Who else is being offered that can beat Trump. Answer the question without any double-talk, whataboutism, back-tracking, diversions, or questions of your own.
Simply:
Who else being offered can beat Trump.
Because it seems you just like to post the problems and not any solutions. And that’s about as suspiciously bad-faith as it can get.
They’ll swap out Biden at the DNC convention in June August. At this point, I don’t think Biden can beat Trump. He’s polling as the worst POTUS in 70 years (favorability). We’re just fucked.
So… you have no answer to the question and did exactly what I knew you would. Do you really expect to be taken seriously when you can’t overcome a single question that opposes your view?
Rethink things man. You’re wrong. MOST of the time.
Oh, also…. Polls are bullshit. And you’ve already been fact checked on the polls thing you posted a while ago. So stop spreading that incorrect bullshit.
I feel like there are instances where if you’re watching a video before it’s hit the algorithm there might be curiosity as to why you know about something happening…
This is not new. Feds asking website hosts to give IPs and identities is not even close to unique to Google. Anyone not expecting this hasn’t been paying attention in the last 15 years.
Honestly, I would trust damn near any rogue AI more than the humans any of these companies will hire any more. The more it wants to kill us as opposed to torturing us or milking us for money, the better, although I woudd prefer it not also hate nature … but that’s optional next to what we have now.
In two court orders, the federal government told Google to turn over information on anyone who viewed multiple YouTube videos and livestreams. Privacy experts say the orders are unconstitutional.
The depressing thing is a live-service Harry Potter game would probably make WB a ridiculous amount of money. Lock the best brooms and wands behind a paywall, pay real money to buy House points to win the House cup, all sorts of ways to squeeze money out of players.
So does Rockstar, Valve and Microsoft investigate for any unlicensed commercial usage of the Intellectual Property they own and copyright violations by others. Some are less aggressive, that's for true. If it's not, then Pokemon Company or Nintendo simply don't care.
Edit: Did the reply I was replying to disappeared? I am sure I was replying to someone who said Nintendo would go to investigate the game for any IP infringement.
Some of them seem pretty bad. I feel like the example image with the eyes and the teeth is quite a damning stylistic choice, compared to some of their other monsters which look more like a palette swap and animal change with some model variations. Save for the few that straight up have the same attack, like the Deciduueye example, I think it's reasonable enough to use them for inspiration, although not necessarily the best option. It's a shame they felt the need to rely on something that is popular I think it hurt them a bit by not having as uniform a vision.
That said, even if I do think it's pretty obvious I don't want them to lose this if anything comes of it, Pokemon is just as bad and they have nothing to gain from ruining this persons work other than asserting dominance.
I do hope they use this as a learning opportunity for next time and maybe stop being so goddamn blatant in their "homage". I would have been much more inclined to the game if it felt like the monsters had some rationale behind them because the game is pretty solid overall. All I can say is that I hope the game continues to exist but maybe gets a more original in-world bestiary and not Pokemon Gen 15
Calling this one image damning feels like corporatized media has become so dominant, people don't really get anymore how similar things need to be for it to be an actual legal issue.
Superhero comics have a lot of characters that are obvious ripoffs of characters from other publishers and yet they are still legally distinct enough that they can get away with it. Comes to mind also how Walt Disney created Mickey Mouse to replace Oswald the Lucky Rabbit which, even though he also created, was owned by Universal. Both were rubber hose-styled. black-bodied, white-faced, big-eared animal characters wearing shorts, and yet that was also legally distinct enough for his ownership of the character to be established.
It would take far more than a similar face for Palworld to be liable of anything. Sure, it's enough for people to tell they have tried to imitate it, but by itself that's not grounds for legal action.
There are some claims of copying or tracing meshes going around on social media that could be an actual issue, but the validity of those is still questionable. The Pokémon Company needs to either point out a near identical design, and I do emphasize, near identical, or to prove that stolen assets were used in the game's creation.
I'd argue against the example image being damning in the first place because it's fairly obvious they're both derived from the Cheshire Cat from Alice in Wonderland, which is well passed the point of being public domain
Not only that but they have entirely different body shapes and color schemes. I doubt a face by itself could be copyrighted. If that was the case a lot of anime would have issues.
For the thumbnail image, they took meoth face, purugly body and that's it
These designs are not "inspired" they simply imported the assets from a pokemon game on blender or something, used "copy and paste" for different body parts and that's it, job done that's their completely original creature, totally not copied
One thing that a lot of people don't seem to realize in this whole discussion is that, whatever you may think of it as far as artistic integrity goes, Pokémon only owns the full complete design of their characters and the actual game files, but not every possible independently produced variation or recombination of those traits. They own Wooloo but they don't own every possible roundish sheep-like creature.
To be fair it's obvious that Palworld's company Pocket Pair doesn't care about originality. But whether the are literally infringing on the Pokémon property is unclear, and a lot of people are making serious but baseless accusations out of snowballing social media outrage.
If there's any actual, real issue that warrants a lawsuit, you can be sure that the Pokémon Company's lawyers will find it out. It's not like they need anyone to defend them, we are literally talking about the biggest media brand in the world.
The counter-battery radar doesn’t prevent artillery from working; it makes it dangerous for them. Theoretically the units that took this out could already be destroyed after having had their coordinates calculated and counter-battery fire immediately called down on them.
In practice it was just setting up, having been tracked to its location, and possibly wasn’t working yet. Also the GMLRS rockets fired by HIMARS are not ballistic - they execute a counter-battery-confounding turn. And the salvo is fired quickly after which the vehicle immediately leaves - it can park, get ready and fire a full salvo in under a minute. When the first rocket is detected a couple of minutes later, the launcher will already have driven off and counter-battery coordinates will not be that useful/
forbes.com
Top