Pika

It’s because presale isn’t actually against their policy. What is against their policy is someone putting an inventory up that they haven’t confirmed they are going to have.

So like if they have the email from Valve saying “this is the timeframe you get this” and that timeframe is more less than than 40 days out, as long as they can confirm shipment within 40 days of the item listing it’s allowed.

I wonder if you get a new report option if the page has been active for more than 40 days, or if said issue requires a buyer to report them when they don’t ship within 40

Being said, I think valve should crack down on the resale of their product on platforms like ebay, if they can find a listing that links to a steam account terminate future sales. With how overarching their system is they could likely cite Policy violation and close the entire account as well.

I assume it would be fairly easy to look for identical card numbers across the platform, or require the primary account on the device to be the account that purchased it for at least X amount of days having the system like how phone carriers do with carrier locking.

Said backdoor isn’t possible with the current day key exchange process. Without the servers in use private key, the most law agencies can do without acquiring the private key is force the CA to revoke a cert, which will disallow properly configured clients from accessing and transferring data with the server.

LE doesn’t have enough information to recreate the private key based off the public key, the only key distributed during the CSR process is the servers public key via a certificate signing request which is signed using your private key, which the CA then signs with it’s own intermediate key (which is signed by it’s root server certificate) and hands back to the private server.

The CA doesn’t have the ability to create that private key, and as such doesn’t have a way to decrypt traffic that is using that key. There is no concern for a backdoor in that process.

In order for the “backdoor” to exist, they would need to either copy the private key as part of the signing process (which it doesn’t), or somehow force the server admin to use a new private key (that the CA also holds) or somehow compromise the servers key generation process to allow for an escrow on the private key when it was generated which would allow the CA to be able to recreate the private key using the master & public key.

Now don’t take me wrong, you can still have a MiTM impersonation attack or a full impersonation bypass by the CA issuing a new certificate and having the DNS registrar have the web address go to a new server that is using the new key but, that’s not something the CA alone has the capability of doing, and any traffic that is issued to the original server still wouldn’t be compromised, its just clients visiting your site will end up at the other site and as such will end up using keys that the other side generated instead of your own keys and additionally said new keys would also be appearing in Certificate transparency logs, or modern day clients would refuse to use them.

I don’t think anyone’s going to solve the problem in general, to be honest.

Like, Let’s Encrypts goal is super novel, but also expensive as shit to actually run, and requires a lot of coordination because it needs to be a trust authority. If this ever happened, it would probably be at the backing of some government structure, because I don’t see many people wanting to jump at that as an expense.

Is this accurate? Like, I know what you’re meaning, but I’m pretty sure it’s not ICANN doing it, and more so your domain registrar handing it over to the US government.

I think the most control that ICANN has over it is they could theoretically, if they wanted to, delete an entire top level domain. Since they do control the DNS root, but that is the most that they control from what I understand.

I don’t know if they have the ability to delete or transfer control over an individual domain on legal request. I think that’s outside of what their actual system allows for.

the ironic part of this is in some cases it can. Pirate broadcasts and media boxes are becoming increasingly common to have subscription models for way cheaper than you would having the traditional streaming subs.

We are in a world where even piracy is starting to cost money in some cases fair cause convienence, but its still weird to think about. Everything always goes full circle.

That’s a good idea I haven’t thought of trying. I was working on modifying the ui itself to add an option but that would be way easier!

edit: I was able to add a site##button[aria-label=“Downvote”] to ublock which removed any downvote button. Thanks for the tip!

Yeah, for real. I don’t think this is a Reddit exclusive thing.

The Hive Mind is a scary thing, and while I definitely think that Reddit is one of the worst offenders of it, it’s present on any social media platform with the ability to downvote and also shows the downvote.

Thankfully on Lemmy, most of the major UIs give you the ability to hide down votes in general. I think Photon is the only one I’ve found so far that doesn’t have the ability to hide downvotes, which sucks because it’s also the best UI(imo) that I’ve found so far.

We have… I’m more impressed that you found a toaster that doesn’t. I don’t think I’ve had a toaster in the last ten years that didn’t give a little bit of leeway on the lever to let you pull up a little bit more to be able to grab it.

I wouldn’t sell your gear, put it in a closet, or continue using it without purchasing any more in their ecosystem. But if you sell your gear, you’re going to enable someone else who is willing to purchase into the ecosystem. Where if you just closet it or only play with what you have, then they won’t gain anything else from it.

Yeah, which is why I think it doesn’t make sense that Steam allows it in the first place. Like, it’s actively letting a direct competitor use your platform. You get none of the benefits and all of the upkeep.

Fully agree. I think that Steam should make it a platform requirement that external launchers cannot be used on the platform.

It makes zero sense for me to hit play just to have a third party launcher open, and I have to hit play in that third party launcher as well. and I have to hit play in that third party launcher as well. At that point, I’m better off just buying it through the third party launcher.

The whole third-party launcher update process is also obnoxious… Every gatcha game does it. what’s the point of using steam at that point

Even then, the prompt could be as easy as a “recheck” button that the user sees on age restricted media. Kind of like how their age verification bucket was going to be. Database side all they need to know is a boolean of true or false of if they are a minor or not. or /maybe/ a trinary (0,1,2) system if that wanted a distinguishment of < 13 13-17 and 18+ It doesn’t have to check daily, it only has to check when the user requests access to age restricted stuff.

I agree with Matrix Sucking, it needs very heavy work on both frontend and backend implementations to be taken serious, that’s why I stopped pushing it to my friend groups, the people I convinced to join ended up needing features it just doesn’t support yet, like an actual permission system instead of the numeric based > x style, or actual custom emote capability that isn’t a patchwork decided by the software and the huge barrier of getting started. People don’t want to have to pick through 30 different frontends to find one that works perfectly for a server.

Matrix works amazingly for the techies, or for people who want a limited IRC style feature set. But for for the casuals who are used to what discord provides, it just isn’t a good competitor. It’s complicated to get going, isn’t unified and lacks features. Most people I have tried to suggest it have bailed due to that not long after joining.

XMPP being difficult though? I hard disagree. It’s well maintained, it’s super established, and for the most part unlike matrix whom decided frontend needed to make decisions on feature-sets, everything on XMPP is backend based. You have the same issues as matrix client wise but, for the most part client feature-sets are universal due to how long it’s been out. I would push XMPP long before I go back to pushing matrix again. I have had better luck keeping/maintaining people on XMPP than I have with matrix.

Yea this right here. People don’t remember, the only reason everyone left Skype in the first place, wasn’t because of skypes enshittification, although that didn’t help.

It was because during skypes implementation of said enshittification, their uptime was almost non-existent. Cloud servers crashed constantly, the linux program for it was unusable and required reinstall every time you opened. Messages weren’t sending and people weren’t getting notifications or history. People were forced to go elsewhere in order to remain in contact, so people moved to discord. The more people who moved the faster the transition become. Eventually everyone realized “Wow this is such a better product” and decided to stay.

Google Wallet users can share a passport ID pass; Google sends Discord a birthdate, and Discord derives age from it without retaining that date.

… if google wallet is determining it anyway, why can’t google wallet just reply yes or no to the “is over 17” query…

Tetromino’s as a design implementation is not trademarked, but the concept and names are. The Tetris Company owns the rights to any use of Tetromono’s and Tetris in the gaming sector. Being said, the patents to such concepts have already expired, so unless they were using trademarks naming I think they are fully allowed to use it. I don’t know if the Tetris company has any legal standing here.