Was it really as “safe” as the article claims though? They diverted a full episode early in the show to have an hour long homosexual romance episode that completely changed the character paths and storyline for a major section of the game. I’m not really sure what “safe” even means in the context of the article’s argument.

Don’t have much substantive to add, just want to point out that it’s really McNulty of you to have your username be JayLittle and identify with McNulty and not (Jay) Landsman or Omar (Little).

There was a brief time in the late 90s to early 2000s where you’d just hop into an open server. The lobby would keep the same players as it went round to round and people would just filter in and out as they felt like it. It didn’t track scores or stats between games, and there wasn’t a leveling or progression system that followed you. You just played through the round as it came. People seemed to care a whole lot less about their record or team–it just seemed like everyone was happy to be able to play online. Maybe it’s just because I’m older now and I’m looking back at it with rose tinted glasses, but I wish we could go back to casual modes like that. I don’t have the energy or will to deal with people the way it’s set up now.

It would be nice. From your specific wish I take it you probably already know, but for general discussion it looks like they’ve just filed the Notice of Appeal with the trial Court, which is entirely procedural and required before an appeal can be brought to the Circuit Court. We’ll likely have to wait for the briefing before we get the substantive arguments. Reporting on appeals really does give the impression that it’s like a second trial though.

Beehaw.org was at war with Lemmy.world. Beehaw.org had always been at war with Lemmy.world.

I’d be interested as well, and it’s actually a bit of an open question in the US even whether an emoji can satisfy Statute of Frauds requirements. Not every contract needs to be in writing, but the Statute of Frauds requires that certain types of contracts do need to have a written contract and agreement–sale of goods valued more than $500.00 is one of those categories. Canada has its own various Statute of Frauds laws, but that’s way outside of my jurisdiction, and I can’t tell from the reporting whether any applied or were considered in this case.

Emojis are the focus of more and more litigation these days, and it’s really interesting watching how these cases play out. Here’s a good source (US focused) from Lexis Nexis discussing emojis in contract litigation:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/practical-guidance-journal/b/pa/posts/contracting-by-emoji

I’m a lawyer (though admittedly not in Canada!)–this doesn’t sound as absurd as the headlines read, and I would hesitate to to form opinions on any case on the basis of headlines or blurbs. That said, looking at other sources it seems there’s more here than the posted article conveys:

The judge noted that Mr. Achter and Mr. Mickleborough had had a longstanding business relationship and that, in the past, when Mr. Mr. Mickleborough had texted Mr. Achter contracts for durum wheat, Mr. Achter had responded by succinctly texting “looks good,” “ok” or “yup.”

Both parties clearly understood these terse responses were meant to be confirmation of the contract and “not a mere acknowledgment of the receipt of the contract” by Mr. Achter, wrote Justice T.J. Keene of the Court of King’s Bench for Saskatchewan. And each time, Mr. Achter had delivered the grain as contracted and had been paid.

Looks like they had a long standing business relationship where this sort of communication had been the common understood form of acceptance in the past. It’s also important to note the guy only tried backing out of the deal after a price fluctuation meant he’d be taking a relative loss.

I’d want to see all of the facts and arguments, but this seems reasonable from what we can see reported.

There’s also currently too many steps for users beyond “install app, turn off brain, and start scrolling”. As sad as it is, that’s all many people want: an app that lets them mindlessly scroll.

I agree with your overall post, but I think this part is an especially major limiting factor–the selling points of a decentralized system are also disadvantages for mass appeal for a lot of general users. Most people just want something they can open and have everything already set to go and with everything in one place. And honestly I see the appeal of that. It comes with its own disadvantages, but sheer ease of use is hard to beat, and decentralized systems that have a higher barrier of entry to access content have a leg behind on competing with an immediate one stop shop. I think the overall competition is going to be in quality of community rather than population capture. I don’t see decentralized systems outcompeting in the latter category.