Live data from Hacker News

Mastercard deflects blame for NSFW games being taken down

pcgamer.com

561–570 of 621 posts

Re: Mastercard deflects blame for NSFW games being taken down

#561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The meaning of words can change over time and across space. The meaning of left and right in US politics encompasses more topics than the matter of who may legally own things. Pretending that those referred to as left and right are all the same because the only true scottsman is Karl Marx is silly.

GP was saying that there are hardly far left politicians, saying that the few that exist are Sanders/AOC/DSA. I was just pointing out that even these are not actual socialists, they're Democratic Socialists of the stripe you find in the mainstream in a lot of staunchly capitalist European nations. There are definitely zero literal far-left politicians, objectively speaking. Socialist/social democrat are two related b…

The list i provided was of left wing politicians.

There are zero far left wing politicians in the US Congress. The far left is literally anti capitalist marxists.

Re: Mastercard deflects blame for NSFW games being taken down

#562

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Steam did support bitcoin at one point but decided to end usage because the price fluctuations made it to unpredictable on their end. Valve knew that there would be price fluctuations. Everyone knew that, and knew how to deal with it. They just priced the games in dollars, with a conversion to the Bitcoin value at the moment of sale. But what Valve did NOT expect was that the Bitcoin blockchain would suddenly grow s…

Are you sure that Bitcoin payments work much better because the amount of payments has dissipated?

>Are you sure that Bitcoin payments work much better because the amount of payments has dissipated?

I don't know. On the base layer, payments are all just transactions on the Blockchain, like any other. So it's not easy to see whether a transaction is a payment or an "investor" speculating, or something else. Then there's also other layers, like Lightning.

My guess is the relative percentage of retail Bitcoin payments, compared to speculative transactions, is now lower than 2017, when Steam accepted Bitcoin. I don't know if absolute amount of payments has reduced. Maybe?

You could look at historical charts of average Bitcoin fees[0], which gives you an idea when retail Bitcoin payments are practical, and when the fees are too damn high. Fees often got above $4, sometimes much higher, in 2024 for example, which would unacceptable for something like buying a game from Steam. Though, still, that doesn't show what impact Lighting is having on retail payments.

[0] https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-transactionfees...

Re: Mastercard deflects blame for NSFW games being taken down

#563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But how does mandatory guidance not impair the authority of an agency? The agency is no longer allowed to do something against the guidance! Or the Order must not be ordering some action?

Government agencies in the executive branch don't have independent authority. They work for the president, and an EO isn't much different than the email you get from your boss directing you to do work a certain way.

An email from my boss telling me to implement something using rust transpiled to wasm certainly impairs my authority to determine the best approach.

My argument is not the EO has the legality to make a claim; it's that the top half of the EO is at odds with the disclaimer at the end. If you mandate somebody to do something then you're impairing their authority to have chosen not to do something.

Like by definition the EO impairs agencies that were using their authority to issue paper checks to continue doing so. It may be advantageous to stop issuing checks but to claim mandating that they don't doesn't impair their authority is just false.

Re: Mastercard deflects blame for NSFW games being taken down

#564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Government agencies in the executive branch don't have independent authority. They work for the president, and an EO isn't much different than the email you get from your boss directing you to do work a certain way.

An email from my boss telling me to implement something using rust transpiled to wasm certainly impairs my authority to determine the best approach. My argument is not the EO has the legality to make a claim; it's that the top half of the EO is at odds with the disclaimer at the end. If you mandate somebody to do something then you're impairing their authority to have chosen not to do something. Like by definition th…

You're conflating authority, the authorization to do something, with autonomy - the ability to use that authority at your own personal discretion. The law grants a regulatory agency the authority to do something that they would not otherwise be able to do, like nationally ban widgets. But the law does not also inherently grant them to the autonomy to do so entirely at their own discretion. For agencies under the Executive branch, the President is free to direct them to utilize their authority at his discretion.

Re: Mastercard deflects blame for NSFW games being taken down

#565

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what far left are you talking about exactly?

[flagged]

Huh, I didn't realize that these culture warriors were sitting in the highest echelons of government power and, just as a random example, wielding the DOJ to enforce their views and quash dissent. Yes, both sides are clearly the same.

Re: Mastercard deflects blame for NSFW games being taken down

#566

This problem is upstream of the credit card companies. How far upstream? Not much. It's their investors. Like Bill Ackman [1] and Blackrock. These companies live in a fantasy world where everything can be "Disney-ized" and made family-friendly. They see how negative press campaigns like Collective Shout can damage a brand's image. And their "solution" is to turn the world into a big Disney theme park where there's no…

[dead]

Re: Mastercard deflects blame for NSFW games being taken down

#567

Mastercard's rule is that they can ban whatever they want, whenever they want. > A Merchant must not submit to its Acquirer, and a Customer must not submit to the Interchange System, any Transaction that is illegal, or in the sole discretion of the Corporation, may damage the goodwill of the Corporation or reflect negatively on the Marks. Create amorphous rules, enforce them as you feel like, then blame others for br…

This is due to under-regulation of these oligopolies and lack of non-profit interoperable alternatives. Some things are too important to be left to the fantastical "invisible hand."

Re: Mastercard deflects blame for NSFW games being taken down

#569

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Far right is calling for the government to block access to certain things they don't like aka censorship. Far left is critiquing those who don't virtue signal enough. That isn't censorship at all.

You have them reversed. Are the far right the ones wanting to censor Musk, Trump and everyone else they don't like?

Re: Mastercard deflects blame for NSFW games being taken down

#570
post #355
post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I stated quite clearly that not every regulation is bad. But it seems that you want to hear that every decision made by the EU is right. I'm sorry, but I'm not a religious person. And I think self-criticism is a great privilege of democratic (not dictatorial) countries, so let's use it. > Ensuring that AI can't be used to make life or death decisions if its decision-making can't be explained (which the AI Act boils d…

> I stated quite clearly that not every regulation is bad. But it seems that you want to hear that every decision made by the EU is right. I'm sorry, but I'm not a religious person. And I think self-criticism is a great privilege of democratic (not dictatorial) countries, so let's use it. But you still said that you think most of the EU's are bad, so I'm opening the discussion with multiple that I consider to be good…

> But you still said that you think most of the EU's are bad, so I'm opening the discussion with multiple that I consider to be good.

I understand your point, but I see no reason to invest time defending the EU's positive aspects. What's the point?

> Of course not, but being able to explain the decision, and thus prove that it is wrong, and have humans being able to correct it, is good. It means that stuff like United Healthcare Group using algorithms to decide if care can be paid for, with a terrible failure rate, and employees just shrugging "computer said no" cannot happen in the EU. The fact that this kind of things are considered as "EU is killing AI with too much regulation" is really concerning to me.

I don't see why "asking for less regulation" concerns you. The EU seems to listen to people like you, not people like me. I should be the one who's concerned, haha. I'm worried because bureaucracy is a slow-acting cancer. It's a process that's easy to start but incredibly difficult to stop or reverse.

The problem with bureaucracy, regulation, and welfare is that they all come with a price. Increasing costs require a strong, cutting-edge economy to sustain them. Yet, no one seems to be concerned. In the US and China, new technologies are constantly being created, while in Europe, innovation is stagnating. No one seems to care that Europe's wealth is fragile, based mainly on "old" companies or banks.

Of course, no one is against welfare; my concern is its unsustainability. As an Italian (living elsewhere in Europe), I find the situation worrying. The demographic decline is dramatic, and pension and healthcare costs are skyrocketing. In Italy, a worker under 40 often earns less than a retiree. With such a sharp demographic decline, retirees have enormous political power.

Europe is aging, and so is its appetite for innovation and risk. Yet, we keep adding costs upon costs. Even if the goals of initiatives like GDPR, the AI Act, and the Green Deal are "right", we can't deny that they come with a price. This added cost inevitably makes companies less efficient in Europe. This is a simple consequence. Can we truly afford this?

How long can we keep going? The rope will break sooner or later. And why doesn't anyone seem to care?

> How is the EU killing the car market, exactly?

1) https://commission.europa.eu/topics/eu-competitiveness/dragh... 2) "The Draghi report: In-depth analysis and recommendations (Part B)" 3) Page 146

I think this report its quite comprhensive to state what its not going that well in EU.

I dont agree with everything in the document, but i think its a good starting point.

Post reply on HN