• Assembled: 1200 USD
• Kit: 950 USD

The rules text says it creates an area of darkness, and with your interpretation, it doesn’t, which means your interpretation is wrong. Yes, the ability could be written more clearly, but the logic for a reasonable way for it to function follows pretty cleanly. Your interpretation is not RAW or RAI.

There’s a reply on RPG StackExchange that covers a similar line of logic to what I wrote above.

Remember that Fifth Edition D&D is intentionally not written with the same exacting precision as games like M:tG. The game doesn’t have an explicit definition of magical darkness, but it’s pretty clear that the intent is for magical to trump mundane (when it comes to sources of light and darkness). Even the Specific Beats General section says that most of the exceptions to general rules are due to magic.

If you have normal darkness everywhere, there isn’t a reason to use it, but you don’t always have darkness everywhere. In fact, you generally don’t.

Not all monsters with darkvision have access to light sources. Even if they do, they may need an action to use it or may be out of range. A torch or the light cantrip only has a 40’ range. If you collaborate on positioning with the caster, you can basically set yourself up to have advantage every turn thanks to the darkness, since as a ranged attacker you don’t have to stay within 40’ of your enemies.

Also, Gloom Stalkers can’t see through Darkness like Warlocks can, so this effect is useful to them in a way that the Darkness spell isn’t.

That all said, Tricksy wouldn’t do anything if it didn’t block nonmagical illumination, so it’s reasonable to run it as though it does. Sure, it still wouldn’t block even a cantrip, but it would block torches, lanterns, the sun, etc..

And running it as though it doesn’t block nonmagical darkness results in nonsensical behavior. You’re in a torchlit chamber and use the ability - now there’s a cube of darkness, blocking the light of all four nonmagical torches. If you move one of those torches away and back, why would it suddenly pierce the magical darkness? If it wouldn’t, why would a new nonmagical light source?

Maybe they just wanted to improve it for Gloom Stalker Rangers?

1. I was showing that my understanding of the word “asset” was based in fact. The 4th definition wasn’t relevant to that.
2. I literally talked about the 4th definition in the next paragraph.

If anyone’s operating in bad faith, it’s you. Are you drunk? You’re being an intentionally obtuse pedant and a liar (by your own definition). Try replying once you’ve sobered up, clown. Once you reread and realize how much of a dick you were, I’m sure you’ll apologize - unless I’m right about you being too much of a coward to admit when you’re wrong about something.

You could try reading the rest of my comment first.

Before I reply to your comment, I’d like to share this link. It didn’t change any of my existing understanding because Linus’s comment already made it clear that this was out of their hands, but maybe it’ll help clarify something for you.

I realize now that this comment on that post was made before this one (“What's free about delisting maintainers based on their country of residence?”) by the same person. It’s disingenuous for someone to act like this is about “country of residence” when they already engaged with a post clarifying that it’s because of sanctions against specific companies.

that you unironically think asset means property

I unironically think that because it does mean that:

1. assets plural

a. the property of a deceased person subject by law to the payment of his or her debts and legacies

b. the entire property of a person, association, corporation, or estate applicable or subject to the payment of debts

2. ADVANTAGE, RESOURCE

a. an item of value owned

b. assets plural the items on a balance sheet showing the book value of property owned

When I do a search for “state asset,” the results I get are all related to property, resources, etc., things that belong to and can be exploited by the state - for example https://www.epa.gov/dwcapacity/state-asset-management-initiatives-documents

Searching for “asset” specifically I see a tertiary definition reading “A spy working in his or her own country and controlled by the enemy” as well as the wikipedia definition, but that still means “spy,” not “paid lobbyist.”

just that incredibly obtuse

I’d apologize for not being well versed enough in counter-intelligence lingo to properly interpret the comment, but even with a proper interpretation, the comment I replied to was still incoherent, so I’m not really sure what you expect here.

It feels weird to say that it was incredibly obtuse of me to not spend more time trying to figure out what someone meant when they were, as far as I can tell just mad that Linus and other Linux maintainers didn’t ignore what their attorneys advised, regardless of what impact that might have had on them personally, and spouting a bunch of nonsense as a result.

Maybe I’m wrong, though. If so, would you care to explain how this was a violation of the GPL and/or how all of the 4 freedoms I listed were violated?

Feel free to argue it in court

Sadly, there are plenty of instances of drivers who killed pedestrians doing just that and succeeding. Heck, in two cases the pedestrian was on the sidewalk or inside a building.

• https://dailyprogress.com/news/local/charlottesville-driver-found-not-guilty-of-ivy-road-pedestrian-death/article_f6620862-b94d-11ed-8e8e-2bdbe8368a37.html
• https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/bus-driver-found-not-guilty-in-pedestrian-death-1.1362139
• https://www.kolotv.com/content/news/Reno-police-investigating-pedestrian-injury-accident-on-Plumb-Lane--427602243.html
• https://www.capecodtimes.com/story/news/2019/01/04/driver-found-not-guilty-in/6376784007/
• https://www.indaily.com.au/news/2022/08/18/lamborghini-driver-found-not-guilty-over-pedestrian-death
• https://globalnews.ca/video/3873815/driver-found-not-guilty-of-killing-pedestrian-on-leslieville-sidewalk

I think it happens even more when it comes to cyclists being killed by drivers

Are you thinking of something like Stack Overflow’s reputation system? See https://stackoverflow.com/help/whats-reputation for a basic overview. See https://stackoverflow.com/help/privileges for some examples of privileges unlocked by hitting a particular reputation level.

That system is better optimized for reputation than the threaded discussions that we participate in here, but it has its own problems. However, we could at minimum learn from the things that it does right:

• You need site (or community) staff, who are not constrained by reputation limits, to police the system
• Upvoting is disabled until you have at least a little reputation
• Downvoting is disabled until you have a decent amount of reputation and costs you reputation
• Upvotes grant more reputation than downvotes take away
• Voting fraud is a bannable offense and there are methods in place to detect it
• The system is designed to discourage reuse of content
• Not all activities can be upvoted or downvoted. For example, commenting on SO requires a minimum amount of reputation, but unless they’re reported as spam, offensive, fraudulent, etc. (which also requires a minimum reputation), they don’t impact your reputation, even if upvoted.

If you wanted to have upvoted and downvoted discourse, you could also allow people to comment on a given piece of discourse without their comment itself being part of the discourse. For example, someone might just want to say “I’m lost, can someone explain this to me?” “Nice hat,” “Where did you get that?” or something entirely off topic that they thought about in response to a topic.

You could also limit the total amount of reputation a person can bestow upon another person, and maybe increase that limit as their reputation increases. Alternatively or additionally, you could enable high rep users to grant more reputation with their upvotes (either every time or occasionally) or to transfer a portion of their rep to a user who made a comment they really liked. It makes sense that Joe Schmo endorsing me doesn’t mean much, but King Joe’s endorsement is a much bigger deal.

Reputation also makes sense to be topic specific. I could be an expert on software development but be completely misinformed about hedgehogs, but think that I’m an expert. If I have a high reputation from software development discussions, it would be misleading when I start telling someone about hedgehogs diets.

Yet another thing to consider, especially if you’re federating, is server-specific reputations with overlapping topics. Assuming you allow users to say “Don’t show this / any of my content to <other server> at all,” (e.g., if you know something is against the rules over there or is likely to be downvoted, but in your community it’s generally upvoted) there isn’t much reason to not allow a discussion to appear in two or more servers. Then users could accrue reputation on that topic from users of both servers. The staff, and later, high reputation users of one server could handle moderation of topics differently than the moderators of another, by design. This could solve disagreements about moderation style, voting etiquette, etc., by giving users alternatives to choose from.

Right? It’s weird how so many people upset about the situation in this thread are incapable of explaining why it’s a problem without lying.

Like, I get that it sucks to be removed as a maintainer because of something outside your control. But being, or continuing to be, a maintainer of a project isn’t a right that’s integral to that project being free.

I'd honestly even consider it a good idea for Russia to get the FSF to fight this considering it's a blatant violation of the GPL.

How is telling someone that you won’t accept their contributions anymore a violation of the GPL?

Literally none of those freedoms were impacted. Everyone is still free to use the program as they wish, fork it, make changes, etc.. Linux doesn’t have a new license that says “anyone but Russians” can use it.

he then followed up by gloating about Russian maintainers

How did he gloat? He explained the change. If your complaint is that he was abrasive, I feel like you’re not familiar with Linus.

Ok, lots of Russian trolls out and about.

It's entirely clear why the change was done, it's not getting
reverted, and using multiple random anonymous accounts to try to
"grass root" it by Russian troll factories isn't going to change
anything.

And FYI for the actual innocent bystanders who aren't troll farm
accounts - the "various compliance requirements" are not just a US
thing.

If you haven't heard of Russian sanctions yet, you should try to read
the news some day.  And by "news", I don't mean Russian
state-sponsored spam.

As to sending me a revert patch - please use whatever mush you call
brains. I'm Finnish. Did you think I'd be *supporting* Russian
aggression? Apparently it's not just lack of real news, it's lack of
history knowledge too.

Sounds a lot more like he’s frustrated than delighted to me.

Calling your former volunteer contributors bots

He didn’t call the contributors bots.

He called the people submitting reverts and complaining about those maintainers, who weren’t contributors themselves, “troll farm accounts.”

and state assets because of their home country

When did he call anyone a state asset? To be clear, being a troll or a paid actor doesn’t make you someone’s property.

He also explained that this was a legal matter:

> Again -- are you under any sort of NDA not to even refer to a list of
> these countries?

No, but I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not going to go into the details that
I - and other maintainers - were told by lawyers.

I'm also not going to start discussing legal issues with random
internet people who I seriously suspect are paid actors and/or have
been riled up by them.

First, you’re acting like the decision was made by Linus or another member of the team and that they weren’t following the law.

Second, even if that weren’t the case, it’s still completely free. Unless you can name one of the following freedoms that was impacted by those actions:

• Freedom 0: The freedom to use the program for any purpose.
• Freedom 1: The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish.
• Freedom 2: The freedom to redistribute and make copies so you can help your neighbor.
• Freedom 3: The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements (and modified versions in general) to the public, so that the whole community benefits.

What “not at all free dogmas” are you referencing, and why is “free” in scare quotes?

“But tante, then we will never have Open Source AI”. Exactly. That’s how reality works. If you can’t fulfil the criteria of a category you are not in that category. The fix is not to change the criteria. That’s playing pigeon chess.

This is a bad take. If your criteria aren’t grounded in reality, they aren’t useful, so of course you should change the criteria.

It’s also a missed opportunity to point to an AI model that did things right and that would qualify as “open source AI” even if that definition were not watered down. For example, OLMo (which I just learned about) says that they provide full insight into the training data as well as “full model weights, training code, training logs, training metrics in the form of Weights & Biases logs, and inference code.” Their most complex models are 7B models, which is enough to be relevant.

Saying “Meta and Alphabet will never release Open Source AI that meets the proposed definition” is fine. Saying “we’ll never have Open Source AI, period, that meets the proposed definition” means your proposed definition needs rewritten.

So, to be clear, my opinion was about what’s reasonable to do and was informed by our culture and laws. Your objection seems to be related to what should be legal, which is different and is more complicated, as the laws have to balance restricting and potentially damaging businesses with protecting people from discrimination.

From a legal perspective, IMO larger businesses should be held to much tighter standards than small businesses. I think it would be reasonable to legally require Google or Meta to have a reason to ban someone, to have to share that explanation, and to have to allow an appeal to be unbanned to be arbitrated by a third party, without “we can ban anyone for any reason” allowed as a defense.

We also see it being abused with the allowance of a few "good ones" from said protected class to avoid discrimination claims while still discriminating against the rest of said class.

Obviously this isn’t a reasonable thing for them to do.

If a business is discriminating against a protected class and only letting in a few “good ones,” then statistically it should be able to be shown that they ban far more people in that class than outside it.

I believe there should be reasons required to ban someone.

How do you manage that, practically speaking, in a capitalist society? If a business owner thinks someone is acting suspicious and is likely to steal or break something, but they can’t ban them until they have a “valid” reason, if that person then breaks or steals something, that business owner has been damaged by the government’s policy. Is the government going to make them whole? No, of course not.

Does the reason need to be disclosed to the person being banned, or just recorded for future reference? A lot of the time people get defensive and angry when told the truth about what they did that made other people not want to deal with them. If someone’s been leering at customers, smells terrible, is loud and disruptive, or is just plain acting weird, telling them as much when you tell them they have to leave probably isn’t going to help them feel better.

Not just because you own the place and don't want them in your place as they make you/other customers uncomfortable.

Why do you think it’s okay for a business owner and their employees to be legally forced to deal with someone that makes them uncomfortable?

Do business owners just need to be able to articulate why someone discomforts them? Is someone judging whether a reason is good enough, or do you just need any reason, or is there a list of acceptable reasons? In the last case, what sorts of reasons are acceptable?

If a business can point to measurements they’ve taken showing that when Joe shows up, they lose money - either because their clients leave, don’t come back, or stop spending money - is that a good enough reason to ban Joe? What if this is just because their clients are all racist and Joe is black?

If a business bans Joe because of a particular reason and then Jim does the same thing, is the business forced to ban Jim?

But it's still relevant as it's the reason homeless people

The easy solution for this is to make being homeless a protected class. Homeless people need specific protections at a federal level, because they’re discriminated against by local and even state governments. That’s not the only class that needs this, either, to be clear.

That said, all of the times I’ve seen a homeless person banned from an establishment wasn’t because they were homeless, but because of some other reason. The one I remember clearest was a woman who had started talking to me and my girlfriend (at the time) while we were sitting at a table in a coffee shop. She asked us for money or food after just a couple minutes, then went to go and talk to someone else and after a few minutes was noticed by the staff and told to leave. When I asked about it, I gathered that she’d been banned because of multiple complaints from customers about her doing just that.

“Jurisdiction” is a legal concept and the way you’re using it makes no sense unless you’re referring to restraining orders or trespassing warnings being issued by courts/police from different towns or states.

I’m assuming you’re talking about private establishments that have the legal right to refuse service to anyone for almost any reason (exceptions being if doing so is discrimination against a protected class).

If so, then here’s my opinion: If you own or manage a shop, bar, club, gym, etc., it’s reasonable to ban someone because they aren’t the sort of person you want in your establishment. Maybe they make you or your other customers uncomfortable. Maybe they don’t want their place to get a reputation for being where Bad Egg Craig, whose antics sent some folks to the ER, hangs out. Maybe they share ban lists with the owners of other establishments, either because they’re friends or for purely business reasons (if your actions have cost the owner of one establishment money, it’s more likely you’ll do the same elsewhere), the same way insurance companies protect their interests by raising premiums.

What does the Hague Convention have to do with anything? Unless it’s being enforced by the same people it’s completely irrelevant.

From https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61311966

[In 2021], the House of Representatives, controlled by the Democratic Party, voted to approve legislation that would secure - and, in some cases expand - the right to abortion afforded by the Roe decision. The vote was 218 in favour and 211 against.

The bill then moved to the evenly-divided Senate, where one Democrat - Joe Manchin of West Virginia - joined the Republicans in voting it down. Because of Senate rules that several Democrats (including Mr Manchin) are adamantly against altering, passage would have required 60 votes out of the 100 senators - a mark the abortion bill did not approach.

Eligible libraries, archives, and museums have a few exemptions to the DMCA’s anti-circumvention clauses that aren’t available to ordinary citizens, but these aren’t unique to the Internet Archive. For example:

Literary works, excluding computer programs and compilations that were compiled specifically for text and data mining purposes, distributed electronically where:

(A) The circumvention is undertaken by a researcher affiliated with a nonprofit institution of higher education, or by a student or information technology staff member of the institution at the direction of such researcher, solely to deploy text and data mining techniques on a corpus of literary works for the purpose of scholarly research and teaching;

(B) The copy of each literary work is lawfully acquired and owned by the institution, or licensed to the institution without a time limitation on access;

(C) The person undertaking the circumvention views the contents of the literary works in the corpus solely for the purpose of verification of the research findings; and

(D) The institution uses effective security measures to prevent further dissemination or downloading of literary works in the corpus, and to limit access to only the persons identified in paragraph (b)(5)(i)(A) of this section or to researchers or to researchers affiliated with other institutions of higher education solely for purposes of collaboration or replication of the research.

This exemption doesn’t allow them to publish the content, though, nor would it provide them immunity to takedown requests, if it did.

These exemptions change every three years and previously granted exemptions have to be renewed. The next cycle begins in October and they started accepting comments on renewals + proposals for expanded or new exemptions in April, so that’s why we’re hearing about companies lobbying against them now.

Dunno, I think regardless of the method used by the extension, I think any extension called "Bypass Paywalls" that does what it says on the tin can pretty unambiguously be said to be designed to circumvent "technological protection measures".

“Bypass” and “Circumvent” are nearly synonymous in some uses - they both mean “avoid” - but that’s not really the point.

From a legal perspective, it’s pretty clear no circumvention of technological protection measures is taking place*. Yes, bypassing or circumventing a paywall to get to the content on the site itself would be illegal, were that content effectively protected by a technological measure. But they’re not doing that. Rather, a circumvention of the entire site is occurring, which is completely legal (an obvious exception would be if they were hosting infringing content themselves or something along those lines, but we’re talking about the Internet Archive here).

* - to be clear, I’m referring to what was detailed in the request, not the part that was redacted. That part may qualify as a circumvention.

In this case, it circumvents the need to login entirely and obviously it circumvents the paywall.

Following the same logic, Steam could claim that a browser extension showing where you can get the same game for cheaper or free circumvents their technological protection measure. It doesn’t. It circumvents the entire storefront, which is not illegal.

That’s the same thing that’s happening here - linking to the same work that’s legally hosted elsewhere.

Though as you said, these guys should probably be sending DMCAs to the Internet Archive

Yes - if they don’t want their content available, that’s what they should do. They might not want to do that, because they appreciate the Internet Archive’s mission (I wonder if it’s possible to ask that content be taken down until X date, or for content to be made inaccessible but for it to still be archived?) or they might be taking a multi pronged approach.

Maybe archive.today is the problem? Maybe they don't honor DMCA requests.

Good point. If so, and if their site isn’t legally compliant in the same ways, then the extension becomes a lot less legally defensible if it’s linking there. That’s still not because it’s circumventing a technological protection, though - it’s because of precedent that “One who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, going beyond mere distribution with knowledge of third-party action, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties using the device, regardless of the device’s lawful uses,” (Source), where “device” includes software. Following that precedent, plaintiffs could claim that the extension promoted its use to infringe copyright based off the extension’s name and that it had knowledge of third-party action because it linked directly to sites known to infringe copyright.

The Digital Media Law Project points out that there are two ways sharing links can violate the DMCA:

• Trafficking in anti-circumvention tools - which is obviously not what’s going on here
• Contributory copyright infringement - which is basically doing something described by the precedent I shared above.

I’m not sure how the extension searches web archives. It if uses Google, for example, then it would make sense to serve Google ae DMCA takedown notice (“stop serving results to the known infringing archive.piracy domain”), but if the extension directly searches the infringing web archive, then the extension developers would need to know that the archive is infringing. Serving them a DMCA takedown (“stop searching the known infringing archive.piracy domain”) would give them notice, and if they ignored it, it would then be appropriate to send the takedown directly to their host (Github, the browser extension stores, etc) citing that they had been informed of the infringement of a site they linked to and were de facto committing contributory infringement themselves.

Given that they didn’t do that, I can conclude one of the following:

1. The lawyers are incompetent.
2. The lawyers are competent and recognize that engaging in bad faith like this produces faster results; if this is contested they’ll follow up with something else, possibly even the very actions I described.
3. The archives that are searched by the extension aren’t infringing and this was the best option the lawyers could come up with.