Same, I missed the beta by one day and I’m so hyped

Bizarre ruling that’s for sure.

In my head, either they are liable and need to pay up (not in my opinion but that would make much more sense) or they are not and need to pay nothing.

This shit is weird. It’s like accusing someone of helping steal your smartphone and then wanting them buy a pack of Oreos to make it even.

deleted by creator

In all seriousness, I actually do like the PEGI12 one more. It’s more poiniant in a weird way. I’m not even kidding.

Interesting article.

I love how they are not directly taking the piss out of the quote, but going out of their way to show how there’s a vastly different meaning behind what he’s saying in opposition to what he intended.

You know, in layterms, he doesn’t fucking know the words that come out of his mouth.

Sounds like a bad idea considering:

a lot of past convicts that have been rehabilitated shouldn’t be allowed into 87.3% of all jobs

https://www.forbes.com/advisor/business/remote-work-statistics/

And further considering the innocence project claims that about 4% of those are false convictions.

https://innocenceproject.org/research-resources/

Obviously I do not want to downplay the situation you’re in, but making society better is not done with broad brush strokes. No single person without the respective systemic knowledge will be able to design a solution for this in a matter of months.

I mean you are making a fair argument that there’s a distinction between your own morals and the binding rules in place. You are free to feel a lot of things that are very bad, but when you act on them you will bump into reality.

That said I think the original comment was meant to say that the only reason he is here is because society through the legal process has found him to be safe to work there.

Now to get beyond the feelings against him OP can obviously talk to HR and make sure they get some distance, but if the courts found him not guilty, he deserves to be there. Imagine serving years in prison, working on yourself until the government finally finds you fit enough to enter society again, only for ppl to kick you out of your job again because of something you tried so hard to leave behind. That’s why the prison system usually focuses on rehabilitation instead of punishment in most civil countries.

What I’m saying is, the court’s ruling does not have to change the way you feel, but the court also says you have no right to take his job from him unless he commits crimes again. No feeling can measure heavy enough to weigh up against the right for him to live a normal life.

I assume so. A lot of this is guesswork because obviously they won’t straight up tell us.

I should also note that that was in Germany, and unfortunately I can’t tell you which enemy fleet burnt down my sails but let’s say it was one of the big ones.

They appear as torrent peers I think and log when they get a connection to share parts of the file to their system. I assume then they look up the IP and they try to find out if they got an IP from a known VPN provider or a private one. And then they send out the papers.

Note: In the paper it only says that they have evidence that my PC shared parts of that file 3 times in quick succession and that’s it, the rest is my deduction / educated guess.

Side note: I have had a bad situation where the enemy fleet caught me, and I stopped doing torrents and started using DDL with a VPN. I have a hunch because some attorneys are laying out traps in torrents, DDL might be safer rn. I have read on a few sites that this might be the case, and I have been sailing a lot smoother since then as well.

So take that for what you will, and also if anybody can confirm if DDL with VPN is as safe as it’s been for me, please do, because I’m curious.

Pretty sure they will only rack up a penalty for it. That said, they could make it sting though, that would also increase FTC’s power.

I have a feeling if you “game this out” beforehand it might result in the opposite. In my humble opinion I would just ask her out.

Btw let’s be clear, not an easy thing to ask someone out and it will be awkward (was for me too). But no matter what happens, it’s always better when everyone is on the same page.

TBF Fortnite pivoted to battle royale so fast that it basically never even really tried to still make that a thing.

Still weird if you think about it tho.

Unfortunately that sounds like a clear cut case. Iirc they have copyright to the creatures themselves, and that case is very straightforward to prove.

not necessarily breaking their format

To some degree I’d honestly welcome that. Even if it’s not going to be some Breath of the Wild quality spin-off, I just want more creativity.

Yeah

Also genuinely thank you for making me look into this. It’s nice to know how it works:D

Ok you wound me up now so I had a little scouring of the internet.

Yes, I can not find case law of extradition of US based companies through US entities.

What I can find is a couple of cases against bigger companies that also act in the realm of the EU. Google has been fined in the Netherlands for global violations if I understand correctly. Meta has been fined even a few times for global violations, enforced in Ireland.

So yes, technically enforcement in the US is not guaranteed, but they basically can’t build up their company in the EU anymore unless they deal with it. It’s not perfect, but violations can still suck for business expansion, and that is good. and then I do have to look into the new EU data privacy laws if they changed enforcement or anything else important.

Had the same problem and mine had a little thing at the bottom you could turn with a screwdrive to open or close the gauge a bit. I think I fiddled with it and when I closed it a bit it got stable again.

Well I can not give you a specific case for that, but it widely accepted that online actions against users from the EU that violate laws in the EU can get persued.

Do you remember seeing some US websites saying “we don’t service EU users at the moment”? That’s because they didn’t want to get a lawyer so they can comply with the EU GDPR back then. I assume this is because they knew there was some precedent.

If you are keen on it I can go digging for case law though.

EDIT: Nevermind I literally only had to do one Google search and here’s an official link: https://gdpr.eu/compliance-checklist-us-companies/

Note that one of the headings literally says “Why US companies must comply with the GDPR” and the answer is “because it is extra-territorial in scope”.