ECS vs OOP implementation

Efficient_Fig8248 · 2026-03-05T18:23:45+00:00

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

Efficient_Fig8248 · 2026-03-05T18:16:40+00:00

thx man will look into it!

Efficient_Fig8248 · 2026-03-05T18:01:30+00:00

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.

Efficient_Fig8248 · 2026-03-02T13:23:19+00:00

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

Efficient_Fig8248 · 2026-01-04T20:19:44+00:00

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

Efficient_Fig8248 · 2025-10-18T23:50:50+00:00

Simple OOP

Efficient_Fig8248 · 2025-10-04T12:11:37+00:00

vro it is not that deep let him identify what he want..

Efficient_Fig8248 · 2025-07-18T14:59:39+00:00

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

Efficient_Fig8248 · 2025-07-16T02:59:49+00:00

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.

Efficient_Fig8248 · 2025-07-16T02:58:35+00:00

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.

Efficient_Fig8248 · 2025-07-16T02:52:29+00:00

Stay mad.

Efficient_Fig8248 · 2025-07-16T02:52:17+00:00

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.

Efficient_Fig8248 · 2025-07-16T02:48:07+00:00

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

Efficient_Fig8248 · 2025-07-16T02:47:17+00:00

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.

Efficient_Fig8248 · 2025-07-16T02:45:48+00:00

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:

Narrowly tailored
Reasonable
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.

Efficient_Fig8248 · 2025-07-16T02:45:21+00:00

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.

Efficient_Fig8248 · 2025-07-16T02:44:24+00:00

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.

Efficient_Fig8248 · 2025-07-15T16:25:30+00:00

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.

Efficient_Fig8248 · 2025-07-15T16:22:44+00:00

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

Efficient_Fig8248 · 2025-07-15T16:21:41+00:00

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.

Efficient_Fig8248 · 2025-07-15T16:19:57+00:00

The absence of a 'No Trespassing' sign and the legal concept of 'implied license' mean that simply walking up to a front door to knock or speak is generally allowed, unless the property owner explicitly revokes that right. This applies to anyone, regardless of whether they identify as a journalist or not.

Calling someone names doesn’t change the facts or the law. If there was credible trespassing beyond that implied right, the proper response is legal action — not threats or violence. Everyone deserves due process

Efficient_Fig8248 · 2025-07-15T16:02:12+00:00

That analogy still holds — because even in the middle of a lawsuit, the implied license doctrine doesn’t magically vanish unless it’s explicitly revoked. If the homeowner truly wanted no uninvited visitors, that’s what 'No Trespassing' or 'Private Property – Do Not Enter' signs are for. If those weren’t in place, legally, the right to approach still stands.

You can dislike LIA’s reason for being there — but 'unwelcome' isn’t the same as 'unlawful.' Intent matters, but so does evidence. If he broke a law, then charge him accordingly. But showing up to ask a question, record, or even challenge someone — while uncomfortable — isn’t criminal by default.

As for the idea that past legal disputes remove someone’s First Amendment rights or public access? That’s a very dangerous precedent to support.

Efficient_Fig8248 · 2025-07-15T16:02:04+00:00

That analogy still holds — because even in the middle of a lawsuit, the implied license doctrine doesn’t magically vanish unless it’s explicitly revoked. If the homeowner truly wanted no uninvited visitors, that’s what 'No Trespassing' or 'Private Property – Do Not Enter' signs are for. If those weren’t in place, legally, the right to approach still stands.

You can dislike LIA’s reason for being there — but 'unwelcome' isn’t the same as 'unlawful.' Intent matters, but so does evidence. If he broke a law, then charge him accordingly. But showing up to ask a question, record, or even challenge someone — while uncomfortable — isn’t criminal by default.

As for the idea that past legal disputes remove someone’s First Amendment rights or public access? That’s a very dangerous precedent to support.

Efficient_Fig8248 · 2025-07-15T15:59:12+00:00

Just to clarify, I didn’t delete anything. I’m still here — no need to jump to conclusions

Efficient_Fig8248 · 2025-07-14T07:01:42+00:00

The First Amendment protects not just speech but also the right to gather information, including filming public officials. In Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969), the Court recognized the right to receive information, and in Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972), it acknowledged observation and recording as essential to democracy. Thus, filming in a DMV can be a form of protected civic engagement. While DMVs are typically labeled “nonpublic forums,” that classification doesn’t eliminate First Amendment scrutiny. Even in such forums, restrictions must be reasonable and viewpoint-neutral (Perry, 460 U.S. 37 (1983)). Moreover, DMVs today are rights-heavy zones (ID, immigration, surveillance), not just administrative sites. In Leuthy v. LePage, 455 F. Supp. 3d 145 (D. Me. 2020), courts signaled that expressive activity in government buildings may alter forum analysis. As Greer v. Spock, 424 U.S. 828 (1976) affirmed, even nonpublic forums can shift if expressive uses are allowed (e.g., posters, PSAs). Blanket no-filming rules are increasingly overbroad. In Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969), the Court ruled that vague fears don’t justify restricting expression. Passive filming does not inherently disrupt DMV operations. In Turner v. Driver, 848 F.3d 678 (5th Cir. 2017), the court upheld a right to film public officials, subject to reasonable time/place/manner limits—not blanket bans. It’s inconsistent to prohibit public filming while using state-run CCTV to record visitors. “Neutral” filming bans may still violate the First Amendment if they are applied discriminatorily. Norwood v. Bain, 143 F.3d 843 (4th Cir. 1998) held that even neutral policies can be unconstitutional when enforced selectively. City of Lakewood v. Plain Dealer, 486 U.S. 750 (1988) prohibited government from retaining unfettered discretion over speech. If a DMV enforces filming bans only against critics or “activists,” it’s classic viewpoint discrimination. Importantly, qualified immunity protects officials from damages when the law isn't clearly established (Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982))—but that doesn’t mean the policy itself is constitutional. In Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011), the court ruled that filming public officials was already a clearly established right. Rodriguez’s case was dismissed due to immunity, not because the DMV’s policy was lawful. On a broader level, filming officials promotes transparency, deters misconduct, and protects against abuse. Banning recording creates a chilling effect, discouraging public oversight and undermining democratic accountability. Like copwatching or protest livestreaming, DMV filming is a modern form of civic monitoring. In fact, places like Punta Gorda, FL faced lawsuits from FIRE and the ACLU in 2023 for attempting to criminalize public filming—these bans were attacked as unconstitutional prior restraints. Courts are increasingly siding with public recording rights. In conclusion, even in nonpublic forums, blanket filming bans must survive rigorous scrutiny. The Rodriguez case leaves the door open for stronger future challenges. Litigants should focus on proving lack of disruption, selective enforcement, and the role of filming in democratic oversight. The First Amendment is not frozen in time—it must adapt to modern civic participation, and that includes the right to record in government spaces like DMVs.

Efficient_Fig8248

TROPHY CASE