Isnt that several years old? Or did it happen again?

Fines as a percentage of income is a good idea for individuals but I dont think it works for coorperations.

A more reasonable approach is:

• 100% of the money they earned/saved by comiting the crime
• 100% of all damages caused to other people/cost to clean up results of the crime (includes the cost of investigation and prosecution)
• a fine that represents the likelihood of getting caught. (If the crime earns me 1mil, the fine is 50mil but I only have a 1% chance to get caught, statistically I should commit the crime as many times as possible because I will end up wining in the end)
• (optionally) a fine based on the crime. This one might be based on the size of the company. This is the “punishment” part. It probably should be payed by the individuals responsible and not the company.

This third point is the important one. Cooperations comit crimes because they are reasonable monetary investments. If the expected fines are always higher than the expected earnings, crimes become a bad investment.

There is abig difference between those two games though. With bg3 you got a limited part of a story driven game. You could never reach “endgame”. It was a horizontal demo. You get everything until a certain point.

With satisfactory the early access was the fully playable game from beginning to end. It is vertical. And since then they have just added more things. They will very likely keep doing exactly what they are doing now after the release. In one year the game will have more content than it does now and in retrospect, deciding which version in time is 1.0 is arbitrary.

BG3 will not get a 4th chapter in a year.

And games have been tested long before early access and similar models existed. Just because Bethesda can’t test their games doesn’t mean everybody else is shit too.

here is how to opt out.

Proceeds to never say how to opt out

Dont get me wrong, Tajikistan is a capital D dictatorship. With pictures of the president on every public building and daily propaganda prodcasts from megaphones installed at public squares. Its also not the first time the government banned certain traditions (such as a way to celebrate weddings).

They are banning the symptom instead of the cause. Instead of banning preachers of foreign schools of Islam they are banning something that is central to those preachings.

I agree, banning religious expression is generally a bad thing, I am just happy they are fighting to keep radical Islam out of the country. For reference, Tajiks are the second largest ethnic group in Afghanistan (~25% of the population) so there is bound to be cultural exchange between the countries. a And Tajikistan is very afraid of the Taliban getting any support in Tajikistan. And the first step of that support is through religious radicalization.

Tajik Islam is its own thing. They are (relatively) open and women are frequently seen in public. They can walk around on their own and they dont cover their heads with hijabs or similar. They are also very vary of foreign influences such as Arabic Islam, Turkish Islam and above all Taliban influences. The hijab is a staple in all of these forms of Islam, so banning it is essentialy telling those groups to stop trying to take over Tajik Islam. This is a good thing. It is protecting women from a shift to much more oppressing religious practices.