Ok, then force capital gains to be realized annually, and make the capital gains rates more progressive.
Ok, then force capital gains to be realized annually, and make the capital gains rates more progressive.
The fear is that Meta is making the classic tech monopolist move: embrace, extend, extinguish.
Marbury vs. Madison did it. Judicial review isn’t explicitly in the Constitution.
I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s one of the last big releases on Switch.
We know that the Switch’s successor won’t be out until FY2024, so April 2024 at the earliest. There’s also some indication that Nintendo is going to build a bit of a stockpile before launching to reduce scalping. I think that fall 2024 is the earliest realistic launch window. Even then, it’s possible that Nintendo keeps releasing games for the Switch after the next console launch (as Sony has kept the PS4 going post-PS5).
Nintendo has a packed release schedule through November 2023 and then there’s nothing. The only confirmed games with no release date are Luigi’s Mansion 2, Metroid Prime 4, and the Princess Peach game. It’s possible that those all come out next year for the Switch.
I was about to say, Nintendo seems to already be doing this, having learned their lesson from the Metroid Prime 4 debacle.
After the MP4 reset, I think Tears of the Kingdom is the only Nintendo game that was announced more than a few months ahead of its release. They even started shadow-dropping games this year.
Too boring to appeal to the MAGA crowd, too dangerous to appeal to anyone else.
It’s worse than that. The DoE’s main job is overseeing nuclear materials (not just nuclear power plants, but the entire nuclear weapon stockpile).
Are we being pedantic about the definition of species? Mosquitos from the Anopheles genus (and only those species) spread malaria. They’re humanity’s #1 killer.
Driving them and the other mosquito species that spread human disease (Aedes spread dengue, yellow fever, Zika, and chikungunya) should be seriously considered.
Got it.
I don’t see how that could comply with the terms of the GPL.
They might also be banking on GPLv3 contributors being unable/unwilling to take them to court. The Linux kernel is GPLv2, and its contributors are probably more of a legal threat than anything else in RHEL.
Frankly, I’m more concerned about the precedent this sets for the GPL.
If Red Hat can do this, then there’s nothing (legally) preventing every other megacorp from ending public contributions to Linux and other GPL projects, forking them, and releasing them under restrictive contractual terms.
Granted, not everyone would take their code private. Microsoft and Apple make some contributions to BSD/MIT/etc. licensed software even though they are not required to. However, I think we’d miss out on quite a lot of FOSS development.
What stops one person with a free account from mirroring the source?
It’s also against the spirit of the GPL if not the letter. Red Hat isn’t just required to release source code to its customers upon request; that source code comes with GPL rights and restrictions attached (including the right to distribute).
Is it legal for Red Hat to require customers to waive their GPL rights? I don’t think it should be, but I don’t think courts are particularly friendly to copyleft holders.
A lot of the third-party compilations for Switch include one game and allow you to download the rest (Assassin’s Creed is one).
On the plus side, Nintendo is good about releasing revision cartridges with updates. I think that new copies of Breath of the Wild and Mario Odyssey have been fully patched for years.
When I played it a few months ago, it felt complete enough to get a full release. I didn’t run into any major issues, and there was plenty to do.
Microsoft also owns Windows, so it’s debatable whether a game for PC and Xbox can truly be considered multiplatform.
Utopia is a must-have.
Leviathan and Distant Stars are good for their prices.
Beyond that, get what sounds interesting. If you want to play as robots, get Synthetic Dawn. If you want planet-destroying weapons, get Apocalypse. If you like playing diplomatically, get Federations.
This far exceeded my expectations:
But the bad news:
Right. People who grew up with video games as a normal thing (30-35 or younger) think that video games are socially acceptable at any age.
People above that age probably have a “cutoff” of teens or 20s.
The Colorado decision was explicitly for creative works. Signing off on a certificate wouldn’t count, even under the insane far-right decision of SCOTUS.
I’m afraid because of Dobbs.