It depends. What’s your estimated net worth?

In most countries you can, yes.

FOUL TARNISHED!

They have full legal rights to ban you for farting when the minute hand and hour hand aligned. This changes nothing in terms of what they “can” do. It’s rather their public announcement about what they “will” do. If they really wanted to ban you for silly reasons, they don’t even need these silly reasons, they can just ban you and are fully within their legal rights to do so.

I don’t think so. It’s probably what keeps it small and more personal. There is also the notion of responsibility: if a person I invite causes trouble, it’s potentially on me. Maybe not on the first infraction, but if one invites 20 spammers/cryptobros/venturecapitalists, it’s reasonable to block the inviter too.

I’m not arguing one way or another (that’s not my decision anyway), but I can understand why they do this.

You’ll probably enjoy Lobsters: https://lobste.rs/

You also can’t play the socom games from PS2, because of the idea of glorifying terrorists. Since if they win, the announcer says “terrorists win”.

Wouldn’t the same apply to Counter-Strike? Did they change it since the last time I played ages ago?

Incidentally the same labels make Gmail fundamentally incompatible with the way IMAP works causing lots of weirdness whenever you use any standard email client not specifically designed for Gmail.

Just like any game ever sold on a CD.

Isn’t it illegal under GDPR? It seems to be the exact same thing Facebook tried to do.

How does an offline installer from GOG differ from the offline installer provided on a CD/DVD?

This is equally true for almost any game ever sold, including physical ones. You only ever own a license that specifies what you can and cannot do with the game. The difference is in what this license is tied to, for example either a physical copy of a given game or an account that can be remotely deactivated taking away all your games. In GOG’s case once you grab the installer, the game license cannot be easily forcibly revoked, just as with the physical copy.

Frankly that’s something I do not understand. Why this single specific word? We have dozens of terrible offensive words. Why this specific one is considered so bad we cannot even talk about it directly, even when merely discussing it? I would think discussing it and not directing it at someone would be pretty reasonable. As with every single other word.

Because he’s good at playing outlaws, duh. /s

Oh hell no, we don’t need THREE major active conflicts!

It’s a nice wallpaper though for what it’s worth.

Subsidise how? They were using their existing plan as intended and even willing ditch the grey-area parts. If CF cannot afford to offer their plans as they are, they should change the offered plans, not hunt for easy prey.

So do I, and yet I keep renting a tiny apartment for ridiculous money. Maybe I should have committed genocide instead.

I have nothing against veganism as a dietary decision, I’m actually seriously considering it for health reasons and for easier food preparation.

I am sick of veganism as a moral high horse, especially with hypocrisy in the background. I have a friend constantly ordering stuff, including vegan ingredients, from Amazon of all places. If he’s going to low-key admonish me for hurting animals, I’d expect him to care about the Amazon warehouse employees to a similar degree. Unless it’s all just posturing.

An int& reference is just as much of a variable as int* const would be (a const pointer to a non-const int). “Variable” might be a misnomer here, but it takes just as much memory as any other pointer.