john_strinlai

https://signalundefied.bearblog.dev/everything/

https://signalundefied.bearblog.dev/is-it-meaningless-to-apo...

it's a lie to say you received no benefit from the transaction. you either played it for more than 2 hours (benefit) or you are allowed to refund it via steam's standard policy.

do you have a reply to this comment? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49524418

the game specifically said it only supported windows. that means it explicitly does not support other platforms. they waived their responsibility to cater to your unsupported use case. people who purchased it understood that when they bought it. caveat emptor.

if we carry this on much longer my comments are just going to be flagged, so, good luck with your refund.

this is getting silly though. i am saddened that the concept of personal responsibility has been so eroded. best of luck on your refund.

the developer says it is windows only. a 3rd party, not the developer, says the game can work on non-windows. who should you believe? a real mystery.

maybe the kids arent alright

you can't buy a shirt, wear it for 9 years, then return it.

do you not believe in any sort of personal responsibility? on the same page as the "buy" button, it tells you that the game only supports windows.

>If I buy a shirt, all stores that I go to allow me to return the shirt, or exchange it for store credit.

if you wear it for 9 years, then try to return it, they will say no.

it sounds like you're suggesting valve should be restricting which games they sell depending on the platform you are viewing from?

that would be annoying, and ultimately futile. i purchase games from my phone to play on my pc, or from one pc to play on another. i purchase windows-only games and mess around to see if they can work with proton. etc. i do not need valve to coddle me like that.

"system requirements" is at the bottom of every listing.

you paid for a windows product. the product still works on windows, right?

if ubisoft advertised linux support for this game, i am 100% with you on the refund. as far as i can tell, they did not. they advertised the game as a windows product.

it appears like you are saying "if you trust the font to be okay, you should trust anti-cheat". but we've just cleared up that they have wildly different levels of trust, due to their wildly different access, size, purpose, etc.

different goals, different people involved, different scope of access, different amount of review, different amount of use = different levels of trust

the "system requirements" section is right there, with "OS" being the first line. i dont agree that this is a valve thing.

it'd be an additional expense for a very small % of the player base of a 9 year old game.

i hate ubisoft as much as the next person, but if they listed the game as only supporting windows when it launched, and someone bought it for linux despite it not being supported, ubisoft did not make a "mistake" in selling the game to them. the buyer made a decision to purchase the game for an unsupported system.

(the rule i follow, which hasn't gone wrong yet, is to avoid all ubisoft games like the plague)

edit: am i missing something here? those disagreeing, please let me know why you believe you deserve a refund in this situation, knowing that ubisoft only advertised support for windows.

because no one is risking their exploit chain, wasting their multi-million dollar tools, on the chance that the random person they infected makes a dark joke that they can report to the fbi. when it comes to sophisticated and targeted surveillance, normal people vastly overestimate their own importance. you only get so many uses of a tool like pegasus before it expires, so you dont waste those uses on frivolous "maybe"s.

just avoid snapchat, instagram, facebook, and the other platforms that promise you that they read 100% of your conversations, and you're fine. there's enough people making charlie kirk jokes (or doing actually illegal stuff) on those platforms that ICE will be kept busy.

if you're too scared to make a joke (or vent, whatever) in your own living room, face to face with a friend, because you are worried about your friend's phone being infected by nation-state-level spyware, i sincerely urge you to take a step back and do a reassessment of the risks in your life.

but there is significantly different chances of those events happening. there is a 100% chance snapchat reads all of your messages. a random student teacher being infected by pegasus-like spyware is ~= 0% chance. a flock camera in my living room is 0% chance.

the tactical advice is that if you want to make such jokes, do so using a platform that doesn't scan your messages with ai and auto-report to the fbi

(face to face > signal > .... > snapchat)

...how?

you realize significantly more information than this is on reddit or a quick google?

anyways, after scrolling through all of that stuff, it is not clear to me what the benefit of using this over normal task manager (or sysinternals tools) is, other than themes i guess?

perhaps it is better than whatever the native task management program is on mac?

"lots of words. not much substance".

the double-negative might be confusing, so we can reword it to: "And even if they were neutral, the US should sanction them for supporting terrorism"

that's the part i quoted and my comment is about.

>without any deliberation or really even actual knowledge on the part of the providers.

i think we agree that this is an implicit requirement of being considered a neutral provider.

so, to claim neutral providers should be subject to sanctions implies that a provider who does not know or purposefully facilitate terrorists should still be subject to sanctions (gmail, whatsapp, signal, amazon, etc.)

then we got sidetracked by me being asked how can i possibly know that meta/google/etc. facilitate more terrorists than a/i. which i, and seemingly you, agree is a pretty obvious answer given the scale of the organizations. and i was asked to "walk them through that".

emphasis mine. my assertion is that whatsapp, a neutral provider, facilitates more terrorists than a/i. i.e., the US should consider sanctioning them, if we are to follow nonethewiser's recommendation.

(to be clear, i'm on the pro-privacy, pro-encryption side, and don't actually think the US should be sanctioning whatsapp)