Tom

Two months later and the UK petition seems to have completely stalled; wish I could say I was shocked, but honestly if I were to sum up my nation's character in a single phrase these days, it'd be sheer nihilistic apathy - most Brits seem to have just given up, on everything. Hopefully the citizens of the EU will be more receptive to this campaign.

Interesting that they're implying that digital products have and need no protection against planned obsolescence, considering that just four years ago, both the UK and the EU adopted "right to repair" legislation, which amongst other things, if I understand correctly, obliges manufacturers to make available spare parts for physical consumer products, and to make the products in such a way as to be repairable with non-exotic tools available to the end consumer. You could easily make the case that the current stance on digital products, and current industry practice by producers of digital products (i.e. closed source with integral kill-switches linked to a central server), are, in both spirit and fairly obvious direct analogy, the complete antithesis of this legislation.

Funny you should mention the UK; in other, less encouraging news that arrived in my inbox just today: If I understand what they're saying correctly, time to start all over again from the beginning if we want to make any bloody progress in Britain.

My friends, the planets have aligned and I have been blessed by the arcade gods; I honestly never thought I'd ever get the chance myself, but years after seeing this video I finally came across a CarnEvil machine and got to play it. For anyone in Northern England (or willing to make the pilgrimage), Arcade Club in Bury, Greater Manchester, now has in their possession, as of the time I write this, a working original cabinet, with the pump-action light guns, running in free play mode. You pay an entry fee for the day and then once you're inside, their entire 4-floor collection of arcade and pinball machines is set to free play.

Interesting that the game references the Encyclopaedia Galactica; that is mentioned in The Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, but that was just making fun of it; the Encyclopaedia originally appeared as a serious concept in Isaac Asimov's Foundation saga (the original Hitch-hiker's Guide radio series was made in the same BBC studio in which the first three Foundation books had been serialised a few years earlier, so I think it's pretty likely it was originally conceived as a parody of it). If the creators of this game are fans of Foundation, it strikes me as unlikely that they'd be especially keen on hyper-individualist philosophies like "Objectivism;" at the heart of the Foundation saga is a concept called "psychohistory," which is all about predicting the complex interplay of different social forces and movements on a vast scale. In this model of human behaviour, individuals - even incredibly rich, intelligent or powerful ones - have literally no relevance to history whatsoever, other than at certain special and rare once-a-generation-or-so key moments called Seldon Crises when everything comes to a head and somebody finds themselves in a position to make a key decision that will set history on one particular path; otherwise only very large scale collective action over very long periods can have any influence on humanity's destiny. I can't help but suspect that sincere Objectivists would despise such a notion, and any works associated with it. If Ross hasn't read those books, I would highly recommend them, they do a lot of that charting-the-trajectory-of-human-civilisation thing he mentions liking so much in Deus Ex and this game. I would suggest not wasting any time on the recent Apple TV series of the same name, however; it barely resembles the books at all, and seems to have been written by someone who a) didn't really get the point, and b) clearly wanted to write something else of their own anyway.

Looks like the UK front in the campaign is buggered - the government's called a general election and is closing all petitions months early as a result (which doesn't logically follow at all, of course; unaddressed problems don't automatically solve themselves whenever you change leadership), so there seems no chance of reaching the required number of signatures in time now, or even of having anything happen as a result if we do because the government might dissolve shortly afterwards anyway, which apparently clears the board of all work-in-progress? I'd guess you'll have to wait out the result of the general election, then start a whole new petition to whoever's in charge after that. My country isn't the worst in the world, but sometimes, and far more often than I'm comfortable with, it just sucks so bad when it comes to Kafkaesque systemic problems like this.

I just noticed that "Write to your MP" isn't listed as an option at https://www.stopkillinggames.com/countries/united_kingdom - you might want to consider adding that, with suitable guidance from those more knowledgeable than I about how best to approach one's MP and get them on-side. Best double-check that this belt-and-braces approach isn't frowned upon procedurally, though; I'm not sure if online government petitions are supposed to be in lieu of asking one's MP to submit a petition to parliament (in which case MPs might consider it hassling them to receive individual letters as well as there being an online petition?) or whether pushing MP's to support an issue in parallel with the online petition is allowed or even expected.

I'm afraid this is an absolutely typical UK government response. Regarding the two possibilities you consider at 06:58, the most likely situation is actually both: they don't comprehend the issue and are being deliberately obtuse. They always do this kind of "response" to petitions these days, it's basically just a combination of stonewalling and arse-covering with the minimum effort possible. Nevertheless, if it gets enough signatures they are required to debate the matter in parliament, but that's not necessarily saying much, because it just means they have to have a conversation about it, there is no obligation to actually have any kind of vote or pass legislation after the debate is over, so it's really just fodder for MPs in the cabinet and the opposition to use to score points against each other when verbally sparring in the House of Commons (I'm not even sure if MPs who aren't directly involved in the matter at hand are required to turn up for non-voting debates at all, so be prepared for disappointment if it actually goes to debate but then you watch the video of it and find the House is largely empty!). The only way it actually goes any further than a mere Commons debate is if enough of them actually care enough, after debating the matter, to draft and propose a bill and vote to pass it, whereupon it'll then go to the House of Lords (who are a relic of feudalism and don't answer to the voter the way MPs do, but do sometimes turn out to be much more on the side of the common citizenry than the actual house of Commons is!), who may then also squash the bill or pass it. One way to possibly drum up more support and higher attendance is for British citizens, in addition to signing the petition, to write directly to their local elected MP regarding the matter, expressing their concerns and arguing the serious implications of this really very fundamental issue of property rights (this whole thing could set a legal precedent in the world of digital products that goes beyond just games!), and basically trying to encourage, implore and persuade them to attend the debate and press the matter in parliament.

Revisiting this video years, later, I was suddenly struck by a thought: do you suppose the block-throwing character Yeet in this 1994 game could be the origin of the now-common term "yeet," (verb), "to throw something with a lot of force," popularised in 2014 but known to be in circulation since the early 2000s?

They hysterically told us for a century that communism is bad, and must be fought tooth and nail to one's dying breath, because under that one literally can't own anything*, and now all other economic options have been neutralised in the public perception they openly declare that the endgame for capitalism is to make all goods into services - at which point we regular peons really would own literally nothing - and expect us to simply acquiesce. If ever an accusation turned out to be an unconscious confession of intent all along, it was surely that. *Untrue, by the way; Marxian economics draws a key distinction between private property ("capital"), and personal property. Strictly speaking, hard socialism and communism only really forbid that the former be treated as the latter, whereas capitalism by practical definition treats them as synonymous.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." ― Upton Sinclair

Remember when Google's search engine used to be vastly more powerful, precise, efficient and helpful than any other, their corporate code of conduct laid down by the founders literally contained the phrase "don't be evil" and that was the unofficial company motto, but then one day the new executive chairman declared that ever since he joined the company he had considered the phrase to be "the stupidest rule ever" because "there's no book about evil except maybe, you know, the Bible or something" and then it was quietly changed to "do the right thing" and then later just dropped entirely? Maybe laissez-faire capitalism is indeed the best system at encouraging innovation and entrepreneurialism (I've yet to see conclusive logical proof of this, however), but the sad truth seems to be that it's a perverse, desperate death-race to create new, good companies in order to wrest a little power back from the previous, mature and now-terrifyingly-powerful crop of companies faster than they can be corrupted into entrenched malignity by that exact same system. There's no way to fight them directly once they've grown so vast; the only way to beat them is to invent something that makes their product obsolete, and corner the market faster than they can copy it; if their product cannot be surpassed before they reach maturity and the sociopaths take over and consolidate their position, the old company retains its power and become an unstoppable monster.

Remember when

This is possibly one of the highest compliments you could have given me; thank you, kind sir or madam. Now, if you'll please excuse me, I have an appointment with a stop sign.

I really am so tired of living in something that does a very good job of looking like a civilisation, but actually stopped being one at least a generation ago. The cycle is well-known. Barbarism -> Civilisation -> Decadence -> Collapse -> Repeat. We're now well into the decadence stage. Those who resort to game piracy just as a means to keep using the goods they bought and paid for (or arguably even those who avail themselves of the efforts of less scrupulous pirates in order to achieve this end), have basically realised the decline-and-fall is in full swing, are disgusted by the decadence of the disinterested elite who now all-but-openly swindle us as if it were their birthright to do so (and waste the wealth they bilk out of us on such absurdities as NFTs, which might as well be the Faberge Eggs of our generation), and are jumping ahead of the curve into the barbarism phase of the next cycle, which is to say behaving in a way that isn't sufficiently scrupulous to pass as civilised, but that nevertheless has a basic code of honour and decency tempered by sheer pragmatism. It's only been over trivialities like games so far, but it'll probably be over food and fuel soon enough. I don't remotely like that this is happening but, if the powers that be continue to flout their end of the social contract long enough, sooner or later everyone else stops holding up theirs. Noblesse oblige, ou noblesse décapitée.