A single physical USB device can enumerate as multiple virtual devices. This lets you easily side-step the limits *if* the game supports input from multiple controllers at the same time. The games I use controllers for allow you to map to multiple controllers, mouse, and keyboard, all at once. The touchpad could simply enumerate as a HID Touchpad. Apparently Windows already has a Touchpad Haptic HID Profile even.

Honestly, if Valve is making you require Steam to fully use the Steam Controller, that's disappointing because, as far as I can tell, nothing it's doing can't be accessed via HID usage.

Could you perhaps back that claim up with some documentation from Valve?

Exactly. They desire to prevent their actions from being observed and recorded. They cannot exert physical restraint over a drone like they can a person on the ground. That means they lose the ability to restrict you from recording their activities.

> harass them (which would not be okay if done to anyone)

As I stated before, there are already laws to cover this situation. No need for the hidden, roving, no-fly zones.

> Law enforcement is also entitled to legal protections that the general public is not

You and I disagree here. Law enforcement should be held to higher legal standards in everything they do BECAUSE they are "entrusted with the use of force". That put's them in a position of authority over anyone who isn't entrusted with the same governmental power. They should not be afforded extra legal protections, they should have extra legal obligations. I'm not talking about regulations around scene control for public safety.

> No, there is no such objective

This is either a naive or malicious take. I'll be generous and assume it's naive. They don't want people to surveil them. If you are an individual on the ground you likely are within the "reach out and touch them" space and they absolutely will suppress you if you are in a position to record, in detail, their activities. There are plenty of recorded interactions of just this thing happening. A drone operator can be in a stand-off location recording and less likely to have then physically interrupt the recording. That drone operator has legal restrictions on what they can do and violating those restrictions is already legally enforceable, no hidden, roving, no-fly zone needed.

> if your actual purpose is to show clearly and honestly what the officers are doing, that is better and more easily done from the ground.

This is, again, a naive take. They will obstruct your ability to record their activities as much as possible. On the ground that means they can simply stand between you and what they rest of their group are doing. Or quite likely they will physically harass you until your recording is stopped in one way or another. Recording from the air makes in much harder for them to obstruct your recording. With ground or air you still have to contend with non-purposeful obstructed angles of observation, with air you have less chance of purposeful obstructions.

> No, I am doing nothing of the sort. I'm saying they are trying to know ICE vehicles

As with any group you will always have multiple, sometimes opposing, motivations. I'm positive you can find people who just want to chase around ICE vehicles (or presumed ICE vehicles). But you are using a (smaller) portion of people that are rule breakers already as a rationalization for severe government overreach. And they you are decrying people calling that behavior "fascist" as being out of touch because... drones didn't exist when the term fascist came into use?

What a large chunk of the general populous wants is accountability, proportionality, civility, and respect (for humanity). The tools they have to attempt to forward that agenda are limited as the government has a legal monopoly on use of force. Observation and recording of activities to ensure the government isn't acting improperly, or document when they are, is one of the few tools available. For government agents to do everything in their power to take away that tool is a clear indicator that they are being improper and don't want evidence of that behavior.

> If you have a "final order of removal", that is because the national government has conclusively determined that you have violated the law by entering the country, that you are not legally entitled to be within the country, and that you inherently continue to violate the law by being within the country.

This is a mischaracterization of reality. You can legally entry the country and then have that legal authorization revoked. Being in the country from that point is a civil matter, not criminal. Illegally crossing the border is a criminal matter. The current government makes zero distinction in the level of force used in either matter. Being in the United States illegally doesn't absolve the government from respecting your legal rights as those aren't just for citizens and legal residents. Simple violation of the law does not excuse the excessive force being used here.

> This is, definitionally, not something that can be dealt with by issuing a fine and letting the person stay in the country.

I actually don't disagree. I'm not an advocate for people illegally residing in the United States. I also happen to think that people residing here illegally are subject to the saw protections of law as everyone living here legally. I think they are entitled to basic human dignity. I think they deserve proportional legal enforcement of our immigration laws. I would include compassion, but a government doesn't really mesh with the idea of compassion, that more for the populous or individuals to extend towards their fellow humans.

> This is entirely ignorant of how law enforcement works. Force is deployed as need to be superior to the threat to the operation. If you come at a police officer with a knife, for example, you should expect to get shot. It does not matter that you have not yet caused any injury, nor does it matter why you are being apprehended.

The level of force being applied is in no way proportionate to situation. These are people living here without legal authority and running away from raids. These are not criminal gangs attacking law enforcement. Those ICE officers are individuals exerting legally authorized deadly force against unarmed suspects at an alarming rate. By your logic, the only proper response would be for the oppressed to escalate.

Again, you are missing that the response from officers is disproportionate to the crime. Unless perhaps the "crime" was disrespecting their authority and they seek to teach you the consequences. Shooting someone because you decided to throw yourself in front of their moving car is not a proportionate response to a unarmed, non-violent person trying to get away from an armed and belligerent cluster of government officials.

>> I mean, it may be an issue for some other conversation, but not this one.

> Well, you are the one who brought up levels of force and "civil infractions", so.

You mis-quoted me. I was referring to identification of ICE vehicles. My implication was that having a group of supposed law enforcement who refuse to identify their vehicles, refuse to wear uniforms, wear full face masks, and refuse to properly identify themselves seems like a great way to provoke bad outcomes. It had nothing, directly, to do with discussing "level of force". We were discussing drones and the governments heavy-hands reaction to drones being used against them (they already use them against anyone they deem a target).

It's obvious that you and I have very differing opinions of how a citizen-authorized government should be applying it's legal monopoly on the use of force.

1/3 of this country is quite happy with the level of brutality and malice on display and for that they should be ashamed. Another 1/3 of this country couldn't be bothered to even vote and for that they should be equally, if not more, ashamed.

My personal politics are generally not something I discuss much but perhaps it deserves qualifying here. I think the two major parties in this country are both mostly morally corrupt. They have lost their way and no longer attempt to represent the interests of the populous. Things will never get better with things the way they are as both major parties are fully captured by monied interests. I generally want the government to stay out of my life and simply provide for the common defense, provide shared infrastructure and services, and provide a social safety net for it's citizens. I don't support violence except in self-defense. I think people should be able to make their own decisions about their bodies. I don't personally care about your race, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, or any other label we use to segment people into the ins and the outs. We are all people and we should all respect each others right to self-determination. I think we all have an obligation to each other to preserve Earth as it's our shared home. Anyway, I guess I'm trying to head off the "typical Democrat" or "typical Liberal" counter. I'm neither of those things. But, if we ever took time to actually communicate with one another, we'd see that everyone has nuance and applying labels hides that.

   - No one is saying they need to know what vehicles contain ICE agents
   - Not sure your meaning exactly, but there's no expectation for plainclothes officers to be locatable by the general public
   - Concern for whom? Whose mistaken identity?
   - This isn't about "knowing" a vehicle contains ICE agents. 
   - Government officials *should* be held to higher scrutiny than the general public.
   - Their objective was to prevent *legally permitted* public recording of these operations
   - Here you are delving into a fraught space. Given that many people in that status are guilty of *civil* infractions and the level of force being deployed is highly disproportionate, many people are understandably upset. There's a ton to discuss in just this one line item.

That ability to transparently start a container and connect it to the SSH pipr is useful for isolation methods for coding agents involving containers and I imagine it would work equally well for things like Firecracker VMs. It's made my experiment working with an "immutable OS" (Universal Blue based) much more ergonomic. Also, it's the only way I've found to let Zed run remotely inside a container without having the container run a ssh server.

> a piece of contemporary art often has very little point in itself. The art is in the artist's process (their point of view, intent, history, etc), not the piece.

I personally find no enjoyment in art where I have to have context for it to be "interesting". Either it is or it isn't interesting on it's own merits. I find all art the same though. If it isn't interesting on it's own, then it's not interesting on the whole (for me).

It's public because they are publicly traded. How about you venture a guess at how many non-investor customers had any knowledge about that call. Maybe some number caught a news article, but it wouldn't have been an appreciable number.

> false covenant

Seriously? Even if it was a "false covenant", it was to *INVESTORS*! For an investor, it's happy days if they recoup those costs because that's a net increase in revenue.

The company set the price for the good based on their costs. Customers bought the good based on the price advertised. The fact that the company might be able to reclaim some of those costs has ZERO bearing on the price customers paid. That's as far as you need to look. Trying to contort the situation to conflate it with fraud is disingenuous. They didn't lie or defraud anyone.

> Political bias

There's no political bias in discussing the core aspect. Sure, the situation leading to it is politically charged, but the core of the issue is the company made a pricing decision based on their costs, the customers bought the products, and in the future the company might be able to recoup some of their costs.

On your last paragraph, a few things. First, tariffs were paid and have not been refunded. They are still trying to affect that change. Second, they made no promise to customers regarding tariffs. Third, you happened to use the PERFECT word here to explain why your entire argument is flawed. You said "collected in payment of a tariff" with "collected" being the operative word here. Costco did no such thing. If they had, you'd have had a line item stating so, like the one for taxes. Costco is obligated to collect and remit taxes. The importer of record is obligated to pay the tariff (or ensure it has been paid). They didn't say they were increasing prices by adding and collecting tariffs. The raised prices to offset the cost of them having to pay the tariff or to cover the higher cost of purchasing goods from parties that imported the goods and paid the tariff.

This entire lawsuit is flawed at it's core as is this entire line of argument.

That being said, we should treat the designated audience of the information as an indicator how the information should be interpreted. Just because an investor shops at Costco and was on the public call doesn't somehow change the messaging on the receipt.

Customers purchasing from them are on the revenue side and there was no line item on receipts listing tariffs, just increased prices. As a customer if you assumed that 100% of a price increase is because the business is paying tariffs, then you are almost certainly mistaken. Even if the price increase was 100% because of the tariff, the business made the decision to internally absorb the fees and not directly involve the customer. They absorbed that extra cost of business by increasing prices as needed to maintain business margins within acceptable ranges.

TL;DR: A customer paid a unit price for a good from a vendor. The cost the vendor paid or any future refunds they may receive on those costs do not factor into the transaction.

Had the business been listing tariffs directly on receipts it would be a very different conversation.