Syndic @ Syndic @feddit.de

Posts

0

Comments

178

Joined

2 yr. ago

I can't imagine that it is.

If that's the case then they could simply up the charge next year to $10 to get even more money for doing absolutely nothing. And then to $20 the next year and so forth. There's no sane court anywhere in the world who would say "Yeah, that sounds reasonable!" and even the less sane ones would think that's bonkers.

I'm pretty sure that even if the license agreement does have such language that it won't uphold in court. And there are enough big companies using Unity for this to go to court if they try to come to collect.

I mean seriously, if that would be legally possible, nothing would prevent them from uping the charge to $10, $20 or even $100 per installation, applied retroactively.

Turns out that different people like different drinks. And that's perfectly fine.

Taste is subjective! There can't be bad taste, there can only be stuff you don't like.

So don't be an asshat and look down on other people for what they like.

Thank god! When I look how baddly people act on our roads I REALLY don't want them to have the ability to fly around as easily.

I have been kind of wondering about that investigation. If their HR is already 3rd party, continuing to use them would technically be a 3rd party investigation.

They have internal HR now but didn't back then. So bringing in someone new to investigate this sounds like a good step. If they really are serious about this, then it would be one of the only way to get a handle ton this. But of course it all depends on how serious LMG is treating this and how much freedom the investigators have. They could easily try to brush this under the rug when the attention drops. So we'll see I guess.

Of course? Did anyone expect something else? And frankly they would be extremely stupid if they did anything they didn't check with their lawyer first.

And LMG would be stupid to say or release anything else on that topic! This is potential lawsuit country, they will walk very carefully and I would be surpised if they didn't check every public communication with their lawyer first.

That's also what I thought when I saw his response. Quite disappointing to be honest.

But well, taking criticism never was his strong suit.

I'm not shitting on you, but "we have ducks" has to be the funniest justification why the relationship isn't abusive I've seen yet.

Unfortunately climate change really doesn't care about fairness. It just reacts to external inputs and then affects everyone, regardless of how much or little they have contributed to it.

Does Firefox even have any other service beside their broswer which they could use for such a promotion?

It's a third party plugin. It's not there by default. You need to manually install it.

That gave him a whole load of martyr rhetoric to play off.

Only because they let him off easy. He should never have been let anywhere near a political position after his coup attempt. Same for Trump!

What? Office Apps of course allows 3rd party plugins.

Zoom:

Google:

Serious question, I don't get the "forced" part. Could you clarify this for me?

One is a flag, literally a symbol of a group or a state of oppression and the other is a widely used religious garment where millions of women wear it out of their own free choice. Context matters.

If what you said was true at the time you don’t look silly at all, because people don’t follow companies they decide they are done with.

That's only true if you actually state it as such. It's really easy to clarify such a statement with "Back when I last checked ..." or "Years ago it was ..."

I’m not saying to blindly trust the judiciary, but that not trusting the judiciary is an inherent failure in society.

Who's not trusting the judiciary? I for example do think they did their due diligence in not punishing someone they couldn't prove beyond reasonable doubt that he did the crime he's accused. That simply can mean that there weren't enough evidence to proof his guilt. And I think many who still don't believe his innocence see it similar. With cases about sexual assault this is very often the case simply because of the isolated nature of such a potential crime. It often comes down statement against statement with very little evidence to back either side. And since our justice system rightfully rather errs on the side of the accused, that means that many such crimes will never be proven in court!

That's the prize we pay for making sure as few people get falsely imprisoned/punished as possible. The knowledge that there are people out there who committed all kinds of crimes but they will walk free because we couldn't prove their guilt.

But of course that doesn't mean we people simply have to ignore that fact and treat everyone as innocent until they are judged before a court. So in this case, I find it very suspicious that there are so many independent accusation and I look at the case of Netflix which have won the case of their dismissal of him because his actions on set. To me that's enough to no longer want want to watch a movie of him and that's perfectly fine since I'm not a judge trying to decide if serious legal punishment should be forced upon him but rather a random dude on this planet who can't do shit against him beside not watch a movie of him.

Or we accept that our justice system can't be perfect and accept that there won't be any legal ramification against Spacey. Sexual assault charges always are hard to prove if you don't get physical prove right after the crime. That's even more so when the crime happened years ago. The fact we have to accept is that quite a lot of guilty people will walk free from such a crime.

But that doesn't mean we all now have to believe he's innocent and it certainly doesn't mean we all have to ignore that and be forced to watch further movies with him.