Don't know if you've tried this before, but there at a few guides for getting the mod working on Linux. This might help?

https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=147190

The mod has been consistently going since 2005, so they've had a lot of time to build up assets! There's a lot of snazzy new features, but everything still aims to integrate with Freelancer's original setting and lore. Mixed success, but it works more often than not. There's a community Discord if you wanted to take a look around or ask questions.

Do you know where that link happened to be? I'm wondering if it could be dredged up with the Wayback machine.

We've got a Discord server if you want to drop by and take a look around. :)

Yep! Discovery alone has been going since 2006, and has had a 24/7 multiplayer server running consistently that entire time (barring minor outages from faults and attacks). Pretty incredible really.

I also don't like thinking about it because I first registered an account on their forum in 2007... really puts the inexorable march of time into perspective.

You can host your own server too, although there's a few steps you need to follow to get FLServer working properly. There's instructions on the Discovery forums for that.

I'm on the flight path of a pair of these that do aerial tours. Very distinctive noise and silhouette, always fun to listen to them fly overhead.

Freelancer is 2003 Microsoft abandonware which still has an online mod community. Most prominent is probably the Discovery mod, which hosts a 24/7 RP server.

https://discoverygc.com/

I'd just suggest that this is a defacto ban based on the current requirements.

If bots are going to be command triggered and require pre-approval by individual community moderators, I think it would be prudent to include an index of registered bots + commands in the community info pages.

Currently I can't think of any reasonable way for a Beehaw user to know which bots are operational and what their commands are. If bots need to be command triggered but there's no way to find out which ones are functional, why approve them to begin with?

It's an unmoderated kbin magazine. Nothing to be done but block it and move on.

That's a hell of a nostalgia trip. Freelancer is probably my all time favourite game, and I had literally a decade of fond memories of Disco before I eventually drifted off.

What's it looking like these days? The pop count and surviving factions were looking a little sad the last time I checked in a year or two ago.

The two YouTube links from Haelian in my summary set up the context for why this is really hard, and then commentary on the actual run itself.

Those last few seconds were absolutely hair-raising, even if we already knew how it was going to end!

See you in 200 hours, enjoy!

Also, if you're playing for the first time maybe don't watch those videos until you've completed at least one run for spoiler reasons.

It just blows my mind to see all the different ways people will bend over backwards and then contort into a pretzel to try and blame the US for causing and perpetuating a war that Russia is exclusively culpable for...

https://www.plymouth.ac.uk/discover/why-are-artificial-lawns-bad-for-the-environment

Minimising the objections down to that and then writing them all off as NIMBYism is such an absurd strawman.

I agree that non traditional lawns are better, but that definitely does not include artificial pitch.

since C2PA relies on creators to opt in, the protocol doesn’t really address the problem of bad actors using AI-generated content. And it’s not yet clear just how helpful the provision of metadata will be when it comes to media fluency of the public. Provenance labels do not necessarily mention whether the content is true or accurate.

Interesting approach, but I can't help but feel the actual utility is fairly limited. For example, I could see it being useful for large corporate creative studios that have contractual / union agreements that govern AI content usage.

If they're using enterprise tools that build in C2PA, it'd give them a metadata audit trail showing exactly when and where AI was used.

That's completely useless in the context where AI content flagging is most useful though. As the quote says, this provenance data is applied at the point of creation, and in a world where there are open source branches of generation models, there's no way to ensure provenance tagging is built in.

This technology is most needed to combat AI powered misinformation campaigns, when that is the use case this is least able to address.

Data Protection shouldn't be a relevant issue - at least not in the sense that it forcss them to delete accounts. When you process data under the GDPR, you have to identify a lawful basis.

I assume that transactions through the eStore would be handled under the contract basis, with the hosting of the game in the library forming part of the contractual relationship. That would enable them to maintain an account for as long as the contractual relationship persisted.

That basically means GDPR doesn't force them to close an account, they close an account based on their policies because they choose to. That'll be based on their T&Cs, so things will fundamentally circle back to whether their T&Cs are legitimate and lawful.

It is possible that a data subject could potentially raise a claim for damages under the GDPR, on the grounds that the deletion of their account is a breach of contract that amounts to an availability data breach.

Canada does good work squashing OPCA claims. I'm very much a fan of Justice Rooke's utter obliteration of the ideologies' rhetoric back in 2012.

When the ICO recieve a complaint they usually send an initial notification email to the data controller to advise that a case officer will be assigned in due course.

Well, unless it relates to a serious or ongoing data breach, which tends to be triaged immediately into an active investigation.

Initial notification letters do usually recommend trying to resolve the issue with the data subject in the interim though.

That probably spooked Reddit into moving your case up the priority list as I imagine they've got a pretty substantial backlog of SAR, erasure and objection requests, considering the circumstances.

The response window for most of those rights is 30 calendar days + extensions if applicable, so they could also have just been responding as late as allowed, accounting for aforementioned probable backlog.

Do let us know when the ICO gets back to you though, will be fascinating to hear what they have to say.