I looked and saw that you've posted about 100 times in the last month (many of which j recognized and appreciated, thank you for your service). Three of them have net down votes.
Seems like your posts are mostly well received, so I'm not sure what the issue is? 97% positive isn't enough?
I was about to ask if, since you're "extremely worried" about this (seemingly esoteric) potentially unconstitutional move, how you cope with the rest of the world.
Then I saw the second paragraph and it seems that you don't.
The nice thing about this style of communication is that it makes the context explicit, so I can at least look up what you're talking about. You know, when I have access to a means to search the entirety of a civilization's works.
I can agree with all of that and still think it looks like the casino saying "uh, no we don't want to pay you." I think something is missing.
Maybe the key point is that the payout value displayed on the screen is, say, "derived" and not the "ground truth." If you get cherry-coin-grape and that's worth $2 but the display says $42 million, it better be well-established that cherry-coin-grape is the deciding output and not the display.
What if you get triple-treasure-chests and the casino says nah that's a display bug, it was really cherry-coin-grape internally. Where's the line here? Im sure it is legally established but of course shitty news articles aren't going to go to that level of detail when they can quote the plaintiffs attorney instead
I don't really get the point of this type of comment. Used in bad faith, it clearly is meant to detail the conversation and sideline the point of the article that was posted. In good faith, maybe venting? What am I missing?
This monster hasn't soldered the headers on.