This is stupid. Their justification is an "unusual degree of vulnerabilities."
So why not outlaw vulnerabilities? Impose real fines or jail time, or at the very least a civil liability that can't be waived be EULA. Better than an unconstitutional bill of attainder.
This is condescending and completely unhelpful.
They only want to tax employee benefits above $12,000. The point of it seems to be to limit how much health insurance people get, so it limits their access to healthcare.
If all employer-provided health insurance was taxed (not just the amount above $12,000) it would be a good thing in the long run, because it would disentangle health insurance from employment.
Business ethics is the opposite of ethics.
I voted you down because I think you are making a few errors here:
Not every Palestinian is Hamas. Hamas is a genocidal organization that wishes it could kill every Israeli, including civilians, but not every Palestinian believes in that. And not every Israeli agrees with IDF's genocide, although a disappointingly high proportion of them do.
IDF is clearly more successful in their genocide of Palestinians than Hamas is in their attempted genocide of Israelis.
Even if Hamas and IDF both were equal, a lot of the English-speaking Internet (including many Lemmings here) are Americans, and pay American taxes, and therefore have an obligation to stop the genocide funded by our taxes, through money and weapons the US government sends to Israel. Even if both sides were equally bad, we (I and other Americans) recognize the need to stop Israel, but have no obligation to stop Hamas because we aren't sending them the weapons in the first place.
"Instructions unclear, attempted to get the couch off." --JD Vance, probably
I've played Doom, Doom 2, and Doom 64. Their engines lack room-over-room architecture, but they do have a Y axis, and some parkour where you run from platform to platform (without jumping). They all have a menu.
Imagine a first person shooter with no menus. You just start up the game, and you're suddenly in a death match with some other random people. There is no customization for the type of death match. The setting and the weapon selection are randomly generated for you. At the end, you are shown a victory/defeat screen with no buttons. After 10 seconds, you join another match.
There is no pause button, no adjustment for mouse sensitivity, and no configuration for the screen resolution or graphics quality.
No menus. Definitely not a menu game.
The game also has no jump button, no stairs, and basically no Y axis at all. Definitely not a parkour game.
Nothing wrong with that. I hear about him less often than I hear about the olympics.
Actually, people seem to be weirdly insistent on telling me all about the olympics.
No, it's not dead. The number of players is irrelevant.
A "dead game" is a game that needs work but is not under any development. It could be in Early Access, and incomplete. Or, it could be released, but still incomplete (looking at you, 7 Days to Die). Or, it could be an MMO that needs ongoing server maintenance, but they shut the servers down.
A game that is being worked on and making good progress isn't dead. A game that is complete and relatively bug-free, but not being worked on, is not dead. An MMO getting no new content, but just enough labor to keep the lights on and the servers up, is not dead.
I guess an MMO or multiplayer game that has mandatory multiplayer aspects could be considered Dead if there aren't enough players available to reasonably play the game. But Palworld is a single player game, or co-op with friends, not really an MMO.
If you are Microsoft, then yeah. You'd go to jail when a Windows vulnerability is found.
In all seriousness though: it would be more likely to be just a civil penalty, or a fine. If we did want corporate jail sentences, there are a few ways to do it. These are not specific to my proposal about software vulnerabilities being crimes; it's about corporate accountability in general.
First, a corporation could have a central person in charge of ethical decisions. They would go to prison when the corporation was convicted of a jailable offense. They would be entitled to know all the goings on in the company, and hit the emergency stop button for absolutely anything whenever they saw a legal problem. This is obviously a huge change in how things work, and not something that could be implemented any time soon in the US because of how much Congress loves corporations, and because of how many crimes a company commits on a daily basis.
Second, a corporation could be "jailed" for X days by fining them X/365 of their annual profit. This calculation would need to counter clever accounting tricks. For example some companies (like Amazon, I've heard) never pay dividends, and might list their profit as zero because they reinvest all the profit into expanding the company. So the criminal fine would take into account some types of expenditures.