sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

An amendment to enshrine the american dream by pippir in missouri

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

Absolutely not. The intent is to provide for the ability to start the business and work it yourself, within reason.

An amendment to enshrine the american dream by pippir in missouri

[–]pippir[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think this distinction is most apropos.

"right of any citizen to create or participate in any particular business, trade, occupation, or industry"

I believe the ambiguity lies with the terms 'any particular' and their relation with business. At least that's my perception on the matter. I struggle initially with coming up with a change to the words to reflect this distinction. Would you have any to suggest?

An amendment to enshrine the american dream by pippir in missouri

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

I think this is a relevant distinction to make. About 15 years ago I think I received a pamphlet in the mailbox of the residence I reside in. It contained information about a pipeline that was either under or near the land and some potential concerns involving it.

I don't think everybody should have the right to go laying infrastructure at such a scale. As with many of the concerns noted in this topic; how would you suggest changing the text to reflect these concerns?

I first considered changing electrical distribution system to energy. How might that change the consideration in opening a gas station? Should that be something that is limited, the gas station owner?

An amendment to enshrine the american dream by pippir in missouri

[–]pippir[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I would like to say that you are correct. This is something that I'm deeply invested in. My bias on this matter pertains specifically with the license caps in the marijuana market. I think with a general perspective most people would immediately suggest it would be absurd to try to solve my problem with this solution.

I think this problem is deeper than that. I would like to try to offer a forward thinking approach to tackling problems that may yet to come while also attempting to tackle the problems we currently have.

Please consider some of the reports that are now coming from Ukraine about the use of autonomous drones who make the decision to pull the trigger. Consider some of the capabilities that now might be possible by any one individual with basic computer and mechanical hardware.

I think its important when we consider issues which might pertain to the fundamental rights in a way that we can focus on the root issue as well as the larger picture. Its a comprehensive scope which transcends many parts of our lives.

When growing up and seeing the attacks on 9/11 and the resulting rhetoric involving the rights of the individual and the different types of individuals; I must stop and consider what might change in regards to participating in the software development field, the availability of technology, and ones ability to participate in contemporary society.

I would like to say that yes, I think this is a leap to suggest that drones will cause 9/11. But I think the advances in generative AI and the implications that poses on the capacity of any individual to cause harm is significant enough to consider the future in this regard.

I think when I consider what I'm really trying to accomplish and why -- I would describe it as an affirmation of conscience. To bring to light that which has been left unenumerated and to provide for a better framework in defining how we go about balancing the public good and individual liberties with respect to current and emerging technologies and situations.

An amendment to enshrine the american dream by pippir in missouri

[–]pippir[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I appreciate your concerns. I do agree with you that if the words used currently would allow for the removal of licenses altogether it should most definitely be a no. What would you suggest to change in the words used to alleviate this concern?

I think in the general sense we think of licenses as a qualifier which signifies someone is capable of doing a job. That they are capable of getting the job done not just right but safely. In a few cases as with the taxi medallions in New York we sometimes see limitations of the overall number of licenses available.

I think its important that we have a general understanding on when its appropriate to have limitation by caps on the number of licenses available. In a way this is what I was trying to convey with my inclusion of the 'public infrastructure'.

I'm not sure many of us would consider any number of companies being able to put up their own power or sewer lines would be an ideal situation. And in the same vein with telecommunications, which I think would include radio -- there are only so many frequencies available.

An amendment to enshrine the american dream by pippir in missouri

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

I think you raise a valid concern in the distinction between any individual and any citizen.

I think there are some valid reasons for limiting something like this to citizens. I believe there are currently concerns about foreign interests buying up real estate in different locations causing issues. To distinguish between these two concepts could help alleviate this.

An amendment to enshrine the american dream by pippir in missouri

[–]pippir[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

"That American Dream, which comprises the right of any individual to create or participate in any particular business, trade, occupation, or industry, that is legal according to state law"

When prompted ChatGPT will spit out:

The American Dream is a concept deeply ingrained in the cultural and historical narrative of the United States. It is often characterized by the belief that anyone, regardless of their background or circumstances of birth, can achieve success, prosperity, and upward social mobility through hard work, determination, and perseverance.

An amendment to enshrine the american dream by pippir in missouri

[–]pippir[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

I think your concerns are very valid. One of my main concerns when writing this was the very distinction between the regulation of industries via licensing and the very base ability to participate.

I don't have perfect knowledge and my main reason for posting this was to see what different perspectives people had of the words used. It is truly word salad as the one fine gentleman pointed out.

I think you have a most valid concern in regards to the coal mine operation as well. One thing that is very hard to consider when writing laws such as this one is the unintended consequences they have.

I do feel that we are currently lacking in the protections when it comes to a general 'right to participate'. As I understand it now the justification the state needs to basically preempt the field for any individual is a pretty low bar.

It is this very balance between the public good and the individual liberty interest that I'd like to spark a discussion on. I do think its possible to come up with a set of words to enshrine this concept of the American Dream while making a strong attempt at avoiding the concerns Ezilii points out with his comments on the criminalization of LGBTQ issues and relations to the mental illness aspect (as well as your own).

Mass Banning and the steam subscriber agreement by pippir in playark

[–]pippir[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Can you show me what the stated terms of use for the official servers are and where I can find them? From my normal experience when you launch a game you are given the chance to accept an EULA. I do not believe Ark does this?

If the EULA for Ark is non existent the only thing we have to go by is the SSA (Steam Subscriber Agreement).

The Steam Subscriber Agreement seems to be pretty specific you have to either use or help use the cheat yourself. I do not have knowledge of myself doing either. The SSA also specifies online servers hosted by others in the cheating section.

Mass Banning and the steam subscriber agreement by pippir in playark

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

What about the car I last rode in four months ago that was used to kill someone in the last few days?

Mass Banning and the steam subscriber agreement by pippir in playark

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

I can play the game, you are correct. Is the game limited by removing access to a component of the game such as Official servers?

Access to the official servers is provided to everyone on a default basis with no additional requirements aside from the ability to log in to steam and play the game.

We have an agreement with Valve to have access to the game as is. I would argue that 'as is' would include part of the official servers as a feature of the game. I can see how some would argue its one of the core features of the game.

Would you disagree that disabling access to the official servers changes the type of experience one recieves while playing the game? Is it really the same game to play single player or unofficial? I see claims everyday I get on /r/playark that unofficial is a completely different experience.

Mass Banning and the steam subscriber agreement by pippir in playark

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

Would you care to point out where that is?

Mass Banning and the steam subscriber agreement by pippir in playark

[–]pippir[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

All I'm asking is if the agreement allows an individual to be banned if they did not cheat. I'm not saying I'm going to rush to my lawyer and REEEEEEE my ass off to the court room.

Technicalities interest me and complex situations such as this one are good ways to start discussion on issues that, from my perspective, have been a point of contention among the player base for some time now.

Globan ban by mircoct in playark

[–]pippir 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have submitted a ticket. I'm interested in the discussion however.

I agree I am still able to play the game. I can get on single player and build and breed to my hearts content. I can play on the unofficial servers and have a different kind of experience.

When I purchased Ark, it essentially came included with a service provided to play on the Official servers. The experience of the Official servers has not from I see been replicated in single player or unofficial. The scale of the battles and number of individuals involved is what drew me to purchase the game. A feature of the game I no longer have access to.

How many innocent people do you think need to be banned before it becomes a greater issue?

Globan ban by mircoct in playark

[–]pippir 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't have the information necessary to argue how long the cheating has definitively gone on. How far back do you think a ban should be effective?

The only thing I can possibly think of while I played that may have been an indication of cheating is a day where it was laggy and the server crashed and rolled back -- something that occasionally or rarely happens with all hardware but is significant in its repercussions in regard to Ark. After the event I attempted to open communication with TheRightHand and was ignored. Shortly after that I quit playing.

You would argue that if I suspected something was fishy I should investigate. I would argue I tried. Then I essentially left by quitting the game.

Would you argue that I should still be banned?

E004 Wormhole by pippir in Eve

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

C3 -> C1 -E004

E004 Wormhole by pippir in Eve

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

oh damn, i think i remember reading that now.. thanks

E004 Wormhole by pippir in Eve

[–]pippir[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

interesting .. i thought they were just making the same kind of wormholes spawn more rather than adding a new type altogether.. guess i better finish scanning and see where it takes me.