With the implementation of Patch v0.5.5 this week, we must make yet another compromise. From this patch onward, gliding will be performed using a glider rather than with Pals. Pals in the player’s team will still provide passive buffs to gliding, but players will now need to have a glider in their inventory in order to glide.

How lame. Japan needs to fix its patent laws, it’s ridiculous Nintendo owns the simple concept of using an animal to fly.

  • HalfSalesman@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    8 hours ago

    Only have access to this account during work, so late reply.

    We’re talking about IP protections, not general monopolies

    It doesn’t matter, monopolization at any level has the effect I described.

    Yeah, that’s not going to be abused

    You’d need to elaborate I’m not clear what you mean by this.

    scare away companies

    There are ways to force this into not being an issue. We don’t have to suck a corporation’s dick to keep their productivity.

    It’s also why the US pays an obscene amount for its military. Defense contractors absolutely fleece the government because they are generally not allowed to contract with other governments, so they expect a higher profit from their one contracted buyer.

    It sounds like the military is still getting what they paid for and its worked out for them. They pay obscene amounts to get obscene results.

    Single payer also applies to healthcare proposals and is generally seen as a fantastic solution to keeping healthcare prices down.

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 hours ago

      You can also legislate mandatory R&D in budgets for large corporations

      Yeah, that’s not going to be abused/scare away companies.

      You’d need to elaborate I’m not clear what you mean by this.

      A few ways:

      • the term “R&D” can be pretty broad, so it’s unlikely to have the effect you’re thinking about - pretty much everything in a tech company is “R&D” whereas almost nothing in a factory is; making this somewhat fair is going to be very hard and will likely end in abuse
      • companies are more likely to set up shop where such restrictions don’t exist
      • enforcement could be selective to target companies that don’t “bend the knee” - esp true if the required amount is high enough that it’s not practical

      force

      Not a word I like to hear when it comes to government. The more power you give it, the more likely some idiot will come along and abuse it. Look at Trump, the only reason he can absolutely wreck the economy w/ tariffs is because Congress gave him that power and refuses to curtail it.

      It sounds like the military is still getting what they paid for

      Sure, but they’re getting a lot less of it than they could if it was a more competitive market.

      They pay obscene amounts to get decent results. I think they could get the same (or better!) results with a lot less spending if the system wasn’t rigged to be anti-competitive.

      Single payer also applies to healthcare proposals and is generally seen as a fantastic solution to keeping healthcare prices down.

      I think that only works in countries w/o a large medical devices/pharmaceutical industry, otherwise you end up with ton of lobbying and whatnot. I don’t think the total cost of healthcare would go down, it would just shift to net tax payers and healthy people. Look at the ACA, it didn’t reduce healthcare spending at all, it just shifted who pays for it, and it seems healthy people ended up spending more (to subsidize less healthy people).

      To actually reduce costs, you need to make pricing as transparent as possible, and I don’t think single payer achieves that. It can be a good option in certain countries, but I don’t think it’s universally a good option.

      • HalfSalesman@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 hours ago

        Not a word I like to hear when it comes to government. The more power you give it, the more likely some idiot will come along and abuse it. Look at Trump, the only reason he can absolutely wreck the economy w/ tariffs is because Congress gave him that power and refuses to curtail it.

        So you’d rather give power to corporations. Who definitely abuse their power. Rather than a government, which at least is potentially elected.

        I think governmental structures are probably outside the scope of this conversation, but I’ll at least state that the reason Trump is bad is not only that he has power. Its the lack of power that his opposition has because they utterly fail to seize it when opportunity presents itself. Again, it is all about leverage.

        Sure, but they’re getting a lot less of it than they could if it was a more competitive market.

        They pay obscene amounts to get decent results. I think they could get the same (or better!) results with a lot less spending if the system wasn’t rigged to be anti-competitive.

        I think that this is pure conjecture. Going “full competitive” would be at best a double edged sword. A lot of money and risk is involved in highly advanced military tech. Realistically you’d see businesses crumble and merge. Naturally converging into a monopoly.

        I think that only works in countries w/o a large medical devices/pharmaceutical industry, otherwise you end up with ton of lobbying and whatnot. I don’t think the total cost of healthcare would go down, it would just shift to net tax payers and healthy people. Look at the ACA, it didn’t reduce healthcare spending at all, it just shifted who pays for it, and it seems healthy people ended up spending more (to subsidize less healthy people).

        To actually reduce costs, you need to make pricing as transparent as possible, and I don’t think single payer achieves that. It can be a good option in certain countries, but I don’t think it’s universally a good option.

        To actually reduce costs, you increase the leverage the buyer has. Transparency in pricing would do that to a tiny degree, what would do so far better is a monopsony/single-payer system where all the buyers effectively are unionized.

        Again, it always boils down to leverage.