this post was submitted on 10 Feb 2026
384 points (99.2% liked)
Games
23791 readers
368 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Fuck copyright and patent laws and the morons/scumbags who support them.
I'm not saying it's all sunshine and rainbows in copyright land, but you essentially can't develop drugs without some kind of patent law.
Sure you can. People richer than us will just make less profit.
The issue is with what drug R&D looks like. You invent some new compound you think will treat X because it has a similar structure to other compounds that treat X. Now you need a decade or so of trials to prove that it actually treats X, that it doesn't have side effects too severe to stop people from taking it for X, that it doesn't also silently cause some kind of obscure cancer, and then it might get approved (and if it doesn't that manpower and money was wasted) and the exclusivity time granted by your patent is how you turn a net profit from the last ten years of work because it's much easier for another company to spin up a factory making X than it is to get X approved in the first place so anyone else making the drug can charge less to cover their much lower costs in getting it to market and will eat the lunch you spent the last decade+ cooking.
Unless you intend for medical R&D to be done purely under public funding, which is an entirely different scenario than just "no patent law."
So are you eliminating/drastically reducing health and safety trials for new drugs, tripling taxes to throw vast amounts of public money at the problem and instead having the solve the hard problems of government waste and political corruption, or having a glorious workers revolution that this time unlike all the other tines actually creates a communist utopia and not something that doesn't count, or is this a hypothetical post-scarcity scenario or what?
i’ll go ahead and assert that you’re not actually reading the comments you’re replying to. at the very least your replies give no indication of comprehension.
Why "can't you"? Why would academic research be impossible?
Ok sure, we can completely fund all medical research by the public, but I'm not so sure how this would work out. This would be a bit too much communism for my taste.
Funding medical research is "too much communism"???
Ladies and Gentlemen, the human race is cooked.
I recommend ignoring the ideologies of communism/capitalism.
Focus on real solutions to real problems, pragmatism.
At least in the US, government policy has meant that getting a drug to market is an extremely high bar. This means that funding the wrong drug can waste a billion dollars or more of time, material, trained researchers and lab space, etc.
Funding drugs by popular attention, private donation, kickstarter, or anything like that is likely to produce a bunch of scams and even more waste.
Funding drugs by having the government select which ones to study is likely to produce several gigantic financial boondoggles that are dragged on because some Senator wants the jobs wasting the money creates to remain in his state, or something.
If we want more drugs to come out, the best thing to do would be to reduce the cost of making a drug legal to sell, like by lowering the proof required for efficacy, or by alleviating the doctor shortage by permanently increasing the number of medicare funded residency slots.
The way it seems to work in Canada is that the government decides on a set of topics they want to fund that are fairly high level, and as long as your work falls in one of those categories, the grant gets approved. So the government doesn't choose the specific drug to study. They choose which medical condition we want to try to treat, then they let the PIs tell them what they want to do and how it relates to those priorities.
I guess make term limits. You can't sit more than 2 terms. That would solve a whole shitton of other problems too, but it would make the people in the position of power actually be there for what the job is, and not what the job gives.