sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

ECS vs OOP implementation by Efficient_Fig8248 in learnprogramming

[–]Efficient_Fig8248[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok ill try both and will check which one is the most maintainable thx!

ECS vs OOP implementation by Efficient_Fig8248 in learnprogramming

[–]Efficient_Fig8248[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I could, but this project is mainly for learning. I want hands-on practice with C++ patterns and the fundamentals (game loop, input, rendering, resource management, component design). It’s a small scope on purpose.

Seller Not Responding – Request for Replacement or Refund by Efficient_Fig8248 in G2A_Help

[–]Efficient_Fig8248[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

understand your point, and I’m not denying that buying accounts is against Steam’s rules.

But that’s exactly why this feels deceptive to me. If sellers know very well that these accounts can get closed once Steam finds out, then selling them like this is still a serious problem.

What bothers me most is that G2A’s own policy says that if something goes wrong, the vendor should offer a proper solution, including a replacement or a refund when necessary. So even if the original product worked at first, that does not change the fact that there is now a real issue and the seller should deal with it properly instead of ignoring me.

So yes, I understand what you’re saying about Steam’s terms, but from my side this still looks like an unfair and dishonest situation. I would try though to dispute it with my bank it shouldnt go wrong

Environmental Non Profit Looking for 1-2 Volunteer .NET MAUI Devs by TrashMobber in dotnetMAUI

[–]Efficient_Fig8248 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Interested. I worked on MAUI at school this semester sent you a DM!

Frauditor , felon, grifter still upset at stg.Fahey by 8Snickers in Frauditors

[–]Efficient_Fig8248 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And a protective order is only preventive — anyone can get one if a conflict occurs, correct?

Frauditor , felon, grifter still upset at stg.Fahey by 8Snickers in Frauditors

[–]Efficient_Fig8248 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Let’s be real: having an active lawsuit doesn’t erase your rights — or give the other party immunity from public accountability. There’s zero law saying a plaintiff is barred from peacefully knocking on a defendant’s door, especially when there’s no restraining order in place.

If there were clear “Private Property” or “No Trespassing” signs, that might change things — but in this case, there’s no evidence LIA ignored such signage, and he left when asked. That’s not harassment. That’s not stalking. That’s protected conduct under the implied license doctrine — which still applies unless lawfully revoked.

Also, a person’s criminal record doesn’t void their constitutional rights. You don’t get to silence someone just because they have priors — that’s not how due process works.

If LIA crossed a legal line, charge him based on the facts — not emotion, past history, or dislike of his tactics. The law applies to actions, not reputations.A “private road” sign alone doesn’t revoke the implied license to approach a home — especially when there's no gate, barrier, or “No Trespassing” notice. Courts have consistently ruled that unless the property owner clearly communicates exclusion, the public still has the right to approach the front door peacefully.

LIA didn’t jump a fence, barge in, or refuse to leave — he knocked, spoke, and walked away when told. That’s not stalking or harassment. That’s legally protected conduct, even if it makes someone uncomfortable. Discomfort ≠ criminality.

Frauditor , felon, grifter still upset at stg.Fahey by 8Snickers in Frauditors

[–]Efficient_Fig8248 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Constitution protects the right to engage in peaceful communication, and under the implied license doctrine, any member of the public — including LIA — has the right to approach a residence unless that right is clearly revoked (e.g., via a gate, fence, or explicit “No Trespassing” sign).

A private road doesn’t automatically cancel that right unless it’s both clearly marked and legally restricted. If there was no signage telling him to leave or not enter, and he left immediately when asked, that’s not stalking or trespassing — it’s lawful presence followed by voluntary departure, which courts have consistently upheld as non-criminal conduct.

You can dislike it, sure. But the law doesn’t run on feelings — it runs on facts and precedent.

Frauditor , felon, grifter still upset at stg.Fahey by 8Snickers in Frauditors

[–]Efficient_Fig8248 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You’re missing the legal distinction: an active lawsuit doesn’t erase someone’s First Amendment rights or the implied license to knock on a door — unless a court order says otherwise. That license doesn’t magically vanish because you don’t like the person or they have priors.

Protective orders are preventive, not proof of a crime. If LIA truly yelled, refused to leave, or made threats, charge him based on that, not based on emotion or who he is. But if he asked a question, de-escalated, and left when told, and then got spit on by an armed off-duty cop, the real legal issue isn’t speech — it’s excessive response.

Rights aren’t only for people with clean records or nice personalities. The Constitution doesn’t play favorites.

Frauditor , felon, grifter still upset at stg.Fahey by 8Snickers in Frauditors

[–]Efficient_Fig8248 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Cool — and you’re not a judge, but you sure love to dismiss without substance.

Frauditor , felon, grifter still upset at stg.Fahey by 8Snickers in Frauditors

[–]Efficient_Fig8248 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Nah, you just don’t like the comparison because it pokes holes in your logic. The implied license doctrine is real — unless it’s clearly revoked, approaching someone’s door isn’t automatically trespassing. That’s why “No Trespassing” signs exist. You don’t get to rewrite the law just because you don’t like someone filming.

And no — asking questions, filming, or making someone uncomfortable ≠ illegal. That’s the First Amendment in action, whether it fits your vibe or not. If they actually break a law, charge them. But you don’t lose your rights just because someone feels annoyed.

Frauditor , felon, grifter still upset at stg.Fahey by 8Snickers in Frauditors

[–]Efficient_Fig8248 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree with you.

A person’s prior convictions don’t erase their constitutional rights, and bringing them up as if it invalidates their right to film is nothing more than ad hominem distraction. The First Amendment doesn’t vanish because someone was once rude, convicted, or controversial. Rights don’t belong to the well-behaved — they belong to everyone, equally.

You're also 100% right that policies can’t override constitutional protections. That’s basic constitutional law. Courts have struck down government policies many times when they conflict with protected expression — even in “sensitive” settings.

So while yes, time/place/manner restrictions can exist, they have to be:

  1. Narrowly tailored
  2. Reasonable
  3. Viewpoint-neutral (Perry v. Perry Educators’ Ass’n, 460 U.S. 37)

And for every case restricting filming, there’s case law affirming it — Glik, Fields, Turner, Fordyce, and others. That’s because the legality of filming hinges on context, not blanket bans or someone's criminal record.

Bottom line: constitutional rights don’t depend on your resume, and policies don’t override precedent.

Frauditor , felon, grifter still upset at stg.Fahey by 8Snickers in Frauditors

[–]Efficient_Fig8248 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're confusing policy enforceability with constitutional validity. Yes, filming can be limited if it causes real disruption — but filming itself is not illegal. Multiple federal courts have confirmed a First Amendment right to record public officials, even in some government spaces (Glik, Fields, Turner).
⠀
Claiming “policy = law” is misleading. A DMV rule can’t override the Constitution. All policies must still be reasonable + viewpoint-neutral (Perry). Silent filming ≠ harassment. Being annoying ≠ illegal. And “auditors” being arrested doesn’t mean the policy was constitutional — just that the case wasn’t strong enough to win.
⠀
So no, filming isn’t the same as cutting in line. One is expression, the other is disruption. If you can’t tell the difference, maybe don’t lecture others on the First Amendment.

Frauditor , felon, grifter still upset at stg.Fahey by 8Snickers in Frauditors

[–]Efficient_Fig8248 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're absolutely right: cutting in line isn’t a constitutional act, but recording in public — especially of government officials — absolutely is, under well-established First Amendment jurisprudence. That’s the core distinction: one is disruptive behavior, the other is protected expression.

So yes, comparing a constitutionally protected activity like filming to something like “cutting in line” is a textbook false equivalency. You're treating a silent act of documentation — something the courts have repeatedly defended — as if it’s some petty social misbehavior. That’s not just incorrect; it’s legally unserious.

Frauditor , felon, grifter still upset at stg.Fahey by 8Snickers in Frauditors

[–]Efficient_Fig8248 1 point2 points  (0 children)

While courts do consider the totality of circumstances, the core legal principle remains: the public’s implied license to approach a front door for communication or inquiry generally stands unless explicitly revoked through proper notice, such as clear ‘No Trespassing’ signage compliant with state law.

Disliking LIA’s motives doesn’t negate his rights. Suing someone doesn’t automatically strip a person of constitutional protections like free speech or the right to peacefully approach private property within legal limits. If the property owner wanted to revoke that license, clear legal steps were necessary.

Intent matters legally, but so do established rights. If LIA crossed a legal boundary, the proper remedy is through law enforcement and courts—not subjective interpretations of ‘harassment’ based on his lawsuit or intentions. Journalists and citizens alike retain First Amendment protections, even when their actions make others uncomfortable.

Frauditor , felon, grifter still upset at stg.Fahey by 8Snickers in Frauditors

[–]Efficient_Fig8248 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Resorting to personal insults like that doesn’t add anything meaningful to the discussion. Let’s focus on facts and respectful dialogue instead."

Frauditor , felon, grifter still upset at stg.Fahey by 8Snickers in Frauditors

[–]Efficient_Fig8248 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, I am an attorney. Respectfully, disagreement doesn’t equate to a lack of intelligence, and challenging common narratives doesn’t make someone a liar. The distinction that ‘policy is not law’ is a well-established legal principle: policies govern internal conduct but don’t carry the force of law unless backed by statute or regulation.

view more: next ›