~~grey matter~~ polymatter
Comment105
joined 1 year ago
Slaves can't end their own contract at will.
You people will never understand the difference.
That's not even in the scene.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GX-m7UsCp3I
Here's what Walter actually says:
How are you doing?
...mumbling...
How are you doing?
You did the only thing that you could, I hope you understand that.
Any thoughts on what our next move might be?
Our next move. Our next move. Given the fact that at the first opportunity, Gus will kill us.
No, no, we bought ourselves some time, yes, but... The question is how much. He will be looking for another chemist.
Are you sure you're...
What do you mean?
What page is that?
We entomb it in massive concrete caskets with a volume up to 5 000m², lined with plastic to prevent leaking, and when it's full we cap it and bury it under 3 meters of dirt.
It used to be around 1-2m wide clay bowls that were filled halfway and there was a variety of methods to cap it off. The reason for famines and things like the black death were people who just buried it in dirt, the cursed crap leeched out.
That's fucked up. I can see it tolerated at very small scale, but if it goes above 10 acres in any state or small country, it's a bit more than I'm comfortable with.
Can't Stardew Valley, Undertale, Outer Wilds and No Man's Sky also be legally removed from your Steam library for any reason?
They're just gonna go all in on marketing to Kyle and his CoD buddies, and ignore the nerds who care about weird shit like ownership.
The EULA is a wall of text that means nothing to most people, just like the TOS. The CLA (California License Agreement) or whatever this will be called with be no different, unless they specifically demand a very short and to the point.
*"You are buying a game licence that can legally be revoked without providing a refund.
Ubisoft can revoke the game license at any time for any reason.
Ubisoft guarantees access to the license for 0 days."*
I have no expectation that it will be that clear and concise.
Edit: Looks like they have chosen not to discuss the language of the "clear expansion" at all. Likely because whoever wrote the law didn't know the subject they're regulating.
From the article:
The official phrasing in the bill’s summary reads, it will “prohibit a seller of a digital good from advertising or offering for sale a digital good, as defined, to a purchaser with the terms buy, purchase, or any other term which a reasonable person would understand.”
Alternatively, storefronts can clearly explain that you’re buying a license and that your purchase isn’t a permanent transaction, meaning the license can be revoked at any time by the issuer. The most important part of the bill states that passing it will be “ensuring that consumers have a full understanding of exactly what they have bought.”
It'll probably be a wall of text like maybe a big fat paragraph and a little vague line at the bottom, or somehow manage to be short but still vague enough to not discourage sales while just barely straddling the line of being acceptable to the Californians who might one day end up bothering to look at how this ends up going, if they don't forget to.
If it's millions of dollars and done anonymously in a culture of prominent bribery with little to no "no strings attached" charity at that scale, it seems reasonable to suspect foul play and call it "dark money".
More or less.
Mental trauma immune response