on that all you want, but if you DON'T get oppositionally defiant on that fact, then you can make no negative statements about her in good faith out of the 2016 election results.

It’s not the job of the DNC to blame voters for not voting for their chosen candidate, it’s their job to give us candidates that we want to vote for

Normally I would agree with you. 2016 was different. If Charles Manson ran for President and won, it's the voters faults. NOBODY who did the least bit of research wasn't shitting their pants on election day 2016.

"Sleep now in the fire." And because we can't fucking learn our lessons and we STILL blame the perfectly viable Hillary Clinton, we are indeed sleeping in the fire that Zack de la Rocha warned us about.

Which is a de facto admission he knows Israel is committing war crimes with the weapons and that he has the power to stop military aid at any time.

So your take is what. If we don't start bombing Israel ourselves we're supporting genocide? It's a real moving goalpost, almost as if no action by any president would be enough. Almost like this originated from the Trump camp like all the other misinformation.

Nothing disgusts me more than seeing how Americans find some excuse to HATE every Democrat LOVE every Republican, even over issues where the latter is lightyears worse than the former.

Absolute immunity for all official acts by a president, whether technically within their power or not. It's now possible Trump cannot be held accountable for his attempted coup because he did it as the sitting president - because SCOTUS implied it's Constitutional for him to attempt to overthrow the government.

The DNC signed it’s death warrant with that one.

Bernie refused to join the DNC. He was doing his usual pump&dump dirty pool of winning a Primary and refusing the nomination so that the Democrats wouldn't be able to run anyone in the general.

Bernie got screwed

...because he couldn't get as many votes. None of that superdelegate bullshit people are talking about came to pass. He just wasn't popular enough among a party he refused to be a member of. Go figure.

Hillary was unlikeable because she was a woman who wasn't submissive. Sexist people hate that. Everyone who ever met her loves her. The only unlikable thing is her unwillingness to take bullshit. Hillary was in-line to win by a landslide "unlikeable" or not. It took the media buying into a lie and Comey making misleading statements about her being under investigation (with no actual crimes suspected) a week before the election for Trump to win by the tightest margin ever.

The DNC is the party who notoriously dropkicks people on the merest whiff of impropriety. And here we had a fabricated criminal controversy. We played right into Trump's hands.

...just food for thought. Ever notice how we Americans seem to remember VIRTUALLY EVERY Democratic presidential candidate in a bad light over some sort non-substantial reason or another like "unlikeable" or "tried too hard" or "claimed to invent the internet" or "was a douchebag"? Ever notice how older Democrats still somehow remember RONALD FUCKING REAGAN as the best president of their lives?

The Republicans bought the propaganda machine when Nixon lost. It's all a goddamn lie.

Learning to play the guitar or code also doesn’t have a difficulty slider, but people of all abled-ness manage it anyways.

Games are about entertainment. They're not a career. Nobody is paying me to play a Fromsoft game. More importantly, nobody is gatekeeping the entertainment, immersion, and story of music or coding behind me being able to "Git Gud".

And let's look at music and coding. Since I can speak a bit to both. For music, OF COURSE there are difficulty sliders. When I took recorder back in school, they had 2 different versions of many songs. When I first learned Christmas music on piano, I learned special "simplified" tracks for the songs. I never "Got Gud" at music, but I still got to the end of the book.

And coding. Coding is the opposite of a Fromsoft game. You're surrounded by mountains of tools that try to make it easier. When I bring in a junior developer, I'm not giving them some unforgiving code challenge to power through. Maybe they'll never be good enough to design a specialized cache or optimize queries. So I give them the things they CAN do, and hold their hand so they always succeed. Junior devs don't ever fail, not because they "git gud" but because I set them up to succeed by this little difficulty slider called "how hard is this ticket to do and how much help do they need from me?"

I hear what you’re saying, but to be fair, younger players don’t start out with those reflexes either. It’s probably harder for older players, but I’m not convinced it’s that much more of a challenge that it’s not worth trying

It's not about the reflexes, though. It's that they have opted to take actions that make the game unenjoyable for a significant number of gamers despite it having no positive benefit for ANY gamer.

And much of my Letsplay complaints weren't about Elden Ring. I mod that. I don't have the tools to mod Bloodborne, a game I otherwise would like more than Elden Ring because of its storyline.

It is a great apple to apple comparison.

This is the "nuh uh" answer. You never quantified anything. it's sorta a "fuck you, I know you showed my argument was a fallacy, but I'm better than you so I'm doubling down". I spend too much time in places where that shit gets laughed at. I'm going back to those places. Enjoy your shit game.

They made a piece of art. You chose to buy it knowing what it was. Git gud

No. I chose to buy Bloodborne because people convinced me that wasn't the case. Git blocked.

Solar is so much cheaper than Nuclear and the efficiency sway is so reasonable, it's still the better option in non-ideal circumstances.

With initial cost of deployment being the biggest obstacle to nuclear, I'm not sure it will ever be the best green option for developing countries.

This is doubly true since it's lifetime cost-per-kwh is much higher than that of solar.

You have so many options to make it easier.

Like the third-party Easy Mode mod.

You bought a game that you knew would be full of “difficult” bosses

I bought a game that I knew had a working Easy Mode mod. I would not have bought it if it hadn't. Because the designers are assholes, but assholes who can write a decent story.

And now you sit and complain about there not being an official “difficulty slider”.

Yes, I do. And you sit and complain about another human being having an opinion despite the fact you could just NOT complain about other human beings having an opinion. Funny how people "sit and" do things.

Do you also go to a vegan restaurant and complain they’re not inclusive because you can’t order meat?

No, but that's not an apple-to-apple comparison, making that a False Analogy fallacy. For two reasons. First, whether I agree with it or not, veganism is an ethical position and they're refusing to serve any meat on the menu because they think it's morally wrong to. Do you think Fromsoft thinks they're "going to hell" if they put in a difficulty slider? Second, vegan restaurants are ABOUT veganism. There's no reason to choose to eat at a vegan restaurant unless you or someone in your party is looking to have a meal without meat in it for some reason. There's plenty of reasons to play Fromsoft games but at lower difficulty. Most people don't like Bloodborne or Elden Ring "because it's difficult/unforgiving". They like it because of the story. Anyone who would opt out of playing those games because someone else could play them on easier has serious issues.

Soooo a game, which is not paid for nor developed by the community, and is rather purchased with the knowledge that it is a difficult game which will require ample skill to surpass its many challenges, should put in difficulty sliders despite them fundamentally going against the very nature of the game itself?

Fucking YES it should. I didn't buy ER until I was 100% certain it had an easymode mod. So I got what I wanted out of it despite them shoving both their middles fingers at me and telling me I'm not worthy to buy their product because they're intentionally hiding the good part (the story) behind gameplay I didn't want. I'm still pissed that I wasted my money buying Bloodborne. You want me to get over that, cut me a check.

As I said to the other hater, what is with the ER-fanboys turning the chat into full-on-reddit level removedfest defending it? Why don't you just let me have my valid opinions? I know, heaven forbid there exists someone who has an opinion that doesn't match yours.

I found it. It's in Nexusmods instead of in the game.

If you don’t like spicy food. Don’t buy spicy food

I don't know about you, but every spicy restaurant I know has a little "difficulty slider" where you get to ask them not to pour a gallon of ghost pepper into it. It's about making the customer happy.

If you don’t want to “git gud”. You can use summoned spirits. NPCs, other players

Or I can fucking mod the piece of shit and complain about it on forums because it's fucking stupid. But I want BURN Bloodborne because I can't mod it.

There already is a difficulty slider. It’s one you set for yourself.

Yeah. I'm getting really good at archery. Think I'll cut my eye out. Natural difficulty slider

Why is it every time I express a valid criticism about an otherwise story-heavy game with a stupid difficulty-related gimmic the cringe-posse comes out and tries to convince me the game is perfect and no human being would find my opinion valid. Like seriously what I tell my little nieces and nephews, if you don't have anything nice to say, move along.

In other news, I DO respect the Viva La Dirt League reference.

I think it’d be a bit more difficult than you are assuming however since it is also a multiplayer game. I guess they could limit the difficulty options to offline players only.

For online play, you can just match people who are using the same difficulty, and perhaps disable PVP entirely for Easy difficulty. For everything but PVP, it's not that big a deal. Seamless Co-Op Mod works with the Easy Mode mod. If modders can make a coherent experience, I'm sure From could. If they wanted to. Which they don't.

Making it a game about ambiance and story makes it a different game, doesn’t it?

Not really. The experience with the Easy Mode mod in place is pretty much the same. I saw more "You Died" screens on easymode than the typical player sees on regular mode. The only difference is that I didn't waste my money on Elden Ring by having to give up less than 10% into the game like I did on Bloodborne after 50 hours or so.

Some of us, especially older gamers, just don't have the reflexes for that type of game. Unfortunately for us, Fromsoft writes GREAT stories and Let'sPlays are still kinda boring.

Honestly how is this gatekeeping?

"Gatekeeping: the activity of controlling, and usually limiting, general access to something."

The lack of difficulty sliders make the game inaccessible to people who have no ability or desire for the unforgiving experience, nor any ability/desire to "Git Gud Scrubs". It's intentionally left out to exclude those people. That makes it "gatekeeping" by the definition for the word.

This is substantiated by the fact that a mode to make the game easier and a mode to make the game harder are in the top 10 downloaded mods for Elden Ring. If you leave out the loaders and modutils, those same mods are top-5. This is basically unheard of in most games.

You can argue that you approve of this gatekeeping, but it's silly to die on the "it's not really gatekeeping" hill.

I was about to say this. At LEAST wait for a 6 belt balancer to think the man can't be saved.

Nobody knows it but the Turks...

And the scariest part about history I learned in school is that the Vikings always took over the world because they don't need a Cassus Belli.

Yeah, I've noticed there's this weird cross-section of people who ask "do you believe everything you heard on the internet?" about some pretty established facts, and blindly believing Fox News.

The person I was responding to was talking about 100% total gun bans. Just want to make sure you realize this. Nothing you said disagrees with my take on gun control. If you intended to agree, that's cool (but rare online ;) )

Looking at this wiki page, NZ seems to have the same kind of gun laws my home state has, with a fairly similar ownership rate (and it looks like NZ averages 5 guns per owner?). As a general rule, I wouldn't use the term "strict gun controls" if a country's laws match any US state. We get a little crazy here with our Second Amendment.

There’s a lot of room between that kind of control and “everyone has an AR15 and a concealed firearm without a licence”.

100%, except I'm not sure why everyone is so obsessed with AR-15s. People keep trying to ban them in the US while deadlier weapons get a pass. And concealed carry is sorta funny. In my state, all carry is concealed carry because open carry scares non-gun-owners. You can basically have your gun license challenged in my state if you open carry because it can be used to argue you're not in the right mind to own a gun if you carry openly knowing it'll scare people.

I do understand this is reasonably doable, but it also seems like a niche skill for someone really into their hobby

Sure, but we're discussing a world where ammo is made artificially scarce. At the height of "wtf is going on with weed", 1/3 of all pot-smokers I knew were growers, and some were hardcore at it. It's far easier to make ammo than grow decent weed. And unlike weed, we're talking serious logistics problems trying to ban DIY ammo.

I agree it's not common now.

Police don’t need to be a hammer. They don’t need to focus on hammering skills above all else. While they sometimes do need to be, they need the judgement to correctly find those times, they need to understand better options when it’s not those times, and they do need to understand when compassion/caring is the answer

The most effective police forces in the world are in countries where they generally go unarmed... but I daresay that movements like "defund the police" are looking for that same thing - a force of social workers with at least some logical separation from the guys-with-guns.

But that's not just about skills and the right employees, it's about the right list of responsibilities. And frankly, I think they've got enough on their plate they can't do to add animal control in areas where they currently don't do that anyway. If you look at other emergency services, they do one thing INCREDIBLY well. Then you have police that do a dozen things terribly. And often times when they are called to do one of the peaceful things, they escalate the situation due to their training in others of the things. I am not so jaded to think that the world doesn't need SWAT teams occasionally. But I don't think the training that leads to SWAT teams and the training to deescalate a loud drunk are remotely the same.

Maybe we focus too much on the concerns of relatively few gun owners and too little on the victims. Bringing a weapon into a city creates more risk for more innocent victims, and that’s not ok

I tend to agree with this. I really wonder what kind of regulations could be put into place and enforced without abuse by police (who ignore guns on their friends' hips but use it as an opportunity to take out minorities accused of being in gangs)

This has to be part of it.

"Nobody in the entire country having any gun for any reason" is a necessary part of any form of gun control? I don't think I agree with that as it seems a bit hyperbolic. Or am I misunderstanding your context?

But a lot of those accessories make mass shootings easier. While one innocent victim getting shot is a tragedy, it’s not as bad as 4 or 20, or any larger number

Heat compensators make mass-shootings easiers? Recoil compensators? What they do is make collateral (or self-) damage harder. I DON'T understand the bills that come after heat compensators one bit, but I also struggle to see how recoil compensators are problem-contributors. If someone were shooting up my building, as terrible as that would be, I'd prefer they had a recoil compensator. They would be less likely to hit more people, while not actually being more likely to hit their target.

It has to. In my state guns are also harder to get and that’s reflected in much lower gun ownership

When I'm in a "police abuse of power" group and see people looking to drastically increase police power (and/or federal police power, since I live in a fairly left-leaning state as it is) I get scared regardless of the topic. You also point to alcohol - but I think that analogy fails because there's somewhat limited federal regulation on sale of alcohol as long as you're not selling to minors. My (again, "liberal") state lets towns assign liquor licenses basically as they see fit, and you can buy alcohol on almost every street corner.

For efficacy, you bring up "when someone can visit a Walmart over the border". This doesn't seem workable to me. It's not that there's a Walmart in the next state, it's that you can buy a gun in the next state without training, a background check, or any other validation. I'd actually use this as an example of the "throw paint at the wall and hope" form of legislating my side does on gun control that we will not do on any other topic. We KNOW what will work. We can't get what will work to pass, so we spend months talking about other things that both won't pass and won't be effective. What will work is to stop the wrong people from buying guns by making them show they're not the wrong person before they do.

True, but there’s a vast quantity of illegal guns already out there, and you can’t control illegal sales. You can make those more expensive to use, and maybe some won’t

How much more expensive? Are we talking $20/bullet? That won't stop violent crimes or most mass-shootings. Are you talking $200/bullet? That's going to prevent legal gun owners from actually knowing how to use their gun. Remember, far more people die from gun accidents and suicides than homicides. Raising the price of the bullet is unlikely to decrease homicides, will not affect suicides, and is likely to increase gun accidents drastically.

A homicide takes just one bullet. Practice and training takes thousands. The increase of price will disproportionally affect the desire to be a responsible gun owner over the reduction of gun violence altogether. If anything, increase the price of guns while offering waivers for a first gun of someone who has been background-checked and lives in certain "right to farm"-style communities.

Side 2 of this. A lot of people make their own ammo. Not exactly hard. It's currently more expensive than buying ammo, but home-made bullets are not unlikely if that changes. They ARE more likely to do spectacularly bad things in general. And then you could try to regulate the powder (only ammo-specific ingredient), but any criminal and many DIYers could make their own powder with readily available ingredients.

I understand the urge and there are certainly good reasons, yet I don’t think the statistics really bear that out. For all the news about police shootings, the vast majority never do

I'll leave police accountability questions to everyone else in this group that I am sure will come running to my aid. That said, how do you suggest small towns without a police force budget for police? Let's say you live in a town that has had zero gun violence in the last decade and has not found the need for a police force (I did for several years!). Now you seem to be suggesting they budget out salaries for enough officers to replace all the people who use firearms to protect their farms from wildlife. What would be a reasonable response time for those police if an animal starts wreaking havok and killing pets/livestock? When I lived in that town, the Fire (only local service) response time was still 15 minutes.

Not a "gun rights" point, but I'll make it. Police are a hammer. They do a few things VERY well. But no matter their training, they will always be inferior at everything else. In the US (and many other countries), we use police for those other things anyway. With all due respect, in no reality is an armed man with a gun the right first person to de-escalate a verbal domestic dispute. Paramedics deal with situations that start and/or become more volitile than police on a regular basis, and most refuse to carry a firearm even if they are allowed.

How about zero guns in populated areas?

I've argued for that before, differentiation of regions. It went over like a fart in church with literally everyone. The gun control crowd seem to think "rednecks will figure it out or should move to the city", and the gun rights crowd thinks "cities are more dangerous than the country". I've seen knife restrictions in big cities, so firearm restrictions seem more reasonable. Many countries require guns to be locked in cases instead of worn on the person. In cities, that seems pretty reasonable.

How about getting serious about consequences for harm caused by unsecured weapons?

I've always fought for that. But this isn't "no guns at all", which is what I was asking about. Most of your suggestions are not "no guns at all" and seem worthy of discussion.

How about limited gun types to what is useful for expected scenarios?

For me, this is a nonstarter. If someone is at their house and dealing with a coyote attacking family or pets, a semiautomatic rifle is the best tool. If they are using their firearm preventatively, that would be a shotgun. If they need a firearm while travelling and not hunting or anything, semi-automatic pistol. I just named basically every kind of gun somebody wants to ban. Well, that and guns that look especially scary, which I think is stupid. We already limit the guns types to what is useful, and I'll be the first to fight for keeping machineguns out of civilian hands.

I'm also all about banning things like bump stocks, of course. But being honest, many safety accessories people suggest banning aren't contributors to gun violence.

How about fewer places to get them?

Are you suggesting the Federal government step in? In my state, they're fairly difficult to get. Should the Fed try to mimic our laws and policies? That doesn't really seem to be the problem to me, though. If people want firearms and they're legal to purchase, they'll get them whether there's 1 store in their county or Walmart sells them.

How about more expensive ammo?

That seems worth discussing. I have some concerns; unless there's a firing range exception, it means gun owners will have less experience and comfort with their firearm. A person with a gun and no regular practice/training is like a dull knife. It sounds less dangerous for all of 5 seconds before it leads to some accidental tragedy. I'm actually a believer in requiring con-ed including target-shooting for someone who wants to own a gun. A gun that shoots its target can be horrible. A gun that misses its target IS horrible.

How about just an order of magnitude less?

An order of magnitude less what? Less ammo? How does that reduce gun violence? A magnitude fewer guns? How do you intend to execute on that? I do think there's way too many guns in the US. And I think a lot of people own guns that shouldn't, regardless of the gun. I'm a strong believer in background check and psych check to own a gun.

And yes, for the love of god, require the cops in your area to have training, skills, mental health.

We don't have many of those (cops in our area). And unlike the conservatives out there, I kinda like to keep it that way. My not liking cops is why I do like access to firearms. They're simply not qualified or trustworthy in many real-world cases where a firearm solves a problem without ever being pointed at a human being.

Do you have "naturally dangerous" areas in your country? I'm a gun-control-but-not-ban Progressive, and my reasoning is that most of the towns I've lived have had wildlife issues that are only reasonable resolved by firearms. Our coyote breeds attack large pets, small children, and (rarely) adults. We are a free-range-chicken state (chickens must be allowed to run free). My last road, coyotes ran rampant hospitalizing my next door neighbors 100lb+ lab (he was huge). It's not safe to be out alone or in your woods at certain times of year. Not to mention the occasional black bear who usually runs away but sometimes charges... A coyote charged my wife once and her german shepherd fortunately scared it off without bloodshed.

In the last town I lived, we didn't have police, only mutual aid contracts. The mutual-aid department didn't have animal control. Their standard answer to a dangerous predator running amok was "shoot it".

Now... I firmly believe our police is way over-financed, and think the last thing we need is MORE police officers. ACAB and all that jazz. Being honest, I have little respect for police in general, if marginally more than some on my side. So assuming you have areas likes that, how do you resolve it? The last answer I was given was "everyone should move to cities". Needless to say, I was not amused.

I'd love to be convinced that zero-guns-allowed-for-nonhunters at the national level is physically possible in the US, but I just can't.

Actually, I think they don't want linux gamers, with their higher technical savvy. Some game dev companies love how 90% of their bug reports come from 10% of their users (and even brag about it). Other companies would rather just not get those 90% of bug reports.

Oh god yeah, all the freaking time. I feel my brain turn to Jello when someone goes all-in on the "massacre was fake" bullshit, often insisting that no pictures exist, pretending it's just the Tank Guy pic. Someone references the notorious bike pic, they pretend you're talking about a similar bike pic that's a LITTLE less clear about tank treads crushing human bodies. You link them the actual bike pic, they either pretend they don't see the slaughter (best I heard was "they're not dead or run over, they're just taking a nap") or they start saying "well those were the violent people and China saved the peaceful protestors from them"

It makes me want to vomit

If I had to guess, each graphics cycle is a little less dominant than the last. The iterations on graphics are becoming lesser and lesser. A game from 10 years ago is far improved from a game 20 years ago, but not that much worse than a game from last month.

There are moments of awe (imo, especially in VR when a game "nails it"), but we're pretty desensitized to high-graphics video games of late.

I didn't miss that part at all. The top-text just tells a different story from the bottom-text.

Ultimately, nobody should be homeless. But if they are, they shouldn't have to have tons of skill running businesses or networking to get off the streets.

Fair enough. He showed that someone with his skills and experience can get out of homelessness, I suppose. I wasn't looking at the $1M goal nearly as much as the "absolute failure" stuff.

Yeah. Instead of giving a bad-faith summary, the article could've dug into how he couldn't even hit middle-class without leaning on networking. Because saying he failed and had to quit because of his health, then admitting it was his DAD's cancer and that he managed to earn his way fully to middle class, just didn't work well.

I mean, he managed to find himself an apartment and start a growing business, and then he quit in part to be with his dad who was on chemo. From the article's details, he had a place to stay and office space, was on clip to make $80,000 in year 1 from being completely homeless, and had started multiple businesses that had serious growth potential.

I think "look, all you need is tons of ambition, sales skills, and networking" is a bad message, but the article is a shitshow of "our top-text pretends the facts in our bottom-text didn't exist". I wouldn't say he failed at all.

This is just childish mimicry of Marxism. The "landlord" as a source of income becomes a villain because the landlords as a class were villains in the eyes of Marx.

That said, people who full-on hate all landlords would say "fuck you and your money you filthy capitalist pigs" to your argument. That the house is hundreds of thousands of dollars doesn't mean much to a communist because "property is theft". Yada yada.

That said, the fact of that seems to bury the real criticisms about megacorporate landlords that represent a fairly large percent of all rental properties.

Ah yes, belittle your interlocutor when you can't respond to them. Thank you for justifying this block

Yeah, not the same thing. I'm not saying microtransactions can't be stopped. I'm saying it won't happen through US-based legislation.

And this iPhone monopoly suit is apples-and-oranges to a microtransaction litigation. They're being charged with being in breach of an 1890s law that has held strong, but that has nothing to do with microtransactions. In fact, no relevant law exists except some flimsy gambling statutes that simply do not work. Most importantly, there is no legislative piece to it. Apple broke a big law and has been doing so with virtually no consequences for decades. Nobody's passing new laws against Apple. They're just finally facing the justice that they should've faced a long time gone.

There's a difference between fatalism and realism. I'm not saying the problem isn't solvable. I'm saying it won't happen that way.

Say it with me: nobody is ever going to legislate this in the US.