Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | nake89's commentslogin

Slightly off-topic, but stuff like this does not just happen at Apple.

When Cyberpunk 2077 came out, my wife bought it with her credit card and gifted the game to me. It was fine at first. I even managed to play through the game. However when coming back to the game a few months later (to see all the bugfixes), it was gone. I contacted the (gog) and they said it was removed due to automatic fraud detection and that the balance had been paid back to the original credit card (my wife's card, she had obviously not noticed this in her bank statement).

Point being automatic fraud detection systems can wipe out stuff you purchased even months after the fact (or in some cases lock your account)... It feels kafkaesque.


Since it's gog at least you could download the game and save it somewhere.

Using it would be copyright infringement since the license is revoked since it was refunded.

I, along with every AI company, give exactly zero fucks about copyright infringement.

Training an AI model is fair use. Playing a video game without paying for it isn't.

If you buy milk at a store and then walk out of the store and then the store refunds you 2 days later, that's the store's problem and you're still allowed to drink the milk. You didn't steal the milk. Subscription logic only applies to subscriptions, and GoG is a simple exchange of money for goods, not a subscription.

If it was a contract saying you were allowed to drink the milk and it was terminated with a refund. You would not be able to drink the milk.

>You would not be able to drink the milk.

Incorrect, the milk does not disappear. You are contractually and legally obligated not to drink the milk, much in the same way I should not go around killing people, but I certainly have the ability to.

Now, if you sell the customer electrically locking milk bottles which won't open after the contract is over, then the customer "can't" drink the milk, they couldn't.


If the store tried to sue you claiming there was a contract for you not to drink the milk if refunded, it would be laughed out of court and banned from suing anyone ever again.

Let me guess, you think GOG was perfectly justified in unilaterally taking away nake89's copy of--excuse me, I meant unilaterally revoking nake89's license to play Cyberpunk 2077--when they judged the gift transaction to be fraudulent, just because it could have been a conspiracy between nake89 and their wife to defraud GOG of the princely sum of eighty United States dollars[0]?

I don't dispute that GOG has the right, from a strictly legal standpoint, to revoke a license for any reason their terms of service allow, and that someone continuing to play a game after their license was revoked would be in breach of contract. What I do dispute is that this is a correct, fair, or desirable state of affairs, especially when the license in question was received as a gift and believed in good faith by the recipient to have been acquired non-fraudulently.

And in particular, if GOG wants the absolute and irrevocable right to prevent consumers from using products for which GOG has decided to revoke the licenses, they shouldn't advertise themselves as a DRM-free platform, nor claim that "Here, you won't be locked out of titles you paid for, or constantly asked to prove you own them - this is DRM-free gaming." -- advertising copy may not have the force of law, but courts tend to take a dim view of ad claims that are provably false.

[0]: the list price of the Cyberpunk 2077 Ultimate Edition on GOG as of this writing (though it is currently on sale for 38% off)


GOG may have the right to revoke a sale, but since it lets you download the game without DRM, it doesn't have the ability. Unless you delete your copy of the game and then try to download it again.

If you buy milk from the supermarket and they reverse the transaction 2 days later claiming you used a fraudulent card, but you didn't use a fraudulent card, you have the right to keep the milk and the loss of money is the store's problem.


Another shoutout to Basecoat. Easy to use. Makes your website look nice. Works with any/no framework.

I really miss the phpBB forum days. Early 2000s. It's not just nostalgia. It truly was a better experience.

Are those days permanently gone? The days when actual UI/UX innovation was a thing?

I agree mostly with your sentiment. But I still think there is still some work being done. For example the Arc and Zen Browsers. I never used Arc because it is closed source. But it sure looked beautiful. And Zen I tested, but it seemed laggy. I think I might give it another go to see if some of the performance issues have been fixed.


Your message sent me down a weird rabbit hole of trying to find privacy friendly alternative to google fonts. I found this: https://github.com/coollabsio/fonts They claim to be a privacy friendly drop-in replacement. Their main website: https://fonts.coollabs.io/

The easiest solution is to simply self host your fonts.

The easiest solution is to use the default font. This has the additional benefit of being the most legible font for every reader, because it's the one they have the most experience reading.

remember the times when common sense was to not accept the remote site's fonts, and thus web devs should not use them

Yes. I recommend everybody to do a deep dive into font file formats and you'll see a lot of monsters hiding.

That definitely deserves better tooling!

I'm curious to why the polyfill example uses unpkg.com. It is quite unreliable and has broken sites many times.

jsdelivr.com is much more reliable (Multi-CDN, Multi-DNS). Comparison: https://www.jsdelivr.com/unpkg

I am not affiliated in anyway to jsdeliver or unpkg. I simply used to be a user on unpkg.


Maybe for tracking purposes, because most google-affiliated CDNs are widely blocked and unpkg might be small enough to not immediately raise eyebrows with devs. Unpkg removed their SPONSORS.md file recently, and their README claims to be hosted at fly.io which seems to be behind Cloudflare.

I have not had the same experience. I pay 10 dollars a month for GitHub Copilot, where I get to use Claude Sonnet 4.5.

I tried the same with OpenRouter and I used up 2.5 dollars in a day using Sonnet 4.5. Similar use on copilot has could maybe make me use 10% of my quota (and that's being generous for OpenRouter).

I think GitHub Copilot is way more affordable than OpenRouter.


to seize everything you ever wanted in one moment


Would you capture it or just let it slip? Yo


Works with several providers (e.g. Github copilot or bring your own key). They offer a server and an sdk, so you can build all kinds of personal tools. It's amazing.


Claude Code also has Claude Agent SDK (basically a wrapper around Claude Code) with a million downloads in the past week.

https://www.npmjs.com/package/@anthropic-ai/claude-agent-sdk


Very interesting! What do you mean by personal tools? Do you have any examples of something you've built with this?


Hopefully this doesn't happen with GitHub Copilot. OpenCode is fantastic. They offer a server and an SDK. This means I build amazing personal tools. GitHub Copilots low price + OpenCode is just amazing.


Good news - it looks like the GitHub Copilot team is actually working with the OpenCode team to support subscription authentication [1]

[1] https://x.com/jaredpalmer/status/2009844004221833625


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: