Lemdro.id

Source

cross-posted from: https://piefed.zip/c/politicalmemes/p/1206229/mission-accomplished

Via webcomics name

Playing Fallout 4 Anniversary Edition on PC and I hit one of those classic “Bugthesda” moments: last time this level crashed to desktop with no warning, and today my screen randomly auto‑adjusted mid‑game and threw my aim and immersion completely off.

I did the usual ritual: check for updates → Microsoft Store updates → verify game files → repair the library. You know the drill.

But honestly, that’s not the part that’s really stuck in my head.

What’s been gnawing at me is this: in 2026, are achievements still relevant in the way platforms treat them—especially when mods disable them anyway?

A few things bother me:

Mods disable achievements (even on consoles now in some cases), so for a lot of players they’re already meaningless mechanically.

There’s no way to opt out. If I don’t want a permanent public record of what I did or didn’t do in a game, tough luck.

Even if I uninstall or refund a game, the partial achievement list just sits there on my profile forever like a half‑finished diary I never agreed to publish.

What I wish existed is something like:

a “no achievements” mode where I can play purely for the experience, and my achievement list just shows as “inaccessible/opted out” to others

or at least the ability to hide or erase achievements for specific games if I decide I don’t want that history attached to me anymore

I’m not pretending I can change the minds of big companies who still design like it’s 2005, but I am genuinely curious what different types of players think:

Achievement hunters: Do you care if others can opt out, or does that not affect you at all?

Mod users (PC and console): Since mods often disable achievements, do they still matter to you in any way?

Everyone else: Do you ever think about the permanence of your achievement history, or is it just background noise?

Is it time for platforms to give us a real opt‑out or ephemeral play option, or am I overthinking something that most people are fine with?

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/43990820

The publishers allege the shadow library is facilitating "staggering" levels of piracy. While the site's owners are not likely to put up a defense, the publishers' main goal appears to be to obtain an injunction that can apply further pressure on domain registrars and registries.

I'm back again, this time with a friend's pan that he inherited from his grandmother. He entrusted this to me to remove the decades of use, to put it back into service after sitting on a shelf for years. This took four rounds of Easy Off in a plastic bag to remove the gunk, and then three rounds of seasoning with canola oil.

Always fun to develop a record-selling game. You lose your job as a thanks! 🤮

In order to help train its AI models, Meta (and others) have been using pirated versions of copyrighted books, without the consent of authors or publishers. The company behind Facebook and Instagram faces an ongoing class-action lawsuit brought by authors including Richard Kadrey, Sarah Silverman, and Christopher Golden, and one in which it has already scored a major (and surprising) victory: The Californian court concluded last year that using pirated books to train its Llama LLM did qualify as fair use.

You'd think this case would be as open-and-shut as it gets, but never underestimate an army of high-priced lawyers. Meta has now come up with the striking defense that uploading pirated books to strangers via BitTorrent qualifies as fair use. It further goes on to claim that this is double good, because it has helped establish the United States' leading position in the AI field.

Meta further argues that every author involved in the class-action has admitted they are unaware of any Llama LLM output that directly reproduces content from their books. It says if the authors cannot provide evidence of such infringing output or damage to sales, then this lawsuit is not about protecting their books but arguing against the training process itself (which the court has ruled is fair use).

Judge Vince Chhabria now has to decide whether to allow this defense, a decision that will have consequences for not only this but many other AI lawsuits involving things like shadow libraries. The BitTorrent uploading and distribution claims are the last element of this particular lawsuit, which has been rumbling on for three years now, to be settled.