That’s interesting. I’ve not had that sort of issue. On my phone (Android), my son’s laptop (Windows) and my desktop (Arch Linux) the NextCloud clients all sync perfectly and run at start up. Granted, knowing that the Linux landscape is fractured, I wouldn’t be overly surprised if the client had issues on some flavors of Linux.
If you are willing to self-host, I’ve found Nextcloud integrates well in Linux. I had been using it before I made the switch and it worked out just fine afterwards. I originally set it up to have a cloud-sync option for my phone, which didn’t mean passing everything through Google first. But, it also proved to be a handy way to sync files on my desktop as well.
It just shows up as another folder on my system and Libre Office is happy to work on files from there (with some permissions fiddling due to flatpak).
Every new “feature” I hear about in Windows Privacy Invasion Goes to 11, the happier I am that I switched to Linux. It’s been mostly smooth and games have just worked. Though I know that much of that is because of Proton.
Maybe, though if you think about it, the idea is basically:
Hey, we borrowed all this money to buy up lots of companies. But rather than pay it back ourselves, we are going to put all of that debt on this one company we also bought (probably with some of that debt), because thay actually make money.
It’s a shell game to allow Embracer to walk away with all the profits and never have to pay their investors back. If Asmodee manages to pay off the debt, that’s nice for them. Other than the fact that they will be hamstrung by servicing that debt, rather than re-investing in the company. If Asmodee folds and gets auctioned off in Chapter 7, that ends up having no material effect on the leadership of Embracer who made the decision to take on all that debt. Either way, Embracer is jettisoning all responsibility for the choices the management of Embrace made.
This sort of leveraged debt buyout, loot the company, then jettison the debt tactic has been used over and over to destroy otherwise profitable companies in the name of short term profit for vulture capitalists.
They really buried the lede on this one. Sure, Embrace paid back a bunch of money using proceeds from the sale of Take-Two. That’s pretty normal business. But:
The company is also moving €900 million of its debt into tabletop publisher Asmodee as part of its plans to split into three separate entities.
It sounds like they are about to jettison the rest of their debt using Asmodee. Embracer will walk away with whatever money they have made and Asmodee will end up being crushed under most of the debt Embrace used to make that money. Vulture capitalism at it’s finest.
While Chism may be a worthless leech, he isn’t completely wrong. Valve’s ownership of Steam does put it in a privileged position, which could be abused in a lot of anti-competitive ways. The fact that it isn’t doing that is really only because GabeN isn’t the same type of leech which Chism is. He’s what a lot of people seem to want, a benevolent dictator. That said, when he finally kicks the bucket, or gets tired and sells the company, the future direction of Steam would be an open question. There may be a very good argument for Valve to be put under the microscope of the FTC for possible anti-trust breakup.
This appears to be the bill.
The House vote had 3 Nays (surprise, surprise, all Republicans)
The Senate passed it via Unanimous Consent. So, no roll call vote.
Ya, the “hey, pay a bunch of real money to unlock this quest” is a shitty way to monetize expansions. If they want to have a paid DLC, just have a paid DLC. Also, this shit:
It’s instead being sold via the Creation Club storefront that’s also been added to the game as part of this update, for a price of 700 credits.
For a bit of context, purchasing a pack of 1000 Creation Club credits - which is what you’d need to be able to buy this quest…
The execs of any company which has made up “coins” which cannot be bought in exact amount to cover exact items should be dragged out into the street, and have molten gold poured down their throats.
They just want to Reach Out, Hug and Smother. What’s so horrible about that?
As a worker in the Cybersecurity space, it’s absolutely fantastic for job security.
Probably looking to make more money by convincing people on KickStarter to back another VR headset, only to sell the whole thing to a large corp.
Languages shift and change over time. English, as we currently know it, has undergone several such shifts, to the point that it’s less a language and more several languages dressed up in a trench coat pretending to be one. Adding more Spanish words to the language is really just a continuation of a centuries old trend.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said last month. “I think a lot of these cases [will] work up, and the Supreme Court finally says enough is enough, we’re not a banana republic.”
I really hope they do Senator. In a Banana Republic, the Glorious Leader is usually not held to account for his crimes. In the US and in functional Republics, we actually hold people to account for the crimes they commit, regardless of their current or former positions. Trump committed a crime, being a former President doesn’t mean he can’t be held to account.
It does seem that there is an implicit right to vote, but not an explicit one. Which is why I mentioned the Privileges and Immunities clause, if there is a Constitutional right to vote, it likely derives from there. But, being implicit, rather than explicit, means that it falls to judicial review to codify it. It’s also not as solidly guaranteed. Unlike say, the right to assemble, there is no specific text you can point to and say, “this bit of text, right here, says it.” So, it wouldn’t be surprising to see any such decision overturned later on (see: Dobbs decision).
The US constitution does include the right to vote
Kind of, but also kind of not. I replied to another commenter on that, I’ll point you there.
The state level clause about exclusions is only necessary if the right to vote exists in the first place.
I agree that, and event directly stated in my previous post, exactly that:
there seems to be an assumption implicit in this that people have a right to vote
Unfortunately, an implicit assumption is not the same as an explicitly enumerated right. It’s a fine distinction, but can be a big pain in the arse. In theory, US Citizens have a lot of unenumerated rights, via the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution. However, as it’s left open to interpretation, it ends up amounting to almost nothing.
So that explains the wooshing sound.
Sorry, I guess I’ve been primed by one too many comments where folks seem to want to ignore the laws as written when they are inconvenient to the outcome they want.
I was just focusing on what was there in the Kansas Constitution; but, lets walk through it:
15th Amendment, Section 1
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
We’ll ignore Section 2, as it doesn’t seem useful here (same for other amendments below). So, you have a right to vote that cannot be limited by “race, color or previous condition of servitude”. That last bit meaning slavery. So, it kinda does seem to imply a universal right to vote. But again, this leaves open the possibility that the US Government (USG) and States do have the power to limit it otherwise. As a ridiculous example, it seems that this Amendment leaves open the possibility that the State could limit the right to vote for left handed people.
19th Amendment, Section 1
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Pretty much exactly as above, but extending the protections to “sex”.
24th Amendment, Section 1
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Continuing to extend the limits on USG/State powers. This time, it outlaws poll taxes.
26th Amendment, Section 1
The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
And now we’ve extended the prohibition on limiting voting due to age.
There is a through-line on all of these which amounts to “The USG/State cannot limit the right to vote in these specific cases”. At the same time, they all leave open the possibility that the right to vote can be limited by the USG/States, so long as the reason isn’t one of the protected classes. The text of the US Constitution itself is pretty silent on the issue.
Article I, Section 4
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
That kinda tosses the whole thing to the States to figure out. Though, that has been modified by Federal Law a few times.
Article 4, Section 2
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
This is the “Privileges and Immunities” clause of the US Constitution, and it’s been a useful “catch all” to further push the rights of the people. If a universal right to vote exists in the US Constitution, it’s probably here. But, that’s going to fall to judicial review. Which, for the moment, the Kansas court seems to have rejected.
As opposed to?
While being a country of written laws does have it’s pitfalls, it also means that we have something to go back to and agree on. There is a reason that political bodies have been codifying laws since the city-states of ancient Mesopotamia. The alternatives usually break down to some sort of “guy with the biggest stick, at the moment, makes the law”. No thanks, I’ll stick with being a “codified law savage”.
That line isn’t about voting, it’s about being qualified to be a Elector, sent to the Electoral College to actually elect the next US President. So, not exactly textual evidence that there is a right to vote enshrined in the Kansas Constitution. The next couple of sections also kinda work against a universal right to vote in Kansas:
Disqualification to vote. The legislature may, by law, exclude persons from voting because of commitment to a jail or penal institution. No person convicted of a felony under the laws of any state or of the United States, unless pardoned or restored to his civil rights, shall be qualified to vote.
This shows that the legislature does have some power to remove a person’s ability to vote under Kansas law. Granted, there seems to be an assumption implicit in this that people have a right to vote, so long as it’s not been removed. But then we get to:
Proof of right to vote. The legislature shall provide by law for proper proofs of the right of suffrage.
That, right there, is probably doing a lot of heavy lifting for this law. The legislature has the power to provide “proper proofs” for the right to vote. So, it would seem that the Kansas Constitution is setting the legislature up to gatekeep voting, based on “proper proofs”. That could well be the signature verification.
This looks like one of those cases where being a country of written laws can lead to weird outcomes. Yes, the right to vote should be universal. But, if the law, as written, doesn’t say that, then that’s not really the law.
My apologies, I was not familiar with the difference. I’m going to have to test this when I am back at my system. Looking at the docs, it does seem to be experimental in Linux. But it seems odd that it would turn off automagically.