Hacker News Reader

Comment by radlad | Hacker News Reader

I think the parent's point was that people and companies make mistakes. Voting with your wallet is a great idea -- often times when I pull funding from a company for a perceived slight, if they react to my vote, I'll vote again by paying for their service.

View on HN

There are some transgressions that people don't forgive easily or at all.

I have been taking part in a one man boycott of Nintendo for over 20 years.

Not that it hurts them. Not that they care. I was just done with them.

I hesitate to ask, but what did Nintendo do to justify this lifetime ban? ;) (also, I kind of want a Switch, but anyway)

The way they butchered what was my all-time favorite arcade game "Killer Instinct" with the SNES port and then KI Gold for the N64.

I have never been able to forgive the company.

err... did you ever consider that perhaps those systems weren't actually powerful enough to support the "full" Killer Instinct experience, so there was no way for it not to seem "downgraded" from the real deal?

(I was in my early 20's when that came out in the arcades. I remember it well)

The SNES certainly wasn't able to reproduce the arcade experience. The N64 should have been.

Over the years, I have considered buying an old arcade cabinet just to re-experience the magic.

I just need to find the space for it.

You should do that. Don't lose the wide-eyed kid inside. :)

Many years ago, someone made a PC based Killer Instinct emulator and I played it whenever I was feeling nostalgic.

I had problems getting it to run under XP, I wonder how well it would work under 7.

You boycotted Nintendo because of what Rare did to their own game when porting it? Do you also boycott Microsoft now that they own Rare or do you have some kind of weird double standard?

I was making that point, and ALSO the point that the perceived slight was purely in the eye of the beholder, I edited my comment to add a link to a 2011 academic paper on Spotify's P2P architecture that proves that they were not being cagey or secretive about this part of the design, it was already "out there" and if it just so happened to first cross this guy's radar when he saw the outbound traffic on his own network, he can't really blame Spotify, he can only be indignant at his own ignorance.

So now every ordinary person is going to read academic papers to ensure that a service or product meets decent moral and ethical standards?

If it wasn't on their website designed for selling, then they don't really have an excuse. That is the spot where those kind of details should be mentioned.

> a service or product meets decent moral and ethical standards?

I don't know what your standards are here but "an app that both sends and receives data from the Internet" pretty much describes every app in popular existence right now

Reply on news.ycombinator.com