You can’t get more legal than obtaining content directly from the rights holder. It’s more likely that the rights holder is leeching and recording the IP of the seeders.

Retarded title

A sustainable scene wouldn’t have dropped from a $40M prize pool to $4M. The issue is that the esports scene was not self funded, it was funded by a percentage of the base game economy.

The reduction in prize pool being related to the removal of battle pass shows that fans never cared about supporting the esports scene, they only wanted the battle pass for the skins or whatever it is that you get from it.

Even if the Dota 2 esports was sustainable, that would be one game out of dozens.

They know nobody is going to purchase the pay-per-view, but I guess they don’t care since the alternative is not getting any money anyways. Esports was never sustainable because fans refuse to spend money, so they rely on shady sponsorships from gambling sites and Saudi money.

What do you think they’re buying it for?

Nobody ever complained about Left 4 Dead forced bots, but somehow this one is unacceptable. Lol

You have a higher chance of solving this issue if you ask in #webrtc:matrix.org

The purchases (like this one) are real. The partnership deals (AMD, ARM, Broadcom, CoreWeave) are all fake and only help NVIDIA, Oracle, and OpenAI avoid antitrust/anti-competitive suits in the future by feeding them breadcrumbs.

The real deal is Oracle hosting OpenAI models on NVIDIA hardware. Until we figure out if it’s a bubble or not, I guess the only company with guaranteed profit is TSMC.

Tags are locked to a specific commit. So you won’t be able to create a different release with the same tag. Even deleting the repo and creating a new one won’t allow you to reuse the same tag, unless you change the repo name.

Immutable releases include protection against repository resurrection attacks. Even if you delete a repository and create a new one with the same name, you cannot reuse tags that were associated with immutable releases in the original repository.

https://docs.github.com/en/code-security/supply-chain-security/understanding-your-software-supply-chain/immutable-releases

This is just blatantly false. The US is a fascist state.

This is actually insane. Why would you want a visa to visit a fascist state? I guess they applied for a visa just to have it and never use it? You don’t know what fascism is. You have never seen fascism and should be grateful you haven’t experienced the horror of an actual fascist state.

The govt is deliberately destroying the US and they know full well anyone against fascism is not trying to destroy the US.

How exactly are these people with revoked visas anti fascist?

The US is no longer politically about the nuance of belief between right and left, but about fascism and anti fascism.

It’s been like that since the early 2000s (it used to be nazi and anti nazis, but I guess they realized how stupid that was and downgraded it to fascism), funny how that works.

By the way, all of this fascism stuff is unrelated to the topic at hand (both the US and Australia have the right to deny entry based on just not liking what you said), so I’m not sure why you even brought it up.

Saying Charlie Kirk was a piece of shit who literally got what he asked for is very different from Candace Owens attempting to spread fascism to Australia.

Different things (I’ll assume you are right that Owens is a fascist because I don’t care enough to check)? Yes. Are both of them grounds for denial of entry? Also yes.

That’s almost like saying landing on the moon or Mars or the Sun are the same because the craft isn’t landing back on Earth.

Cool example, but that didn’t even make sense.

There is a heck of a lot of difference between a working commentator being held to account (in a country that doesn’t have the same free speech rules anyway for anyone) and holding a vacationer to the same when they are not earning an income from their comments and the country does say that political speech is free speech as a major component of their Constitution.

The US Constitution doesn’t apply to visa holders outside the US.

I’m not sure if you are arguing that the US no longer has a Constitution that applies

If you can quote me saying that, yes. Otherwise I don’t know why you even typed that.

or that you ignorantly thought Australia had the same Constitution as the US.

Never thought or said that. And like I said before, I actually support both decisions so I obviously think it’s legal under Australian law, as well as under US law.

Theft of a can of beans is not equal to theft of a nuclear sub. Sure, they both “boil down to the same scenario”; theft. But I think we can all agree that the same punishment for both would be imbecilic.

Welcome to the real world, where consequences are different depending on where you are. Australia is not the baseline for what should result in denial of entry, and neither is the US. They both have the right to deny entry for just for not liking your name, let alone not liking what you said.

The difference with this thread’s scenario is that yes, they both result in the same thing, but for different reasons. Denial of entry to someone who wasn’t tactful about the boss’ friend who was a hateful bigot is not the same as denial of entry for attempting to weaponise division to destroy a country.

Except that Owens is not trying to destroy Australia, but that’s how you and the Australian government interpret it. Guess what? The US government thinks those people are trying to destroy the US. All that matters is that Australia doesn’t like what Owens said to deny entry, and all that matters is the US didn’t like what was said about Kirk to deny entry.

Another paragraph of nonsense where half of it is not even replying to what I said. I never labeled any of their speech as hateful, and I never said that all speech should have consequences.

No matter how you spin it, it boils down to the same scenario: both sides said things that the government didn’t like, both sides got denied entry to the country. Unless that’s a false statement, you are the one typing nonsense and arguing in bad faith.

A government doesn’t need a reason to deny visas, they need a reason to approve them.

Also:

I do not believe for a second that the two things are objectively different, saying they’re not the same kind of thing doesn’t make them different things. Just because you are claiming to see a difference between them does not mean there is an objective difference.

See how we can all play that game? Maybe use a real argument.

The difference is that both sides said things, and both sides got denied entry to a country because of it. Here you are trying to justify one side while condemning the other. Either both are wrong or both are right.

The reason why I can’t stand LLMs is because they congratulate me before replying to anything I say. This could be a good thing.

AI has money and Mozilla needs it. Are you going to pay for Firefox development?

I find it funny how this thread is against the decision while there’s another thread with people supporting Australia for doing the same thing to an american.

I actually support both decisions. Countries should be able to deny/revoke visas without even having to provide a reason.

Cloudflare blocks VPNs at the request of whoever is running the server. There are tons of websites running on Cloudflare that work with VPNs.

Do you actually expect journalists to have any integrity these days?

If the EU is going to pay for the developers, sure. I’d even go higher and say make it 50 years. Otherwise make your own OS or use Linux.