0·11 months agoFor the name? That’s fucking easy dude, just get a better launcher.
Can you edit this without pushing your own commit and rebuilding the app entirely?
You can’t do shit because it’s a problem with your phone. This is not something handled by the app. The app only provides the icon, it’s Android that’s supposed to handle the launch animation; that’s why launch animations can look completely different on phone’s made by different OEMs.
did you really need to come say “not all men” to a comment that didn’t even say “most?” Are you THAT insecure about the possibility that other men are unpleasant to women sometimes that you need to come and do this and keep replying and even draw pictures about it?
You didn’t even read the argument. It’s not about “not all men” , it’s about your hyper-generalization and hypersimplification of men’s issues and acting like there’s a silver bullet solution that men are (implied) to lazy to do. Hence the “have they thought about smiling more” example, emphasizing the ridiculous copout response that solves nothing and actively hurts men. Which btw, is an actual IRL example.
We can ignore the fact that you are currently being the man being unpleasant to women for the moment if it makes your continued trolling easier.
You’re literally a woman hyper generalizing and oversimplifying men’s issues while being unpleasant to a man. Hypocrite.
Case and point
Men are welcome to do the same whenever they’re ready, but for now a lot of men are just coping by crab bucketing this shit and bringing women back down.
Stop pretending like you know jack shit about men’s issues.
It’s only to/about men do you mfs say this type of shit.
“Oh, men are depressed and have insanely high suicide rate? Have they tried smiling more?”Men are welcome to do the same whenever they’re ready
We’ve been ready for a very long fucking time.
When will society be ready to actually fucking listen for once?
It’s fuckin sad that the only people able to talk about men’s issues are either fucking grifters (Andrew you know who) or aren’t even men.
Just STFU with your copout bullshit.
Don’t forget about archive.org
What’s wrong? Can’t defend yourself against Bleem vs. Sony 2001? And you were so quick to respond before.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
I’m asking for proof that they illegally acquired an encryption key and were illegally distributing said key. All sources I’ve found state that the Yuzu devs used “prod.keys” obtained from legitimate Switch hardware for internal use and didn’t publicly distribute any said keys. The said many sources even state that they provided directions on how to obtain your own key which isn’t illegal and is in favor of them not distributing keys. This is also backed by the Yuzu source code persevered in the previously provided mirror and Yuzu website preserved here and by wayback machine.
Your failer to provide literally any source at all points to you being a biased corrupt source.https://www.wired.com/story/nintendo-yuzu-emulator-lawsuit-piracy/
Where is the proof that they illegally acquired an encryption key? Actually. Even if they acquired a key without homebrew, it still doesn’t qualify as copyright infringement, that only comes into play if they were publicly distributing an illegally acquired key. Which you’ve yet to provide any evidence of. Again, provide literally any screenshots of them disturbing an illegally acquired key.
You fundamentally misunderstand how emulators work. Emulators are the recreation of the actual spec of the hardware itself in software. They do not need some unique key for TOTK to work as the hardware itself is what’s being emulated not some encryption key pulled of the hardware. All the key does is decode the ROMs encryption so it can be run by the hardware and inturn the emulator that’s mimicking the hardware. Literally any encryption key dumped from any homebrew’d switch can decode TOTK. Not once did Yuzu access TOTK ROMs files, more over the TOTK ROMs was leaked by a 3rd party with no connection to Yuzu.
Which they didn’t do since their ripped key was in a google drive (it was someone else’s key) and they had folders full of illegal roms….
Again, provide proof or kindly STFU.
You would also need to know how decode and use that key, it’s not just taking a key and suddenly you have a working emulator, you can’t be serious about this are you…?
Please learn how the fuck clean room design reverse engineering works. It’s a 2 team operation were one team uses reverse engineering methods to write spec documentation without any code at all, then another team without access to copyright content using the that spec documentation to build out the actual code. This again is already deamed independent creation under section 107.
That’s not how you make an emulator and claim game preservation, sorry. Yuzu got sued and didn’t even make it to discovery, since they had nothing to stand on…. Since they had an illegal bios key and game roms.
Yet again. Provide proof.
How can you make and test an emulator without a key…? Or roms…?
By home brewing a legally purchase switch obviously.
They didn’t reverse engineer the key, that’s the issue they had their publicly ripped key in a Google folder.
Where’s the proof they were distributing a key?
You still fail to provide any proof.So… how did they legally test their reverse engineered emulator… without their own key or roms?
Again, by home brewing a legally purchased switch. Which again, is protected by section 107.
There’s far more to this story than what yuzu and the commits say.
Then provide actual fucking evidence like you’ve been told to countless times already.
Stop with the fucking heresay already.
they didn’t reverse engineer the key they used
Stop peddling that stupid lie already. They didn’t use any key period; we literally have backups of the entire GPL source code will all of the commit history dating all the way back to August 30, 2013, stop spewing bullshit out your mouth.
You had to rip your own key from your own legally purchased switch hardware using legally protected homebrew tools and manually add it to Yuzu configs.This process is protected under Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act.Under the fair use doctrine in Section 107, modifying your own legally purchased console hardware and running homebrew software for personal, non-commercial use has been considered a lawful fair use in certain legal precedents, even if it requires circumventing the console’s technological protection measures (TPMs) as its considered non-profit, educational or transformative use, as described in the fair use doctrine of Section 107.
Section 107 of the Copyright Act establishes the fair use exception, which allows for the reproduction of copyrighted works for purposes such as “criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research”.
Clean Room design reverse engineering for the purpose of creating an Emulator falls under “research” as listed by section 107 and independent creation as protected by existing judicial precedents.
Section 107 is intended to restate the present judicial doctrine of fair use, not to change, narrow, or enlarge it in any way.
Meaning Clean Room design reverse engineering as independent creation & modifying your legally purchased hardware with homebrew tools as fair use being protected by existing judicial precedents is also in turn protected by Section 107.
And the Twitter thread had the sources
Twitter doesn’t allow us to reverse the thread, kindly link the exact source you’re referring to.
Objection hearsay! Some jackass on Twitter saying some crap without proof is not proof. We need screenshots of the actual incidents at the minimum.
Google Play has emulators too
https://twitter.com/Zetta_330/status/1765081419687371165 Look for yourself, they used someone else’s code, it’s technically not illegal according to the CLA of GitHub…
It has nothing to do with some made up CLA that GitHub doesn’t even have ರ_ರ , it’s a matter of the license the project is under. Which is open source, e.g. GPL, Apache, MIT, etc. all of which doesn’t prevent the use of the code in other open source projects, especially when consent was already given before hand.
…but that’s not relevant to DCMA.
You bet your ass it isn’t, because the code from Ryujinx doesn’t infringe on Nintendo copyright either.
DCMA
It’s DMCA.
… It requires them to reverse engineer the code for an emulator, which they didn’t do.
How the shit do you think emulators are created without reverse engineering? You can’t be serious.
Please tell me what they did right to claim game preservation…?
They used clean room reverse engineering which is a form of independent creation and already has decades of precedent in its favor.
Iced is desktop and web only.
Slint for mobile is WIP for Android and not started for IOS.
🏴☠️🦜 THE ONEPIECE IS REAL!!