At no point did Jerykk’s comment warrant being outright insulted[...]

That’s all fine. Your judgements on what constitutes, “direct” and “forceful” notwithstanding.
I make no comment on whether the commenter was being constructive, or not. But as for whether ne was being “mean”, I think you are (or were if you’ve reassessed) incorrect.

It’s prudent not to conflate “direct” and “forceful” with “mean”.

That’s not what is being attempted, with the blockchain. It’s not *just* a channel for revenue; it’s a model of decentralized authority to create channels for revenue. Again, it’s an entirely separate financial system, with digital banks, digital lenders, and entire financing contracts. If you’re honestly interested,…

You’d figure folks like Wright would be smart enough to see the transparent grift that is crypto, but I guess not.

Right? That’s a great example where there are on real stakes and nobody is being taken advantage of.

I never spoke to the morality of it. He should be held accountable by whatever agreed-upon accountability the community and events have. Like I said: I don’t care. I’m just imagining a scenario and being amused by that unlikely scenario.

touch grass, winner.

Not a likely scenario, I know, but I think it would be fucking hilarious if this guy was cheating all that time in order to actually get “better” at chess.

cool

The WWE doesn’t have to have say in a person’s tattoos in order to have say in their broadcasts. They could force him to cover his tattoos.

That “just really hard to remove” is a non-trivial qualifier. The fact that no reasonable person could be expected to think of a tattoo as something “easy to remove” means that it must be observed as a special status. Tattoos materially affect a person’s likeness in a non-trivial way. That should be considered as a…

It’s not “incorrect”, it’s just an opinion that is currently not shared by jurisprudence. But I would certainly be appealing this case, because not only is my take not “incorrect”; it’s “correct”!

First of all, the design is not in question, the likeness is. My likeness is my own. The tattoo changes that likeness. Any recreation of my likeness would necessitate a recreation of the tattoo. This is not hidden from the tattoo artists, as any rational person understands it to be true. So with no malice from the…

If someone puts a tattoo of mickey mouse on me, then they would need licensing from Disney to do that.

This sucks because as big a fan I am of getting paid for your fucking work, I am an even bigger fan of bodily autonomy and independence. If the ink is inside me, it’s mine. I won’t recreate the design for profit, but I don’t owe you a license fee if I license my image. That’s a bridge too far, for me. At the VERY…

I have very detailed and specific metrics for what constitutes earnest efforts and “betterment”, but I’m not going to tediously list out the entire specification.
It’s, honestly, pretty simple: if it seems like “that’s kind of shitty, but they’re legally allowed to do it”, that’s a point against them. If it seems like…

The article’s fine; just colorful prefacing. Representing the quote, here, was the only point.

Why even write the article if you’re not going to include the one and only message she had:

Among many other publicized things which you are free to educate yourself on, they aggressively enforced manipulative terms against a personal friend of mine. They abused IP law to their advantage and have enough money to prevent restorative justice. And while I have many other third-hand accounts of similar behavior,…