![](/static/66c60d9f/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/pictrs/image/a18b0c69-23c9-4b2a-b8e0-3aca0172390d.png)
These changes could be applied retroactively; this isn’t like creating an ex post facto law and then jailing people for breaking a law that didn’t exist at the time of the event.
These changes could be applied retroactively; this isn’t like creating an ex post facto law and then jailing people for breaking a law that didn’t exist at the time of the event.
How about reword it slightly: it must be available for purchase if you want to use IP law to prevent others from distributing it.
Too fucking bad? The purpose of IP was to give the public access to novel ideas and art, not to increase the control creators had over it.
You probably had the same damn book I did, with an illustration of him eating an orange and seeing the wings of a butterfly coming up over it and supposedly realizing they look just like the sails of a ship and so, gasp, the world must be round like this orange!
I don’t usually recommend movies in situations where the solution space isn’t already limited significantly by the context, but 2001 is the one I thought of first upon reading the title, so I suppose there’s at least two of us!
This is what I said to someone who asked a very similar question about the same thing a while back:
‘Females’ is, effectively, a ‘technical term’ you might say, that isn’t used in normal conversation. It’s used specifically in situations where distance from the subject being discussed is intentional. It is the sort of language used in police reports, medical reports and the like…when it’s even being applied to humans at all. Its use is perhaps more common referring to animals; it’s the sort of terminology you’d expect to hear in a nature documentary.
The people trying to push its use are intending to make the subjects - women - sound ‘other’ and separate and alien by referring to them as ‘females’. Not everyone who is picking up this terminology intends it that way, but the connotations are unavoidable because of how language works in common use, and therefore if you don’t intend it that way, you badly need to be made aware of it so you can stop.
Schlock Mercenary. Amazing webcomic, by one of only like 2 webcomic authors that I’m familiar with that have the simple capability of putting out a comic on time (although this no longer applies as the story is finished) and is a fantastic story from beginning to end.
Yet, none of the friends I’ve ever recommended it to have been willing to read it
Wish is a 9th level spell. Archwizards with 10th and 11th level spells (we’ll leave out the one overachiever who cast a 12th level spell) find it quaint.
Lorewise, wish is only more powerful than meteor swarm, or Mordenkainen’s disjunction, or prismatic sphere, or other 9th level spells because it has a high cost - if we go back before 3rd edition, that cost was aging 5 years. In 3rd and 3.5 it was experience points. In 5th, it’s a smattering of minor problems and a 33% chance of losing the ability to cast the spell again. But essentially the concept is always that it takes something of your life or soul or physical fortutide to allow the spell to exceed ordinary 9th level spells.
This means it is ultimately a powerful but limited spell, both in the rules and in lore.
It’s not really anything other than someone’s death. It’s more ‘these wishes are safe and will work out how you want’. Anything beyond those, the DM is encouraged to respond appropriately. In 5th edition, there is actually very little that is listed as safe to wish for. In 3.5 the list was short but highly useful. In 2nd though, there were NO explicitly safe wishes. Anything could backfire.
If you wish for a reasonable outcome that’s not on the safe list, you should get it without too much trouble, but if you wish something that’s grossly unfair, then you get what’s coming to you when it backfires.
It should be noted that this should not work. In every version of the game I am aware of, the spell description for wish explicitly calls out wishing an enemy dead as something the spell should not be able to accomplish. The typical monkey’s paw that is described as happening when you attempt to wish a person dead is that you are propelled forward in time until after they die, effectively removing you from their lifespan. This is part of the 5e description of wish as well.
For example, wishing that a villain were dead might propel you forward in time to a period when that villain is no longer alive, effectively removing you from the game.
Vlaakith is an ancient and powerful enough lich that it is entirely reasonable she has the means to kill a low level adventurer like the protagonist of BG3, even from her safe stronghold on another plane of existence, however, the particular method they chose to have her do it in is explicitly called out as something that is impossible, and shouldn’t have been used, if only because it sets a bad example for people who have never played D&D and BG3 is their first experience with it.
I’d say I need to know enough to play a character that grew up in that world. Which means I need to understand the things that a person who grew up in the world would know. That includes things like:
However, there are things people commonly write in homebrew world documents that I do not need to know. These include:
Some of these may be needed for specific characters, but most characters don’t need this information because they would not know it.
This developed because it couldn’t be fixed in our world, long enough for these people to develop communities, culture, and literally their own language.
In a world where it could always have been fixed, such communities and cultures are not likely to have ever developed, since the only people who could not get it fixed would be poor, and the poor are in a bad position to gather together in groups based on their shared experience and thus be able to form their own culture.
Furthermore, people not wanting to be cured today exist in a world where there already are significant accomodations for their disabilities. It is not likely these people would be able to do this if our society had not made the collective decision to put in the effort needed to accommodate disabilities.
Honestly, I don’t know for sure since I’m not an expert; my reasoning was the hope that being able to examine the entire line of advancement would allow the necessary technical knowledge to be extracted and duplicated. I knew that just bringing the latest one would definitely do nothing.
That’s why most of the stuff is technical or scientific information for the researchers; things that aren’t subject to change, just technical info. The money stuff I would hope to manage in less than 6 months from my arrival, because even in that short time I’d expect a lot to change by the end of it.
It’d just be a question of getting that initial funding off the ground with which to set up my research institution. After that, the few things I don’t release for free should cover expenses.
Sidenote since I didn’t address it in the original reply, taking over the world is impractical even with future knowledge, but as the person in charge of this outfit that would quickly be the world’s most advanced research tank, I’d probably have a lot of influence, which is the best anyone can practically hope for, I imagine. A lot more than the last 25 years of advancement would be needed to actually take over I figure.
Get every flagship CPU and GPU from 2000 to today that I can get my hands on. Also as much open source code as I can get hold of. And especially AI stuff - there’s several fully open source models, so bring those, and as much technical writings on them as possible.
Speaking of which, download every science paper published since 2000 that I can get hold of, in every possible field.
Get as much info on the 2000 election as possible, to hand to Al Gore, see if he can win that election with a solid unassailable margin.
Research stocks, lottery, and everything else I can to get fast money within the shortest possible period of time after I get there, so I can get super rich before the butterfly effect makes predictions impossible, I need billions in seed money and I need it fast.
Then use that money to start a private research group, and hand them all the scientific papers I brought. Get those experts to work studying all this knowledge and figure out what can be turned into practical technology. Turn some of this into profit-making devices to fund continued development, but release as much as possible for free.
Essentially, deluge the world in as much new technology as possible, mostly free and open source, holding back only as much as necessary in order to fund continued research.
And oh jeez the pharmaceutical industry. Release for free every drug made since 2000, so the pharmaceutical industry can’t get their patents in them.
Big list of stuff there, but if I pulled off even half of it, the world would probably be a much better place in 25 years than in my original timeline.
The day Gabe Newell no longer owns Valve/Steam things will begin to change, I’m sure.
Well the waste of land part doesn’t really matter much cause if we ever did need that land for other things, it’s still there. It’s not as though building a golf course makes that patch of land into an irradiated wasteland that can never be used for anything else again.
That animal companion thing sounds like the daemons in His Dark Materials, which is cool.
Lots of neat unusual concepts there too, I like. Though using familiar names like orc and goblin just makes things confusing. They should have come up with different names for their weird races.
Why? How is it better for society and people overall if they have the power to do this?
Allowing the creators to profit is understandable and necessary in our current system, but what benefit is gained for the public by them being permitted to stop distribution altogether?
If there is a benefit to the public and society that I am not seeing, then ok, but ‘they created it so they should control it’ is harmful to the people at large, and that should be prioritized over a creator’s ego or desire for control.
Not ‘to grant them greater control’ or even ownership. To secure exclusive right for a limited time. And this only because it was meant to promote science and art.
Using copyright to prevent a work from spreading is a direct perversion of the intent, it is using it in a manner diametrically opposed to what it is supposed to do.