ChairmanMeow

In the EU, the GDPR requires this actually.

Having never used a mouse like this, what do you use the trackball for? 3D designing or something?

If you copy everyone else you're not going to be profiting much, as your product isn't competitive. You have to keep iterating on an idea to stay ahead of the competition.

IP law lets companies stop innovating after they've come up with a product, because other companies cannot directly compete using the same or a similar design.

Did Android phones stop innovating because Apple did a smartphone first?

There are only 3.5 billion jobs worldwide. A good amount of those work for the government, in the army, in the public sector, etc...

I'd be surprised if it manages to get above a billion to be honest. Remember that copyright is a fairly recent invention.

How about requiring IPs to belong to a specific person, with a set expiry of say 10 years? Corporations wouldn't be able to own IP, only pay for the usage rights (for the first 10 years).

Breath of the Wild is 8 years old at this point. Asking $70 for that is pretty egregious in my opinion. Maybe for TotK that'd be more acceptable but for BotW I think it's a very steep price. Especially given that it's common that rereleases usually include dlcs by default.

I'd expected $60 for the full package, not $90, given that the amount of development work was likely pretty low (the game was finished years ago after all). So 50% higher than expected.

The SM64+Sunshine+Galaxy bundle game was $30, for comparison. That's three full games that they needed to put in effort for to run on the Switch.

Then you also mandate tri-monthly doctor's appointments or something similar to check. Sounds horrible.

There's a nasty server desync issue on Bedrock that they haven't managed to squash yet. It means that you're not seeing what is really happening, and can suddenly die as a result.

There's a reason Bedrock's nickname is "Bugrock".

Personally, I find Java + Fabulously Optimised modpack to be smooth enough.

Yes, that's not in dispute?

If you click through on the source on commerce sanctions (which is what would apply to possible tariffable goods) then you will find that the BIS oversees that. Not the taskforce going after Russian oligarchs, who have a different set of sanctions apply to them.

Again, there's already a high level of tariffs on Russian trade, and they don't have a "most favored trade nation" status anymore:

U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer told lawmakers there is “no effort to reinvigorate trade with Russia,” pushing back on Democrats who suspected Mr. Trump was cozying up to Russian President Vladimir Putin amid negotiations to reignite economic relations or end the war in Ukraine.

President Biden signed bills and issued decrees in 2022 that sanctioned Russia and Belarus and increased tariffs on things such as steel and aluminum, minerals and chemicals.

“They already have these high tariffs, they don’t have permanent normal trade relations,” Mr. Greer told the House Ways and Means Committee.

Sanctioned oligarchs have completely different sanctions than trade sanctions that apply to countries. Apples and oranges.

One is a sanction lifting on a fairly unimportant woman, true. Two are about "plans" a month ago (nothing was put in practice). Last one is tangentially related. But none are really about lifting sanctions on the country.

Trump hasn't lifted any sanctions on Russia yet. He prolonged them for a year in February, and has been trying to offer the perspective of lifting them in exchange for peace negotiations. But since Putin hasn't started negotiating in earnest yet, no sanctions have been lifted as far as I know.