As an implementation detail that's true out of necessity, but the simple English explanation of the mechanic would be "they are rewarding you for having an amiibo", not for having an NFC code. You wouldn't say "the passwords on Apple's databases are there to reward intruders who possess the correct password", right?
I guess I just feel like there's a lot less harm done in hacking Apple's database than there is in giving your video game character an extra outfit to wear or horse to ride.
That's fair, but my point was more than the consequences of hacking a database with information valuable in the real world are much more worrisome than cheating in a game (no matter how much it affects the artificial world). In the latter, it's debatable about whether it causes real-world harm; in the former, it's unquestionable.
The question is, are those realms being sold as part of the game or part of the Amiibo? Where the code and assets are stored is, after all, an implementation detail.
Whatever economic system may be in place, it will be possible to profit by making better decisions in that context, but that doesn't prove the superiority of that system, and it doesn't make it "terrifying" to wonder whether this or that emergent phenomenon is a feature or a bug.
The terrifying part is someone with a completely un-nuanced understanding of Jeff Bezo's wealth going around saying "Hey! This man committed violence against me! He committed violence against you too!" when the violence was selling them an Amazon echo at a cheap price, or just being richer than them. What happens when they reach a consensus that Bezos committed violence against them? History tells me very clearly (see Russia, China, LatAm, Germany).
> when the violence was selling them an Amazon echo at a cheap price
How about when the violence was selling under the normal market value undermining competition, then remaining the only vendor. Also replacing employees with robots.
So in the end, people who would have had a job lost it, no matter if they work directly for Amazon or for the competition.
It's not violence to take people's jobs, but in a society with few social protections, it's as bad as violence.
Selling under normal market value is not an act of violence.
Using robots instead of human employees is not an act of violence.
You have a very strange world view. Are your clothes hand-stitched? Was the electronic device you used for your post painstakingly constructed by hand? Do you think it is fair for some things to be automated but not others?
Perhaps you think that it was bad to selectively cultivate a variety of wheat that could yield more tons of food per acre? Or maybe you think it is just wrong for a farmer to use a tractor? Should they water a hundred acre field by hand with 1 gallon buckets? That would mean more jobs!
What is your opinion of all these auto-mechanics who have displaced stable hands? Should cities use thousands of laborers to spin manual generators to feed individual street lights? Modern power plants are taking peoples' jobs.
There's a very strange phenomena going on where are starting to equate non-violent things with violence. Even words are violence.
I have witnessed a friend being physically attacked and have seen the aftermath of an physical attack.
From this perspective, I can only conclude that these people equating things to violence are simply attempting to gain political power, or virtue signal or whatever.
Nobody is rebuilding anything on this planet, not considering how deep we need to drill/mine at this point to get anything good, and the example will not be useful to anyone who arrives here from elsewhere.
Many services have this issue, that perfection is the minimum requirement. I don't understand why, given this, we don't just go to a thumbs up / thumbs down rating system. We have one option that means "fine" and four (or nine) that mean "terrible, and a risk to your business".
I know I personally gave plenty of three star reviews on Lyft before I learned better, meaning them as "no complaints". Who knows what happened to those drivers as a result. Why even invite the misunderstanding?
This could be a cultural design thing. A lot of these apps (Airbnb, Lyft, etc) are from the US, where getting full marks in school is a frequent occurence if you study reasonably well.
In France for instance, it's very rare for a student to go above 15/20 or so at the college level (I graduated in the top 10% of my class with a 12/20 average; the top ranked student, whom I was friends with, had a 14/20 average).
But when I graded homework as a graduate student for an american university, the professor told me I was too harsh, and after adjusting my criteria to match what she wanted, I found myself giving many 100/100.
The US is also where you insult service staff and deprive them of income by giving them a gratuity which would be considered generous thanks in most tipping cultures. But at least that's baked into one's understanding of the price.
When it comes to ratings used by others to evaluate, no system is more customer and vendor-hostile than one where everything that meets a minimum threshold for adequacy should be rated as perfect.
> Isn't it already in the browser's cache in that state anyway?
Like disk cache as in Cache-Control? In most cases you wouldn't cache the HTML itself, but in cases where you do then your use case should already work as stated, since for the browser to do otherwise would imply the cache is being intentionally ignored for the view-source request.
On what grounds do you find a refusal to consent to an executive's appointment to be unconstitutional? As someone who's been studying the constitution for five years, it seems eminently constitutional to me as well as every lawyer or law professor I've discussed the matter with.
Washington Post has asserted the claim that it is unconstitutional as a "3 pinocchios" falsity[1]
The advantage OP was referring to was that you could force a type warning at all, as opposed to PHP, JS etc where typed arrays don't exist (notwithstanding Uint32Array and such).
