You seem to have trouble understanding the fact that people can buy things and share them with those who can’t.

I’ve already given you an example of the game Mindustry, which people buy on Steam (16k reviews): https://store.steampowered.com/app/1127400/Mindustry, even though it’s released under a free software license and you can get it for free on Itch: https://anuke.itch.io/mindustry and you can get its source code on GitHub: https://github.com/Anuken/Mindustry.

The only reason why the industry is surviving is because most people understand that they need to pay for the entertainment they consume.

Weird, huh? For some reason the internet and Bittorrent hasn’t changed that.

They never hacked your computer, you agreed to everything. So what’s the problem then? It’s just a file that can be shared.

A lot of people don’t have a problem with that. I do, which is why I don’t use proprietary software. If I took a photo of myself (or of anything else) and posted it publicly on social media, I would do it under a free license, so that people could share it. I do that with software that I make. But that doesn’t mean I want to share everything - there are many things I want to keep private, so I will not post them publicly. There is no contradiction here.

I’m not talking only about you. I’m talking about how senseless the “I can share files with anyone” is. If that were true, companies could really fuck their customers, but thankfully it isn’t logical, thus it is illegal.

I’m pretty sure companies already legally sell user data, though? Laws don’t define what is logical or what is moral.

Imagine if a single person could buy a movie and then place it in their Facebook to share with their friends. And then their friends share with their friends. And so on… because it’s just a file, nobody is stealing, copying information isn’t stealing! … Who would make a movie under those conditions?

People already share movies online and it’s very easy. You don’t have to pay for any digital file ever, but people choose to do it anyway. Copying files is not stealing, because it’s not a physical object - you can make an infinite amount of copies at no cost.

If you want to own the movie, you need to buy a real copy. If you are buying a digital copy, you do not own the movie. There is already a solution for your problem, real copies.

Movies sold on DVD and Blu-ray contain DRM. You can’t make copies (even for personal use) without breaking the DRM, which is illegal. If there was no DRM, you could at least make copies for personal use, which would be an improvement, but you still wouldn’t own the files.

So sure, if you want a bunch of industries to die, keep believing and convincing others of that.

Copying and sharing files only keeps getting easier and those industries haven’t died. People even sell things like games and books under a free license. One such game is Mindustry - I bought a copy myself and I can legally share it with anyone. This game is even available for free on some platforms, but people buy it anyway.

The only reason you can watch your pirated movie is the fact that other people actually pay for the content. So you’re really stealing from people who now have to pay more to access the content.

You can’t steal something that’s infinite. I would pay for the movies though (even if they aren’t released under a free license) if there was a way to buy them without DRM. But there isn’t and I’m not going to support unethical practices with my money.

There could be a website where you would be able to buy DRM-free movies and you could download them. We have such stores for music, books and games. But the movie studios are greedy, so they choose to abuse people with DRM.

Remember Kim Dotcom? He had a file sharing website and the police raided his house with guns like he was a dangerous criminal. There is a video of it on YouTube.

Only if it’s a file that’s already publicly available. When you buy a movie, why shouldn’t you be able to share it with others? I’m not saying that you should be able to hack a filmmaker’s computer and publish movies they’ve never released, though.

The scenario you described can’t happen to me anyway, because I only use Free Software. You can learn more about it here: https://piped.video/watch?v=Ag1AKIl_2GM

They shouldn’t collect data in the first place.

I think it’s easier for a person to say “piracy is bad” than “sharing files is bad”. Because why would sharing be wrong? But if you give it a bad name, a lot of people will automatically assume that it is something bad. It’s a simple trick, but it works. If we want to change the way people think about copyright, we shouldn’t let anyone imply that sharing information is the same as stealing ships and murdering people on them.

“Piracy” is a propaganda term. We shouldn’t use it. There is nothing wrong with sharing files.

Introduce him to game development with Godot engine. I don’t know any specific tutorials, but you should be able to find something on YouTube.

You can also introduce him to the Free Software movement: https://youtu.be/Ag1AKIl_2GM

He would have to build roads too, but I don’t see why he couldn’t do that. Actually he could have created all of modern technology from the start, but didn’t.

It’s funny how they treated cancer:

Treatment was based on the humour theory of four bodily fluids (black and yellow bile, blood, and phlegm). According to the patient’s humour, treatment consisted of diet, blood-letting, and/or laxatives.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_cancer#Early_diagnosis

Conjure familiars? Buy a dish washer or cleaner service or whatever.

Also washing machines, robot vacuums, robot lawn mowers.

We write incantations to make the magic rock think and give us answers.

Someone should tell him that Lemmy and Mastodon exist.

Oh, that’s interesting. I’m reading now that it’s also an effective antidepressant, but I’m not sure if it’s actually used for that purpose.

I’ve seen many miraculous claims about them (quick and easy solutions to complicated problems), but if they were so good, I assume the majority of psychiatrists would adopt them as one of the standard methods of treatment. It’s great that it worked for you, but there is a reason why rigorous testing is done in science. I think it might be dangerous for people to do this on their own, since they are not experts in this field. I suspect that there might be a few experts who believe that psychedelics are a good method of treatment, but a small fraction is not enough. Sometimes there are bad scientists in every field and we can’t just cherry pick the ones we agree with (I’m not accusing you of that, just saying that people do that). I would like to know the truth, though. This is a popular topic lately and I’m curious if it’s just pseudoscience or maybe there is something that I’m missing.

I think it might be easy to get addicted to any drug and I know of at least one long lasting effect of psychedelics, but this one seems to be very rare.

Maybe they did it to summon the aliens. Or maybe for the same reason we build expensive churches. Like this one that we have been building for 142 years and it’s still unfinished: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagrada_Família

This fragment explains how they could have done it:

The most common theory of how prehistoric people moved megaliths has them creating a track of logs which the large stones were rolled along.[49] Another megalith transport theory involves the use of a type of sleigh running on a track greased with animal fat.[49] Such an experiment with a sleigh carrying a 40-ton slab of stone was successfully conducted near Stonehenge in 1995. A team of more than 100 workers managed to push and pull the slab along the 18-mile (29 km) journey from the Marlborough Downs.[49]

My point was that it’s not difficult with modern machines at all. But it can also be done with the methods described above. Especially if you work on it for 1500 years.

From britishmuseum.org:

Scientific dating techniques and painstaking archaeological research undertaken around the monument over the last few decades have brought the timeline of the site into focus. It is not possible to talk about ‘one’ Stonehenge – the monument was built, altered, and revered for over 1,500 years. That is equivalent to around 100 generations – it is worth pausing to let the sheer length of time sink in!

From Wikipedia:

There is little or no direct evidence revealing the construction techniques used by the Stonehenge builders. Over the years, various authors have suggested that supernatural or anachronistic methods were used, usually asserting that the stones were impossible to move otherwise due to their massive size. However, conventional techniques, using Neolithic technology as basic as shear legs, have been demonstrably effective at moving and placing stones of a similar size.[48] The most common theory of how prehistoric people moved megaliths has them creating a track of logs which the large stones were rolled along.[49] Another megalith transport theory involves the use of a type of sleigh running on a track greased with animal fat.[49] Such an experiment with a sleigh carrying a 40-ton slab of stone was successfully conducted near Stonehenge in 1995. A team of more than 100 workers managed to push and pull the slab along the 18-mile (29 km) journey from the Marlborough Downs.[49]

Each stone weights around 25 tons and I found this helicopter that can carry 33 tons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_CH-53E_Super_Stallion#Specifications_(CH-53E). So we could easily build this today. Probably wouldn’t take long at all.

If you want to do some self exploration and learn about yourself, sure it will most often help in a way or another.

I don’t doubt that, but I’m sure there are better, healthier ways of doing that. Like talking to a therapist.

We also build stations in space and people live in them.