I have a question. How do you organize 23.1 million people across 3,796,742 sqare miles of territory when the government just has the ability to jam communications?

What are the logistics of getting food and clean water to 340,000,000 people over that amount of territory? Whose going to do that?

How many people are stocking dry goods, know how to build and sustain a fire for heating and cooking, and own even a rudimentary generator? If you’re talking about armed rebellion there’s a lot that goes into it and when you get right down to it the government holds the keys to quite a lot of stuff.

What stops all those people who don’t oppose the government and will fight you from stymying every armed rebellion we manage to orchestrate?

You are someone who doesn’t think about the scale of what you are suggesting or the logistics. It’s nice to have the aspirations but you really gotta figure this stuff out before you suggest people get armed for something they also don’t understand the scale or logistics for.

This isn’t about defeatism. This is a reality check. If you don’t know the capabilities of your government you don’t know what you’re talking about. It’s clear to me that you don’t and you haven’t thought about this.

Movies do not teach you how long rebellions take or that it’s not about individual battles but about the ability to logistically survive to keep fighting. Your comment comes off as if you expect this to be a singular battle. It won’t be.

There are better ways to oppose a government that is acting against the population than to try direct violent force.

We are outgunned. Believe me the government spends more on military spending than it does on literally anything else. Our military industrial complex is extremely well funded.

If you don’t think about how people work, you assume that people are willing to take a bullet in order to rebell. What you lack understanding of is that they hold the threat of the use of their fire power over the vast majority of us and all it will take to quell the kind of rebellion you’re talking about is for them to sacrifice a single moderate sized city. They level a city and I can pretty much guarantee that people will back down.

Think about what happened when the BLM protests were happening. There were absolutely calls for violence from BLM leadership. The vast majority of people involved in those protests didn’t want violence and most of them didn’t want damage to property (even in left leaning parts of the population).

At the time I reminded people that you can’t have a rebellion without damage to property and the death of people. Real change almost never happens that way when you’re dealing with a fascist regime.

People did not want to hear it then and they don’t want to hear it now. They are not going to get trained and armed because that is too real. That is escalates this to what amounts to civil war and almost none of them are so attached to the idea of freedom and liberty from oppression that they are willing to go that far.

They’re worried about the Walgreens down the street or the target or whatever it is that gives them quality of life. They’ve never seen an active war zone and they literally don’t have any comprehension of even the idea of what a large military strike looks like when it’s happening to you.

So don’t tell me they’re going to grab their guns and fight the government. It’s likely they won’t even get that far.

January 6th involved less than 3000 people and the only reason they weren’t repelled with prejudice is because the idiot in chief ordered capital police and officials to stand down.

And for the record, the rich and powerful will absolutely just leave and nuke us from orbit. They have that ability. They don’t need to stick around.

There are more firearms than people in the US. The problem is the vast majority of them are owned by people who are cool with how the government is being run at the moment. Even if they weren’t, our government is perfectly capable of drone strikes. We the people are outgunned.

This isn’t meant to be a hate comment or anything like that, but a closed mouth don’t get fed. I think it’s good that there’s discourse about this browser and every browser, pointing out the scummy things they do. If we didn’t do that there would never be any backlash and most people who know these things now wouldn’t know.

I’m not sure they want to build them in a city. It’s cheaper to buy land elsewhere adjacent to cities with the infrastructure to support them and cheaper property. Seattle has on of the most expensive property markets in the US. Eastern Washington is a better bet.

As for the Bloomberg article. I have problems with it. The first of which is that it’s paywalled which adds a barrier to entry and is one of the reasons it’s not listed with everything else in my original comment.

The second problem is it specifically asserts that Gabe Newell spent an unknown morning in November of 2023 in a meeting talking to lawyers. Who’s lawyers? Is this where he asserted that Valve and Steam don’t have a policy or dictating prices for other platforms? Or was that a statement made in the court room during deposition as it states later in the same paragraph? Are these two things which appear in the same first paragraph related? If so how? It doesn’t really go into anything else he said to these lawyers or anything else said by these lawyers. What is the specific framing of the questions put to him? It claims that he was then presented with written communication of Valve employees that they do in fact have such a policy. But it fails to quote those emails or link to them. Then it switches tac entirely going on about Valve’s consumer fan base and how that fanbase view him. That’s directly geared to make people think a specific way about the situation instead of simply providing facts. It goes on in that same paragraph to talk about allegations from WB and Ubisoft and their emails but doesn’t directly link to or quote those either.

It goes on about the number of developers who believe Steam is a monopoly but can’t be bothered to list the reasons they gave for such a stance.

I cannot tell you how much I do not care how many hours of DOTA 2 Gaben has. I do not care what their employee handbook has to say about taking advantage of company perks. I do not care about his yacht(s).

Critics argue that its freewheeling culture masks abusive business practices that make the gaming market worse for developers and consumers. The US lawsuit Newell was deposed in, which has been certified as a class action, alleges that it “is not economically feasible” for game makers to leave Steam in favor of a rival store and that they are effectively “forced to comply” with Valve’s rules and high fees.

What is the culture and how does it mask the abusive practices? There’s so much more in this article but you have to slog through it to find nuggets of substance.

Additionally it has a lot of random paragraphs of arguably superfluous information comparing it to other companies,
and makes claims but can’t be bothered to reportedly documented which ones are privileged court information or link to the court filings or to anything of substance including pointing people to Valve’s own website where they explain the Steam Key program. If people want more context or information about what is going on they can’t rely on that article either. It doesn’t even actually quote the court filing at all that I can see. I take significant issue with that. But in any case I’m not here to argue the validity of any of the claims made in the filing, in the Bloomberg article or in the IGN/eurogamer article copypasta. Mostly I’m here to provide links to the most credible information I can. Some of the links are just biased in their own right but they do provide links to their sources which I believe is extremely helpful. @mabeledo@lemmy.world

From the filing:

Of those sales, approximately 75% flow through the online storefront of a single company, Valve. Valve’s online game store, the “Steam Store,” dominates the distribution of PC games. And Valve uses that dominance to take an extraordinarily high cut from nearly every sale that passes through its store—30%. This 30% commission yields Valve over $6 billion dollars in annual revenue. For everyone else, it yields higher prices and less innovation. 3. Valve is able to extract such high fees because it actively suppresses competition to protect its market dominance. Many other game stores have tried to charge lower fees, in the range of 10-15%, but they have all failed to achieve significant market share. This is because Valve abuses its market power to ensure game publishers have no choice but to sell most of their games through the Steam Store, where they are subject to Valve’s 30% toll. Steam Key Price Parity Provision. Valve nominally allows game publishers to make some limited third-party sales of Steam-enabled games through its “Steam Keys” program. Steam Keys are alphanumeric codes that can be submitted to the Steam Gaming Platform by gamers to access a digital copy of the purchased game within the Steam Gaming Platform, even when the game is not purchased through the Steam Store. Steam Keys can be sold by rival distributors including the Humble Store, Amazon, GameStop, and Green Man Gaming.
11. But Valve has rigged the Steam Keys program so that it serves as a tool to maintain Valve’s dominance. Among other things, Valve imposes a price parity rule (the “Steam Key Price Parity Provision”) on anyone wanting to sell Steam Keys through an alternative distributor. Put explicitly by Valve, “We want to avoid a situation where customers get a worse offer on the Steam store.”3 But that is equivalent to preventing gamers from obtaining a better offer from a competing distributor. The effect of this rule is to stifle price competition. 12. Because of this rule, Valve can stop competing game stores from offering consumers a lower price on Steam-enabled games in order to shift volume from the Steam Store to their storefronts. Even if a rival game store were to charge game publishers a lower commission than Valve’s high 30% fee, the distributor would not gain more sales because the game publishers could not charge a lower price in its store. Game publishers and consumers suffer because this rule keeps Valve’s high 30% commission from being subject to competitive pressure. The bolded section in particular makes it sound like Valve is forcing developers to pay 30% commission on Steam Keys sold on rivals shops when in fact it supposedly alleges (when you read the whole thing) that Valve is using its Price Parity Rule (which makes it so steam keys have to be the same price as their equivalent steam e-shop price) coupled with its popularity to force other shops that sell non-steam keys at lesser commission rates to fall inline, or alternatively that the game devs must offer their games for the same price as on Steam’s e-shop even when using Keys provided by another supplier.

It doesn’t explain (and I’m fairly sure that’s on purpose) that this means that those same devs would charge the same amount on each shop regardless of who supplies the digital keys, and make more money on those other sites which benefits themselves.

13. This Price Parity Provision is one of the reasons why Valve has been able to continue to charge an inflated 30% commission for many years, even as that commission is plainly above the levels that would prevail in a competitive market. Competition would normally force such an inflated commission to come down to competitive levels—but Valve’s restraints prevent those competitive forces from operating as they would in a free market.

14. Because of Valve’s restraint, publishers cannot utilize alternative distributors to avoid the 30% tax that Valve has set for the market. Thus, they reluctantly market their games primarily through the dominant Steam Store where Valve takes its 30% fee. While several distributors have tried to compete with Valve by charging lower commissions on Steam Keys, those efforts have largely failed to make a dent in the Steam Store’s market share because publishers using those distributors had to charge the same inflated prices they set on the Steam Store.

Price Veto Provision. Valve also requires game publishers to agree to give Valve veto power over their pricing in the Steam Store and across the market generally (the “Price Veto Provision”). Valve selectively enforces this provision to review pricing by game publishers on PC Desktop Games that have nothing to do with the Steam Gaming Platform at all. Through this conduct, prices set in the Steam Store serve as a benchmark that leads to inflated prices for virtually all PC Desktop Games.

17. As explained by the founder and CEO of Epic Games (“Epic”), one company that has tried to compete against Valve, “Steam has veto power over prices, so if a multi-store developer wishes to sell their game for a lower price on the Epic Games store than Steam, then: 1.) Valve can simply say ‘no.’”4 Valve makes every game publisher accessing the Steam Gaming Platform agree to this Price Veto Provision.

18. Valve uses this provision to further enforce price parity and prevent rival game distributors from gaining volume by competing on price.5 And by inhibiting rival distributors from competing on price—even when selling games that have nothing to do with the Steam Gaming Platform—Valve inhibits potential competition against the Steam Gaming Platform as well, because rival gaming platforms cannot encourage usage by connecting to lower-priced distributors. Valve therefore protects its monopoly position in both of the relevant markets—the markets for PC Desktop Game Distribution and PC Desktop Gaming Platforms—through this provision.

It doesn’t explicitly say that Valve make a commission on Steam Keys but lots of people seem to be of the belief that they do based on statements by Wolfire including in the filing. I would argue that they heavily imply this by leaving that context out of the filing entirely which is why half the comments in this thread have wrong information about it.

Specifically because part of the filing states that Steam is charging excessive commissions, which is something that is also stated in the Bloomberg article.

The fact that Steam Keys don’t have a commission is integral to the reason why a developer might want to distribute them for a lower price on other retail sites.

However, I believe you are correct that this is not something specifically worded into the legal filing. The wording might lead people to believe this without specifically saying it.

This is the sanest take in the entire thread.

I want to make something clear about the Valve Anti-trust lawsuit currently making its way through the court system.

This case is predicted on the idea that Valve’s “Price Parity Clause” in its contracts with Game Devs is anti-consumer and anti-competitive.

The original lawsuit filed by Wolfire before this became a class action Anti-trust lawsuit is available online and it alleges a couple of things.

1. Steam is two separate services that are lumped together in an effort to maintain its market share.

2. It uses this market share to enforce a Most Favored Nation Clause.

3. The Price Parity Clause does not only apply to Steam Keys but to all e-shop sales outside the Steam store.

4. The Price Parity Clause is actually a Most Favored Nation Clause, aka a Price Veto Provision.

The reason that people are claiming this is about Steam Keys is because the original lawsuit filed by Wolfire says that it is. This is what most of the articles that are actually written about this exempt from their writeup and since they don’t provide source documentation (from the filing), they lack this context.

The lawsuit is literally about whether or not Valve applies and enforces their Price Parity Clause to not just Steam Keys but also to non-steam storefronts that do not at all use Steam Keys.

If you are arguing that this isn’t about Steam Keys, your information is inaccurate and based not on the court filing but on articles that exclude information from the court filing.

If you’re saying it’s solely about Steam Keys your information is contextually right to some small degree but just as incomplete and therefore just as incorrect.

Because of the nature of the claims in the Wolfire lawsuit (some of which are actually demonstrably false), it does not lend creedence to the other claims being made by Wolfire (on which the class action is relying).

One of the most notable discrepancies between what Wolfie claim and what is legally proven to be true thus far is that Steam does not make a 30% commission on Steam Keys. In point of fact, Valve do not claim any percentage of sales figures from Steam Keys at all. Only sales made directly on the steam e-shop are charged the 30% fee.

The second major one is that the clause in their contract with Steam on which this is predicated is specifically about Steam Key availability and use.

So far as I can tell, there is not a difference in these particular parts of the lawsuit between the class action and the original lawsuit that was dismissed in 2021. So Wolfire’s original lawsuit and the Class Action still state that Valve does these things and this lawsuit is as much about Steam Keys as it is about Price Parity/Most Favored Nation type market tactics and clauses.

I believe they have not changed this wording because they cannot remove their Steam Key argument from the lawsuit because without it they do not have a written Steam Policy on which to rely.

So far as I can tell Wolfire and the Class Action claim that the Most Favored Nation Clause is only spoken of in person and is not part of the official contract they signed or any such contract that Valve offers for Steam services. It is unclear if this is their own claim or something they point to as being true based on alleged Microsoft Employee statement.

If I come across more information on this I will try to post it, but I might not remember.

I do wish we could stop posting articles with sensationalized claims and horribly clickbait titles that don’t actually providing even a link back to the sources of their information and claims.

I believe there is a separate lawsuit happening in Europe and I haven’t delved into that one to this degree.

There’s also a separate lawsuit alleging price fixing between Microsoft and Valve. I have not looked into that one at all though I did come across it in my rabbit hole dive.

If anyone can direct me to a non-account required court filing for the two video game developers that sued Valve I would like to see them. So far it looks like the court filings were originally separate but have been combined into a single court filing and that court filing doesn’t use the same language as Dark Catt’s singular filing did.

https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/features/keys

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.298754/gov.uscourts.wawd.298754.1.0_1.pdf

https://arstechnica.com/civis/threads/why-valve-actually-gets-less-than-30-percent-of-steam-game-sales.1450097/

https://lawfold.com/valve-lawsuit/

https://www.classaction.org/media/wolfire-games-llc-et-al-v-valve-corporation.pdf

https://gameworldobserver.com/2024/03/14/sweeney-vs-steam-cut-epic-tirade-gaben-emails-revealed

https://newsletter.gamediscover.co/p/revealed-tim-sweeneys-epic-rant-to

https://aftermath.site/gamers-sue-microsoft-valve-steam-antitrust-lawsuit/

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.300801/gov.uscourts.wawd.300801.1.0.pdf

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/it/ip_21_170

Not exactly. If you buy a game on Steam, Valve takes a 30% cut of the first $10Mn in sales of that game and then lowers that cut as the game makes more sales.

BUT that 30% cut does not include Steam Keys. Steam Keys are free to generate and for use on non-Steam e-retailers. Valve do not make a 30% cut from Steam Keys.

Allegedly, WB and Ubisoft and Wolfire/Dark Catt have stated that they were told they can’t sell non-Steam Keys at other retailers for cheaper than the same game is sold on Steam.

So the question is, do WB and Ubisoft and Dark Catt/Wolfire actually have proof that Valve is forcing them to sell non-Steam Keys at other retailers for cheaper than they do on Steam.

Or, do they specifically mean Steam Keys can’t be sold for cheaper on other store fronts (which makes a whole lot of sense).

Steam isn’t just the retailer in this scenario but the manufacturer. The companies/devs who own the game license Steam to produce their product at scale.

I’ve seen a lot of colleges buying their students subs to one of the major LLM’s. So maybe come new semester that will change but it depends on the timing.

I think they mean “remind me again why”.

They don’t offer anonymity. Anonymity does not equal privacy. They aren’t the same thing. And if you’re using the signal app to jerk off I have some questions.

Your argument is predicated on the idea that a few paying more tax should in some way be spread further which would lead to a drop in education inevitably in many places.

My point is that, instead of localities paying more (or less tax) it should be a tax across the board from everyone to maintain the best education. So instead of locality A and B paying a higher local tax and locality C and D paying a lower one (meaning that they have to have their system supplemented by localities A and B) we would have a system where everyone pays percentage of tax and that money is divided evenly among schools.

But by simple math, if we eliminate that tax entirely and instead institute a higher tax rate at the federal level then everyone is paying into the same system and money would be allocated based on the number of children it serves i.e. each child receives $27,000 a year in funding for education to be spent paying faculty, buying school supplies and learning aids and equipment. All of that would of course have to be standardized.

I can name several problems with the system I’m proposing because a lot of the way we standardize things in this country is to pay a private firm and that in and of itself is a whole can of worms.

But something this could potentially do is pay teachers a competitive rates (the disparity between teachers salaries from state to state alone is horrendous let along locality to locality), and allow for a more even spread of teachers to students. Less over crowded classrooms. The same or at least equitable activities and opportunities for the curriculum and extra curricular experiences.

There’s other things that would need to be fixed in society as well. But the current system can do one of two things to make the school system more equitable for all students. They can share (with higher economic yield areas that have higher property values) paying for poor schools to operate at the same standard, or they can consolidate, essentially eliminating the requirement that a student must live in a specific zip code to attend said school.

But one of those things puts a significant burden on poorer parents, and the kids. Having to be bussed hours to school causes its own snowballing problems.

Of course doing it the way I suggested will likely eliminate some school types. Technical schools, agricultural schools, specialty schools, schools with fusion style approaches to teaching that often benefit Neurodivergent kids etc.

But either way I dislike the idea that kids are freeloading by going to the “good school”. If the parents have to game the system then the system to get their child a good education then the system is fundamentally broken.

That’s a trial and error approach for something that could easily be a simple setting.

It also doesn’t work if you use an alternative front end or aren’t signed in.

Additionally it also depends entirely on the content you view and your viewing enough of it to train the algorithm, which means new accounts or little used accounts have no recourse.

They seem to think that what I mean is that we shouldn’t use tax money at all. No. I’m happy to pay for the same education for all children. A standardized education.

My thought process is this. Your neighbor likely has neither the inclination or the technical knowledge to use disturbances in the wifi signals from their own wifi to do this. Additionally they likely don’t have access to every neighbors wifi (which if you had it would likely allow you to fine tune this significantly).

So basically, every neighbor you have or at least the majority of them are getting together to do this?

The premise is that a person can set up a wifi network in a place adjacent to [target], monitor that network, map the area they want to surveil (while it’s empty would be better) and then use disturbances in that area to track [target] within the space.

What you’d still need is time to measure the disturbances and gather a profile on the individual you were tracking in order to remove false positives (people of the same height and weight or body type etc).

It actually is at least location specific. Because you need penetration of the Wi-Fi signal into the space in order to collect the data necessary. I live in a place that was built on a steel frame with sheet rock. I can’t even get signal from my own wifi standing on my door step. I also don’t pick up the wifi of my neighbors, and can’t get cell signal in the house. So they’d have to break into my home and place monitors to pick up my own wifi in order to do this. At that point it’d be much easier to plant a bug.

Because it’s location specific and dependent on the materials of the construction of the place being penetrable enough to collect said frequencies (and because wifi is often high frequency and the higher the frequency the less penetrative power it has), it’s much more likely that this kind of surveillance method would likely be used by a 3-letter agency, and at that point they’d drop a wifi pineapple on the roof, assuming they needed to do that at all. Or track you through public wifi.

There’s lots of news stories about new and old ways of surveillance and some of those are just easier, less intrusive, less expensive, and possibly more effective.

Some plants have leaves so sensitive you can measure their movements to reconstruct conversations that happened in their vicinity.

I think a few years ago there was a story about listening in on a conversation by during a laser at a window.

You could potentially do the same thing with sonar.

I have questions about why your neighbors would do that. The usefulness of it for your everyday civilian isn’t worth the work, and even if it was it relies on the cooperation of more than one person, and the right location factors to do it.

I also have questions about what happens when there are no users interacting with the wifi.

“This technology turns every router into a potential means for surveillance,” warns Julian Todt from KASTEL. “If you regularly pass by a café that operates a WiFi network, you could be identified there without noticing it and be recognized later – for example by public authorities or companies.”

It is sufficient for Wi-Fi devices in their vicinity to communicate with each other. This creates an image - comparable to a camera image, but based on radio waves.

It exploits the legitimate users who are connected to the Wi-Fi. They regularly send feedback signals, also known as beamforming feedback information (BFI), to the router in the network - unencrypted and readable for third parties. This creates images from different angles that can be used to identify people. This only takes a few seconds once the machine learning model behind it has been trained.

This paragraph in particular suggests that you still need training data. That seems like it would require a larger window of data collection and training.

In the home there must be stationary or rarely moved devices (usually one to three) connected to this router via Wi-Fi — for example, a printer, a smart speaker and/or a smart TV. Sometimes Wi-Fi extenders and mesh Wi-Fi devices can perform the role of a “sensor”.

Motion detection will occur only in the oval zone between the router and the “sensor”, and post-setup testing is required.

https://www.kaspersky.com/blog/wifi-sensing-motion-detection-howto/53851/

https://www.informatik.kit.edu/english/11147_14950.php

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/05/260522023127.htm

No. You and your neighbors couldn’t unless they had enough access to train up on and analyze how the wifi signals were being disrupted by the people in question. At best you and your neighbors could know when it detected that humans were present and that’s about it.

Unless your neighbors have active access to your home and can collect other data about your walking and moving patterns to fine tune a model.

I’m so tired of this clickbait story. Can we not spread this nonsense.

ROFL. The people most likely to dislike AI and actively work against it love tech. This is the most backward thing you can say. These are the people who build jelly fin servers and make their own VPN’s and (used to) build gaming rigs. These are the same people who heard that the US wanted to ban routers and were like “we’ll make our own with blackjack and hookers”.

The way to fix this is to make the entirety of the school experience the same. Not by going cheap. But by giving more money to poorer schools to subsidize education so it’s up to the exact same standard across the board. Schools being paid for by local taxes is part of the problem here. It will not get better if we keep trying to fix it at the local level. These flock cameras are just the latest in an ill advised attempt to fix a problem the wrong way when fixing it the right way could cost much much less.