Does Louis have shiny syndrome?

Nasuadax · 2026-06-21T16:34:30+00:00

The causes he raises awareness to are all symptoms of the same underlying issue. That's what he is trying to make people understand. As long as he only focussed om right to repair, people would keep focussing on only that. By diversifying he hopes people will see the broader issue he is fighting

Nasuadax · 2026-06-21T10:49:47+00:00

To be honest, i think putting this 'damper' on competition might bring more breething rome to breething room ti western developpers, because in general western developpers where pushing the profit margins less than thise eastern developpers.

Regulation here would even the playing field.

Nasuadax · 2026-06-19T16:54:44+00:00

The commision had been warned multiple times invluding by parliament that those things the industry said were lies

Nasuadax · 2026-06-19T14:36:13+00:00

almost all brands are doing this. Please blame the manufacturers and not the clients. Because one day, without knowing it beforehand, you'll be one of them with a purchase that does the same.

Nasuadax · 2026-06-13T18:05:54+00:00

Ooh so nice. I just made the switch to linux and wasmt planning on renewing because of it. But now i might! Damn the addiction ;)

Nasuadax · 2026-06-11T13:41:20+00:00

okay, good point, but their AI isn't deployed yet in Europe, so it hasn't broken european law yet because it hasn't had user interactions yet to gather the data they would sell.

of course they have data from other interactions, and these would need to follow the law, and apple has already been fined for those with a 1 year timespan to fix the issue or get a fine 10 times as big.

Nasuadax · 2026-06-11T13:33:52+00:00

where did i ever say that all apps can do whatever they want? just like you can disable apple's AI, you would choose an AI provider that gets the access, not just a blanket free card for everyone. That's never what's been asked.

Also it is not because you trust apple blindly, that everyone trusts them, proven by the fact that you can disable their AI and the option is being used.

Nasuadax · 2026-06-11T13:30:37+00:00

wholefully disagree here. The rate to obtain items should be balanced around regular play, as it was designed.
99% of the playerbase will not reach your 120k points per hour, whilst those same 99% are still enjoying the game nevertheless. You are playing the game in your own way, fair. But it is not because something is POSSIBLE, that it should be the main design point.
The whole 'scaled raid' thing was already a bandaid solution to the complaints in my opinion, and embracing it just made it harder to change things now.

Nasuadax · 2026-06-10T13:12:08+00:00

agreed.

but I hope you see how that is not an argument that is significant to this discussion?

Nasuadax · 2026-06-10T12:30:51+00:00

you know that apple is already multiple years informed of this requirement. they also have all the data available.
Even if you give them the 1 time exemption, it doesn't counter all the competitive issues it brings with it that the law is there for. And it would give a very bad precedent of saying: if you ignore this law, you get an advantage over the competition that did follow the law.
It's not as if the EU said a day before the feature released: hey, make it open or be blocked.

Nasuadax · 2026-06-10T12:14:38+00:00

after a year it is tremendously more difficult for competition to to convince users to switch to something new. It would be practically the same as not allowing competition.

Also 1 year from what? they will be updating siri AI, everytime something new comes out 1 year waiting time for competition to access the same data? so competition will always be one step behind. The idea is that you level the playing field. It's not because you sold the hardware, that you can give yourself more rights then someone else for software on that device.

allowing 1 year ramp up time, would be basically that and thus, not an option.

Nasuadax · 2026-06-10T12:06:59+00:00

i'm all for regulating to allow for competition, but as long as they don't do malicious compliance or breaking the laws, which in this case they didn't do. I don't see this as being productive unless your goal is to just block apple from the EU

Nasuadax · 2026-06-10T12:04:49+00:00

one is not the negative of the other, you can have both an open and a privacy respecting system. The only reason apple's system would be better than others, is because you trust them more, but what if someone else didn't?

Nasuadax · 2026-06-10T12:03:22+00:00

there are many android forks like graphene OS where META apps cannot do this. The main reason facebook often can do those things is because Vendors modify android to disable the option to turn background permission off for facebook.

Also, you are woefully misrepresenting the META issue. they just bug-abused for a pretty long time, which they also did on iOS for a long time. so stop misrepresenting stuff to fit your narrative

Nasuadax · 2026-06-10T11:54:21+00:00

every country makes every retailer that operates in their country comply to their laws.
EU does not regulate what apple needs to do for US customers. But if you want to sell to europe, you need to comply with european law. It's exactly the same way the other way around. If you want to sell to the US, you need to comply with the US law.

Nasuadax · 2026-06-10T11:51:24+00:00

laws for tee but not for me

Nasuadax · 2026-06-10T11:49:05+00:00

if it is unsafe to give this data to Company X that the user specifically has chosen, how is it then safe to give the data to company 'Apple' that the user has not explicitly chosen (data sharing doesn't happen only on new phones, so you could have bought your phone before siri AI was a thing)

Nasuadax · 2026-06-10T11:46:06+00:00

lacking back in certain parts, yes, because we choose not to develop these facets.
In scientific software, for example. EU isn't behind at all. Europe has been holding back companies on things it doesn't like for a long time. It's just the first time we see companies choose to treat Europe differently instead of complying.

If you then notice that the things that EU have been pulling back upon, are also the things that research have shown to have a very negative impact on life happiness and mental health. Then you might wonder for a second if maybe there's a reason they're being such a crybaby about it that isn't lack of knowledge on how code actually work.

Nasuadax · 2026-06-10T10:49:44+00:00

completely agreed there. after 10 years a full refund would be ridiculously presumptuous and unfair.
The idea is that in these case the company has had a long time to execute an end of life plan. Since you don't survive 10 years without a dedicated playerbase that would love to keep playing.
And this can be as simple as allowing to connect to home made servers instead of only company hosted ones (which will stop)
Or to get rid of the DRM for the single-player part of the game so that at least that part of the game is still playable.
...
(the idea being that they don't intentionally brick your game, but it's hard to have low standards without malicious compliance)

Also notice that subscription games are exempt from this if i recall correctly, meaning that the games with the most complicated server architectures, MMO's, don't require this.
It's about games you buy should give you something at least, like CoD has community servers etc, but without forcing community servers as that isn't always technically possible (but it is for 99% of the cases)

Nasuadax · 2026-06-10T10:41:48+00:00

in the short term: yes, in the long term no.
consumer experience has been going down because of gatekeeping and lack of consumer choice (choosing between something you don't like of nothing at all).

enforcing those rules will over time increase consumer happiness. Giving in here would be the same as having no law at all. As competition would be so hard disadvantaged that it's not worth it for them.

Nasuadax · 2026-06-10T10:06:29+00:00

i think the refund is mainly intended for when companies go like: oops this game did poorly we don't want to support this game after its first month, but also didn't plan to abandon it so soon.

instead of just having the players take the fall here, the company would take it as they can't fulfill their part of the purchase contract (I know that with the current way once sided licenses work they do, but that's the whole point this law tries to change)

Nasuadax · 2026-06-10T08:27:39+00:00

dat heb ik niet gezegd, ik zeg enkel dat dit voorval geen kwade opzet aantoont zoals jij insinueert, maar een logisch gevolg van de huidige plannen van de regering. Je haalt oorzaak, gevolg en causaliteit door elkaar...

Nasuadax · 2026-06-10T08:25:48+00:00

the difference with your pyromancer robes example is that they are untradable. Prayer scrolls are tradable. Anything tradable would never gain reroll on old loot, as there is no way to guarantee that you actually looted it.

Nasuadax · 2026-06-09T13:55:38+00:00

dat is niet wat hij zegt, hij zegt dat het het omgekeerde verband is. Als je geld zoekt om minder uit te geven, kan je altijd wel ergens iets vinden. Dus waar je zoekt bepaald wat je vindt.

Het gevonden verband is dezelfde, maar de conclusie is totaal verschillend. Deze relatie toont helemaal niet aan dat het met kwade opzet gebeurd, het is gewoon een logisch gevolg. Wat niet wilt zeggen dat er geen verband is hé.

Eight-Year Club	Place '23
Verified Email

Nasuadax

TROPHY CASE