Yes because tariffs that make legal imports more expensive are very effective at suppressing illegal imports, which don’t pay tariffs at all, for reasons. Clearly this is the motivation behind them.

No, that was John McAffee.

You’re a teenager, aren’t you?

That can only be done if the case is presented again. You can’t dismiss something that doesn’t exist.

+1 for Syncthing

But muh piracy!

It’s actually a really good game, though of course it has some problems. The real issue is the fact that most people weren’t even aware that it existed.

To be fair, we absolutely should outlaw at least 99% of all currently practiced forms of advertising and make it so that new forms of advertising have to be whitelisted by a panel of psychiatrists, sociologists, environmentalists and urban planners before they’re allowed.

Yes, it is. But when the article’s title is bad, that’s more than enough reason to break convention.

He should. But no, you shouldn’t assume he does.

Better the devil you know.

The people we investigate pay for our giggling paperwork with their taxes, which makes it doubly funny.

A better title would have been "Man arrested by FBI for SEC hack had searched ‘How to know for sure if you are being investigated by the FBI’."That would eliminate the incorrect implication.

… with blackjack and hookers.

Termux has been a thing for years.

In other words, the consent of a corporation is more important than the consent of a human being… for the public distribution of that human being’s likeness in an intimate context. Holy dystopia, conservatives are fucked in the head.

Yes, I’m just explaining it, not justifying it. What I means is “don’t get worked up or upset about it because this is just human nature and while you may be able to change this particular manifestation of it, you will never fix the underlying problem”, not “don’t try to change people’s minds when they’re wrong”. You’re right to be teaching people some discernment. Just don’t suffer when they refuse to listen.

I’m not one of the people flinging insults at this guy. I just understand why others are doing it. They see that it was a monetization guy from Ubisoft and they flip out. Is it a rational and objective reaction? No, but people are neither rational nor objective most of the time.

Well, surely we can agree that it’s an unfortunate job title at least - it’s easy to see why the people are dogpiling on him. If it actually were the money guy saying this, I assume you’d have no objection to the public reaction?

Every public accusation is a confession.