hannesh93

I just saw the Uber case and realized that this in definitely way differently in the US. I was not aware that completely getting around the law was such a common practice. I thought that Disney thing was a rarity

Yeah - it's an art to find the perfect mix between "sounds complicated enough that they zone out", "sounds like stuff gets done" and "not making people ask if you need help with that".

How often are you reading about someone suing and then that lawsuit (which is already in court) being dropped because they got a better offer for an arbitration/settlement out of court? For me that's a very common thing to read for bigger cases.

But I agree that forced arbitration with not even a chance to take it to court if you don't like the offer is horrible for the consumer

Arbitration doesn’t save money. You still need lawyers.

of course - but usually it's way faster than getting a proper court-ruling - and since lawyers are paid per hour that makes a big difference

Isn't it often in both parties to settle things out of court? For the one that'd sue it's usually more money at less cost and the company gets around possibly having a bad precedent set and the bad publicity to potentially losing in court.

This is probably aimed at people creating issues in the hopes of getting a settlement for something that has a slim (but Nonzero) chance to hold up in court.

It's a company - I think this aims at people only bringing serious claims and reducing the paperwork for them - but since it's Valve people will glorify everything they do

Anonymous usually means that they don't want their name to show up publicly.

There's almost certainly knowledge of who that money is coming from at least with a couple of persons that received the funds.

So someone donates money to their city's library with the specific purpose that they can expand their building to have more space that's a bribe?

Should it? I get that political parties should report donors - but for nonprofits and other institutions I feel it's not that necessary since they are directly investing that money in projects (that the donor may choose - but if that's not the case then that investment isn't happening) - for political parties and politicians it can be seen as a bribe as the things they invest in usually don't have a direct return of investment.

And there should be rules and regulations making sure that that donation is not ending up in some kind of contract for the company of the donor but that whatever that investment is funding has a transparent process

Where do we draw the line? Should donors to libraries be made public even if that person wants to remain anonymous but fund an expansion? Should donors to non-profits be made public?

That guy legitimately made his hobby into his job.

There's 0 reasons for him to still keep updating the game with as much content as he's doing except for his own satisfaction. Truly the best developer a game can have

Sounds like something Leon Skum world say

I only look at 1 star reviews for that reason and decide if the problem those people have if relevant for me or in general

I mean AMD heavily relies on Taiwan being independent to even be the company they are. If China takes over most people in power and all the shareholders are fucked - so in this instance it actually makes sense even from a company standpoint to do malicious compliance