It’s supposed to be an exchange between the public and artists. The overall purpose is to increase the amount of art available to everyone. Artists get legal protection for a limited time to be able to monetise it. And in exchange the public gets full access to the art after that time is up.
Design requirements are too ambiguous.
It would be nice if it was possible to describe perfectly what a program is supposed to do.
Does the first game finally run well on the Deck? Or is this as verified as Spider-Man 2?
In Germany at least it’s not copyright but a thing called “taste patent”. As far as I know it can cover colors, shapes and probably literal taste as well. But it’s not automatic like copyright. It’s more similar to trademarks.
I like flatpaks when they come from the developer. They are often more stable, up-to-date and complete than those from OS repositories.
What I don’t like about them is when I have to fight the permissions. They’re often too tight and make integration with the rest of the OS too hard.
Compile it yourself?
Bravo! Bravo! Marvellous!
That’s actually pretty nice. Shows you early where you wouldn’t want to apply.
Compare panel 3 with panel 4.
I don’t get it.
Or it’s the start to a new line.
Just ask your family. I recently started collecting art and photos of my grandma and my relatives got me many old pictures.
Proton logs very rarely give any insight. Game logs are a little bit more interesting. But random crashes are usually the hardest to diagnose in any case. That might even point to a hardware problem.
Kind of reminds me of a story my brother told of some country in Africa. He was friendly with some kids on the street and showed them how to set up an email address. So one day they came excitedly up to him and told him that they met someone and that they would be rich. Of course he immediately clocked the familiar scam.
He explained the whole situation by telling them that the internet was like the street. Don’t trust anyone. That was an analogy they got pretty quickly.
Evolution does not describe how life came to be in the first place. That is still a mystery. It only explains how different species formed over billions of years.
So not atoms to humans but single cells to humans.
The thing about science vs bible is this, if all human knowledge got lost today we would eventually find all the same natural laws we found until today. But the same wouldn’t happen with the bible, it would be lost forever.
To really find out why evolution is real you would have to study biology to understand all the evidence beyond a superficial level.
To the question in the title: No, you can’t. That’s actually a philosophical topic on free will. You can do what you want but you cannot will what you want.
You can gaslight yourself to some degree but that’s all.
As for the rest of your post:
When elephants look at humans the same regions in their brains activate as when they look at baby elephants. So they probably think we’re cute.
Get yourself a broker to do the selling for you.