RadDevon

Oh, that’s helpful. Thank you for sharing that!

Turns out this was my goof. I was trying to set up auto-login on my user account. In doing so, I set it to automatically log in to Plasma (X11) instead of Plasma (Wayland). Odd that the default option in that dropdown is not the one you're currently using, but 🤷‍♂️.

What I'm now trying to figure out is why I can't set auto-login for Plasma (Wayland). The Apply button is disabled. 🤔

Thanks to everyone who shared ideas.

HDMI switcher is an interesting idea. Will it do more than just forward on the EDID? (Hope I have that right. 😅) Will it sorta translate it and push out its own EDID?

The cable is one of the two cables that previously completed the chain between the display and computer. Could it still be a problem in spite of that?

The monitor definitely is. Like I said, it was working when connected through the soundbar. It seems to be that it isn't reporting capabilities the same way the soundbar did when connected directly to the computer.

aside from leaving them behind

When I saw this, I thought it sounded really cool! That is, until I remembered that I literally never touch my Windows machine except for gaming, so, unless I’m going to try to play two games at once (spoiler: I’m not), I will unfortunately never have a use for this. 😅

Yeah, I get it, but I figure if someone doesn't understand why it's a problem to blame someone for having their content stolen, they probably won't understand why it's wrong to blame them for having other intangibles stolen either. The transition to tangible object was intentional in hopes of bridging that gap. The only right that is exactly the same as copyright is copyright, but that analogy wouldn't really work for someone who doesn't understand how copyright works. 😅 It's kinda the point of an analogy: to highlight the similarities between two things that are similar in some ways but necessarily different in others for the benefit of someone who understand the subject but not the object of the analogy.

But again, the point isn't that car ownership is the same as copyright. That's a (intentional, I think) misunderstanding of how analogies work. They don't claim that every attribute of the two things being compared is the same; only that there may be enough similarity to bridge a gap in understanding. I can't see anything so wrong with this analogy that it invalidates the point I was making with it. The point was that having the law commonly ignored doesn't open the door for victim blaming if they don't jump through all the hoops armchair lawyers define for them. That's often the case when the law grants us rights: we just have them at a certain point and don't have to do anything else. I have a right to continue owning a car that I bought. I have a right not to be punched in the face. I have a right to be involved in my children's lives. I have a right to continue to own the works I create. These are different rights which apply to different sorts of things, but the principle is the same. If I had made any of these analogies (or any analogy period), a bad faith argument could certainly have found a trivial difference between the two… but it would have been just that: a bad faith argument based on a trivial (for the purposes of this analogy) difference.

Is stealing a Reddit post the same as stealing a car? No, because as everyone has pointed out, the car cannot easily be copied, but is violating someone's copyright the same as violating their ownership rights over some item they purchased? Yes. When you violate someone's right to own the car, they do not retain an identical un-violated copy of their right to own it, just the same that way when you violate their copyright, they cannot retain an identical un-violated copy of that right somehow. Both of these rights have been violated equally, and the tangibility of the object they applied to doesn't change that.

I guess my example is that, isn't it? 😅 My point is that you generally don't have to remind people of your rights in order to enjoy them, and that's true for copyright. Pick your own favorite right and replace my car analogy with it.

Now, I just need to find a way to compare cross-posting Reddit content without permission to the Nazis and describe Lemmy as "the Uber of ," and I'll have achieved the triple crown of cliche analogies. 😆

Cars are frequently stolen when parked outside. Private ownership of cars is ignored if not openly mocked by car thieves. If you park your own car outside, you should assume it will be stolen. So make sure to always post a sign on your car whenever you park it outside reading "This car is mine. Please do not steal it," if you don't want it to be stolen, or better yet, don't park it outside at all.

It's a bad take. It's not how ownership works. You have copyright protection by nature of the fact that you created a piece of content. You're not required to remind people of that fact in order to be protected, even if random internet person asserts that you should in their social media post.

That's not the only reason it's bad though. The idea that "I don't like the way Reddit is treating their users, so to get back at Reddit… I'm going to violate the rights of the very same users I claim have been wronged by copying their content and posting it somewhere without their consent" is just baffling to me. You're banking on the fact that random internet user probably won't sue you… and you're probably right! By taking advantage of that situation, you're not "pwning Reddit." You're taking advantage of the person who created it in the first place. Ironically, if Reddit had further abused the situation by not just creating the honeypot where people would create free content for them but also by claiming ownership of that content, you'd have a cease and desist in a matter of days once your bot went live and we wouldn't have to see this same question posted 2-3x a week on Lemmy.

I'm no intellectual property crusader. It's messed up that corporations can consolidate intellectual property to the extent they have and extend copyrights for generations. It's wild that we grant trademarks on vague ideas and then allow trolls to build businesses that do nothing but hold them and use them as weapons against people trying to actually make things. But if anyone should have the benefit of copyright protection, it's the lowly internet user who posts content for free on social media for your entertainment.

These "categories" are only superficially the same thing. Here's what social/casual games and PC/console games have in common:

• Both show (usually) moving images to a player
• Both accept input that is (usually) reflected through an impact on the game's outcome

Here's a couple of things that are very different:

• social/casual games monetize by letting you pay to make the game less bad or by preying on psychology. PC/console games monetize by dangling the promise of some kind of experience you couldn't otherwise have.
• social/casual games are useful for destroying time. PC/console games are useful to stoke imagination and elicit emotions.

I know I'm being reductive here, but I think the point is valid. They're superficially the same but used for very different purposes. Putting them side-by-side on a chart like this is like comparing revenue across all car makers and determining that, because McLaren made $280 million in 2020 while Kia made $44 billion, sports cars are going away soon.

If McLaren did go away, the McLaren driver is not going to replace the McLaren with a Kia, because those are not the same thing, even though they are in the same way that a pair of scissors and a Hattori Hanzo sword are both blads, or maybe in the same way that both brass knuckles and a bazooka are weapons even though one cannot replace the other. If Baldur's Gate 3 were never released, I wouldn't have dumped my $60 into Fortnite skins because I'm looking for something particular out of a game. My goal isn't just to burn $60 on anything that shows me moving pictures and maps my inputs onto those pictures. Those attributes of a video game may be what make it a video game, but they aren't the attributes that will make me enjoy it or want to spend money on it.

If McLaren and all sports car makers go away, most of the money spent on those is not going to funnel into compact cars. It's going to stay in people's pockets. $280 million dollars doesn't hold a candle to $44 billion… but someone is going to want to take that $280 million! So, someone will probably keep making sports cars… just like someone will probably keep making the games that will take the remaining ~$73 billion slice of the video games pie.

Some public companies may jump ship to chase the social/casual dollars… but these are the companies that have been trying to blur the lines anyway (think EA), so we're really not losing much. The talent who delivered PC/console games we used to enjoy from EA have mostly moved on to other studios or to form their own studios so they can keep making what they like.

Could this future give me glasses that can’t be smudged? If so, sign me up!

Pogs