Heh, thank you.

At no point have I ever said it wasn't an edge use case. I thought I'd made it pretty clear that I understand that it is.

GOG allow other edge use cases. I think very few people have a render farm, let alone would want to install Fallout onto it.

And using the "I think it is weird" as an argument for not doing something is an argument from incredulity. I don't think most people would find it weird to buy part of something while it is on sale, when they intend to buy the other parts too (just later).

Also, many people find it weird that I buy games I can't play, yet don't find it weird to give money to a cause that doesn't benefit them (i.e. charity). You know, despite them being the same thing.
Many people think it is weird that I dislike Steam, but complain when their Steam use gets disrupted and they can't play their games. You know, despite that being one of the reasons why I dislike it.
Many people think it is weird that I dislike make-up, but complain that people are shallow and only care about appearance. You know, despite that makeup not only perpetuates the problem, it makes it worse by constantly raising what is considered "average beauty".

Many people are stupid as hell, give no credence to what they think. It's either reasonable and should be allowed, or it is unreasonable and shouldn't.

I haven't spoken to Judas for ages. He made it clear I wasn't going to change his (or GOGs) mind and left the discussion, I don't see why that means the discussion can't continue..? Maybe if I convince a bunch of other people, GOG will change their minds and stop dictating what we can do with our purchases, which is what they are doing.

And no, warning you beforehand does not make it less DRMy. See: "This singleplayer game requires an always-on internet connection" is still DRM, despite being warned before you buy.

And no, you can't say I don't have a right to complain because that creates the situation where no-one can.
If you complain despite the warning, well "you can't complain, you were warned".
If you complain without buying it, well "you can't complain, you're not affected".

Sound familiar?

I don't give up, I just go quiet and await further opportunities :P
If you are referring to me, please point out where I have moved goalposts as I don't like when it is done to me, I don't want to do it to other people.

I've already admitted that you are absolutely correct in you logical assessment of the situation. I never said "weird things shouldn't be done". I'm weird, I know better than that.
Let me tell you a fairly weird anecdote:
I once told a girl "I see no logical reason why we shouldn't do this, and no harm that could be seriously expected to come out of this." She paused for a while, furrowed her brow, and responded "You know what - you're right." In hindsight - I am not so sure whether that was... the right way of handling the situation, in spite of being absolutely rational every step of the way.

Oh - there's also Hume's Guillotine. From that which is you can never derive that which ought to be. You can argue about facts all day long, but that in itself can never lead you to conclusions on what should be done.

I've spent years trying to restrain myself from thinking like this ;_;...

Sometimes the reasonability of an action cannot be determined in advance...

Look - I know where you're coming from. You're a Linux user, for crying out loud. If you want to set the root password to '', then your system will go "Hey - you're the boss... It shall be so." On Windows you'd get scolded by the operating system, because it "knows better" what's good for you.
I can't remember the source, but I know that "if we take away the ability of stupid people to do stupid things" we often times simultaneously "take away the ability of smart people to do smart things". I get that.

I also understand that you can ignore stupid people being stupid and leave them to their own devices. GOG can't necessarily afford that. There were people here who couldn't comprehend the process of installing games... on Windows. You know - downloading them, then finding and double-clicking them.
Here's the deal - if this is to get implemented at any point, there need to be checks in place to insure that people won't get mad that they "can't play their game" after buying DLC alone. There should probably be a message along the lines of "You are about to do something that, in most circumstances, is REALLY FUCKING STUPID. Turn back while you still can. Don't do this to yourself. We will not be responsible for your plight if you proceed. Are you REALLY goddamn sure that this is what you want to do?"... and then there should be a tiny "trust me, I'm from the Internet" button and a ginormous "No, no, no! It was a misclick!" next to it, taking 7/8ths of the page ;P.

I... applaud that, actually.

I don't see how that could have been the wrong way. Even if harm did come out of it that you didn't forsee, you would have learned new information that can be applied to future logic, spread to others so they may use it.. to avoid that harm, even in non-similar situations.

Doing things on random chance or emotion doesn't have a feedback system like this. If it is decided randomly, the result does not affect the next decision (as it will also be done randomly), if it done on emotion, the result doesn't directly affect the next decision (as it will also be done based on your emotion at the time, though this may be negative based on the past experience).

It's not like you would have forseen the harm with emotion or random chance.

I don't think I've come across Hume's Guillotine before. Interesting stuff.

The phrasing seems absolute, though. As in "you can never derive what ought to be in the grand scheme of things, from what is", which is not the same as "you can never derive what ought to be, in order to be consistent, from what is". I feel the latter is reasonably resolvable, as you can determine what is consistent with what already is. For example, "6" ought to follow the sequence "1, 2, 3, 4, 5", in order to be consistent incrementation by 1.

Of course, we don't have all the information on everything. However, a reasonable situation has been described where the DLC is added to the account first.

More accurately, Linux will take whatever action you choose (either say nothing and do it, warn and require confirmation, warn and do it anyway or outright stop you). Windows will just stop you, whether you want it to or not, because Microsoft thinks it knows better than you.

Personally, I think either of the warning setups are the best. It isn't preventative (you can do it if you really want to) but they also make an effort to get you to not shoot yourself in the foot.

The thing is, when you flat out stop someone doing something stupid (setting an empty password), they will find a way around it which is just as stupid (set the password to "password") but then they will be under the impression they they haven't done something stupid because they weren't stopped.

A little reminder every now and again to pay attention and be skeptical is a good thing. Losing $2 to some DLC (or having to go through the "hassle" of getting a refund) might make them, say, not microwave their iPhone 6 :)

The more the system holds your hand, the more likely you are going to fall over when they hand suddenly disappears or worse (as in the case of Patreon), not only lets go, but shoves you too!

Indeed, and if we go by quotes, human stupidity is infinite, which means we would be taking away the ability to do an infinite number of things.

This is understandable. Even I struggle to find things that have been downloaded in the recent versions of Windows :P

They don't have to leave those who don't know what they are doing to their own devices, they should be leaving those who do know what they are doing to their own devices.

As Judas has said, you already get warned (twice) before you buy it that the base game is required. Add it to the system requirements and that's a third time (ironically, this is the only place this requirement isn't actually mentioned). They could have another tickbox in this situation that you have to tick at checkout. They could also allow it to be added to your library by purchasing it as a gift code and then putting in a support request to have it "force added".

It doesn't matter what they do, as long as it can be added to my library without the "safety net" somehow.

:)

Here's my point: there being no reasons not to do something does not constitute in itself a reason to do something.
Inaction is a perfectly fine course of action.

It's about ethical statements. They cannot be derived from facts alone. Just look it up if you want to find out more.
Consistency is fairly low on my list of values, very low on my list of truth definitions ;P.

In order to. On its own "1, 2, 3, 4, 5" could just be a "list of integers higher than 0 and lower than 6".
Also - mathematical and logical truths are an entirely different can of worms... They are a priori, so "1, 2, 3, 4, 5" can hardly be taken as "fact".

You know... People downloaded the "waterproof" app. Removing warning labels could be construed as a terrorist attack against the American people.

In the end you claim that most people are stupid, but should face the consequences of their stupidity and learn... This might be cruel or optimistic, but it is a tempting approach. As much as people might want to avoid personal responsibility and thinking, if humanity prides itself on being superior to the world of animals, individuals should affirm this status by employing reason and foresight.

Agreed. It could even be a cryptic account setting, where you could set the "allow_questionable_actions" flag to TRUE ;P.

I'm.. not sure how (or why) you got here. Have I implied that not having a reason not to do something is a reason to do it?

Yeah, reading a little further down I saw what I was describing (goal orientated), sorry. I only read enough to get the jist of it as I spend so long typing posts (writing and rewriting) and I am time-limited on this computer.

Unfortunately, people don't get to see my posts which can go from strongly agreeing/disagreeing in the first draft to the opposite in the posted version. Basically, what I try to do is when I am debating with someone, I'm actually debating with someone else too. Them and myself.

Why? Inconsistency hints at deception or flawed logic. Knowing about both (or the likelihood of) is useful. For example, Milgram's Experiment showed that people are inconsistent with their stated position and the action they would actually take. My logic dictates that as soon as the subject withdrew consent, the experiment had to stop and when they asked to be "let out", they had to be released.. otherwise, it is torture and kidnapping/false imprisonment. An authority figure cannot change the outcome of that logic.

With regards to consistency defining truth, it can't on it's own, but it can highlight mistruth or wrongness. Claiming to know the intentions of entity X and at the same time claiming that group A (which the claimant is part of) cannot know the intentions of entity X, is an inconsistency and hints that they are wrong. Either the intention is know, therefore A is capable of knowing, or A isn't capable of knowing, thus the intention is unknown.

This example was using the goal orientated thing, so I already knew it didn't work "in the grand scheme" for the reasons you gave.

I don't regard getting people to destroy expensive property to be "a little reminder" and as I have said, I don't regard warnings to be bad, I regard prohibition to be bad.

Although the change from warnings being "this item becomes very hot" to "don't put your face on this during operation" is.. bizarre to be honest. If you start specifically warning against particular types of action, you begin implying that non-mentioned actions are okay.

To paraphrase myself: Don't get me wrong, I don't think people should die or get maimed because of their stupidity but when you continually lower the bar to "protect" them from stupid things, you increase the stupid things they will do because you are assuming responsibility for them.

It's a bit like a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you treat someone in a certain way, they may very well begin acting in accordance with your belief. Treat people like babies and they will start acting like babies.

Maybe there should be a checkbox on checkout which is just labelled "sudo" and you have to put your account password in again to checkout? :D

Hang on... Did you get laid with logic? I applaud you, sir.

Duh. It's an iterative process. What's the point in posting something other people can disagree with easily ;P?

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds".
In fairness - we're pretty much talking about two different things here. The "foolish consistency" is one where you do something wrong because, for instance, you already did something similar. It's becoming invested in something based on the time you've spend doing it / defending it / thinking it. This is sometimes called the "sunken cost fallacy". Think of BAD poker players or Anakin Skywalker.

On the other hand - people can value consistency of theory, not of their own actions. Whenever they notice that something doesn't make sense, they can attempt to weed out the false premises, etc. Ultimately - they can be willing to purge the entire theory they had. That's more of a dedication to things "making sense" than "consistency".

This can be questionable. If what you believe is inappropriate, it's better to improvise than stick to bad ideas. On the other hand - the experiment DID show consistency... a completely foolish one. They were willing to zap someone with 1V, so they were also willing to do so with 1000V. They couldn't "draw the line". They were consistent as hell.

I've read that one of the more interesting ways to torture people is to forcibly destroy their sense of truth, logic, and reality. No person can make the sky purple, but if you get beaten enough you can start SAYING that it is, then CONSIDERING it, then even believing it. You can get asked nonsensical questions and get beaten for giving any answers... or refusing to give them.
I used to wonder why there was a distinction between mental and social attributes in the new World of Darkness. Thing is - it does make sense. The three powers of reason, will, and feelings aren't just an arbitrary collection of aspects of consciousness, I'd argue...

Certainly... assuming reality is logical and consistent ;P.
It's mostly a textbook example of something that cannot be THE definition of truth, since a consistent fairy tale would also have to be considered "true".

Not at all. The first one is a statement of fact, the second one is a direct order. If you tell someone that fire is hot, they may still burn themselves. Additional reasoning and judgement is necessary to transform this factual information into a practical advice on what to do and what to not.
If you tell people not to stop the chainsaw with their feet or genitals, you're not necessarily covering all the bases, but at least you're actively trying to stop people from doing particular things.
In other words - the new labels simply show even less faith in people's intellect. As they say - "you can't tell a horse that water quenches thirst, you have to tell it to drink it" ;P.

Oh - the Golem Effect?
Dear Logos, my education has mostly bestowed upon me a fistful of anecdotes and terms to regale people on Internet conversations with xD! Five years well spent.

Maybe there should be a waiting period and a Skype consultation with a professional, to make sure that you understand the ramifications of the actions you will be able to perform?

Hey - I've never explicitly said the activity in question had anything erotic about it... For all you know we could've been making cupcakes.
That said - please do not try this on your own. I'm a trained professional and this took place in a safe environment. It's unlikely that this works on anyone but Philosophy students. A Math student, for instance, might expect a list of axioms and a deductive proof to be presented.

Totally agree. I tried to discuss the idea of "learned helplessness" with my gf - because she is very particular about the way things should be done. I grew up being very helpful around the house, but it doesn't work with her, because even if I do something, I don't do it "right." Many times I've heard "Just let me do it." So the end result is that my approach becomes "Fine, do it yourself, then; I'll stop altogether." Not quite the same thing; more like "learned pointlessness," but the idea is generally the same.

What I find funny is these car commercials where all they're showing is a car driving down a road in a normal manner, yet they still add "Professional driver on closed course. Do not attempt." Do not attempt what? To drive my car?

You say "duh", but again.. a lot of people are stupid :)

We are. Being inconsistent with your past positions isn't bad, otherwise it would be impossible to change your mind. However, there is still the expectation of justification for the change of mind.

But then they would regard the actions in the past to have been wrong, making them consistent (the logic is applied equally to the past as well as the present). Sometimes people still regard their past actions as being right, even though by their current logic, it is wrong. A consistent person would, if able to, go back and do it differently.

They were consistent with following the orders, they were not consistent when they said they wouldn't do something, but did.. without any "real" duress (e.g. harm to themselves or something they cared about). They could have stood up and walked out at any time..

The outcome of that logic is still unchanged, despite you going well beyond an authority figure and into torture. What you are describing results in changing the logic, which naturally changes the outcome. What you describe is someone disregarding the logic they have in its entirety and adopting a new one, usually where they are not even the logic processor anyway. For example, could you get them to logically deduce the sky is purple, without guiding them to the answer (e.g. explicitly telling them that is what you want them to say)?

While I am sure that under such torture they could very well get me to say what they want, I don't see why that would make me believe what they make me say. After all, if the only way they can get me to agree with them is to beat the crap out of me, they're definitely wrong. I'd wear that like mental armour.

If you can read the general warning, you are capable of understanding such concepts as "hot things hurt" and "sharp things hurt". It is bizarre to have to specifically tell people to not put a tool designed to cut through stuff next to things that are easy to cut through, especially when those things are part of you.

The warning should be "Don't put the blade close to anything you're not intending to cut through" anyway. Doesn't require any extra processing, also doesn't imply that stopping it with your armpit is any better than with your genitals.

And if you still can't cope with that, you're clearly a danger to the people around you!

Exactly, though I didn't know that was its name (though I have come across the corollary Pygmalion effect).

That's just descriptive. One also needs to follow a maxim along the lines of "I shall not do things that would hurt me" (disputable in this literal form) ;P.
Yeah, I was being logical but not serious. It doesn't even take a human being to follow the simplest of such rules.

Yeah, one would hope that "I shall avoid dismembering myself with a chainsaw" should implicitly be present in any occurrence of trying to use a chainsaw.
A chainsaw is a very good example, since trying to make it impossible for people to hurt themselves with it would also make it impossible for it to be used properly. With that in mind - we also shouldn't live in a world akin to video game factories, where conveyor belts, pounders and other deathtraps can be seen bursting from every wall, etc. "Features" that pretty much can only result in horrible accidents should be minimized...

And an example of this has just been brought to my attention: Got to love the flag name! :)