So I've spent a few minutes trying to see what the internet thinks, and it looks like there's not a clear consensus that the First-Sale-Doctrine applies to non-physical goods similarly to physical ones, and does seem to be a consensus that digital goods make it a lot messier. Seems like the law hasn't caught up to technology, still.
And in absence of clear law, it makes sense that companies are making their own opinions, and unfortunate that some are being greedier than they could be.
IANAL, but.. I'm guessing GOG is of the opinion that they're selling you a license that you own, and can thus bequeath to your heirs, where Steam is of the opinion they're selling you a nontransferable license, so a will bequeathing it to someone would be seeking to enforce something you lack permission to do.
I mean, the problem isn't the existence/obviation of jobs, but what we do next when it happens. If the people whose jobs are automated away are left out with no money or employment, that's a serious problem. If we as a society support them in learning something new that puts their skills to good use, and maybe even reduce the expected working hours of a full-time job to 35 or 32 hours a week, that's an absolute win in my book.
10% everywhere would be a decisive victory for Biden. Polls would only need to be off by about 1.2% to flip Texas in that case, which isn't entirely implausible.
Diplomatic immunity is the inability for someone visiting as a diplomat, which would include a US president visiting another country, to be held to a crime or civil penalty, with countries welcome to expel them for abusing this. I don't think that applies.
But a US president who is also a felon could technically be denied correctly by immigration officials, but could reach out to the prime minister to get this fixed, probably in advance.
Not them, but for all the negative consequences we've seen as a result of his policies, Reagan is my pick for the worst US president. So many problems in modern America trace back to things he broke.
We don't have enough hindsight to say how Trump compares for sure, it's possible he'll end up having been worse, even if he isn't elected again, but only time will tell.
Yup. Authoritarians often criminalize their opponents to prevent them from running, like Putin did to Navalny. Even if banning felons from office could have positive effects, it's also a dangerous flaw that bad actors in power could exploit to maintain their power.
I suspect some people will mental gymnastics themselves into thinking this isn't a serious crime, and stipulating an abstract 'serious crime' yields more extreme results than we'll see as a result of this verdict.
But a few percentage point swing in a few key states is enough to ensure a Biden victory, so it may be enough.
IANAL, but If I'm understanding this correctly, because he was found guilty of class E felonies, there is technically a minimum of 1 year in prison, but if the court:
is of the opinion that a sentence of imprisonment is necessary but that it would be unduly harsh to impose an indeterminate or determinate sentence, the court may impose a definite sentence of imprisonment and fix a term of one year or less.
Which seems like an alternative minimum. It seems like there will be additional evaluations as part of sentencing, which may or may not be postponed by appeals. He may get up to 4 years per count (which I'm assuming would be concurrent), maybe 1, maybe less if the court finds that it would be harsh to do so.
And sometimes people have a name commonly associated with a different gender. A guy named Hilary, or a woman named Max or Justin are likely to get misgendered in written communications without including pronouns. Or anybody named Alex stands a chance of it.
I certainly hope they're talking to a lawyer about the school's discriminatory conduct, about whether they might win, and if it's worth fighting.
Whether the first amendment applies or not is a question worth asking them, I'm not sure it's quite so simple. If a state told a Muslim employee they couldn't pray while on the clock, I would very much expect a first amendment claim. I don't think this is so clear, but a public university telling an employee they can't include relevant information like their pronouns for discriminatory reasons seems plausible.
Yeah I'd rather see an Internet community keep a mod who has shown they're capable of introspection then they made a mistake, than try and pretend they can find a new mod who won't make mistakes.
There are also lots of home remedies that doctors actually recommend. I had a doctor teach me a technique for using a shower a bit like a netty pot, to keep my sinuses clean, and it's great. I've shared it with a few people when it made sense. Sorting out the useful home remedies from the useless or harmful pseudoscience is harder than it should be, though.
the very foundation of an abortion ban is an assumption that a woman’s body does not belong to her. Abusive men agree.
I'm at a loss for a phrase that expresses the opposite of "unlikely allies" correctly. That I'm surprised, not that they're working together, but that it took them so long to do openly
I see what you're saying. As an isolated event it's pretty meh. Maybe it sucks for the two people who used it.
In a sense, Musk was betting that Twitter's API was undermonitized, and by raising the price, he'd make more money than he'd lose in people leaving the platform. He bet Twitter's relevance against some money. Yeah, not a lot of people used it on Switch, but every rejection of his bet, that Twitter isn't worth the price, hurts Musk's bottom line. And it's kinda on him; Nintendo isn't defying him, he was just wrong.
A couple of speed tests will give you most accurate results if you really need them. fast.com tends to estimate my speeds a bit higher than ookla or Google's tests, but they're all clustered within about 5Mbps.
One outlier in either direction would also be an interesting result, but I have yet to observe that.
So I've spent a few minutes trying to see what the internet thinks, and it looks like there's not a clear consensus that the First-Sale-Doctrine applies to non-physical goods similarly to physical ones, and does seem to be a consensus that digital goods make it a lot messier. Seems like the law hasn't caught up to technology, still.
And in absence of clear law, it makes sense that companies are making their own opinions, and unfortunate that some are being greedier than they could be.