Oof. WaPo wants an email address to access an article a subscriber gifted access to. Here is the archived version instead https://archive.is/3jOgi
Oof. WaPo wants an email address to access an article a subscriber gifted access to. Here is the archived version instead https://archive.is/3jOgi
I loved how in Carnival if you could time it just right you could keep shooting the lowest bear in the bonus level and just keep him going back and forth like 20 times. Also the elusive diamond that would appear in a dropped apple in Mr. Do. I think I only had it happen twice ever in what seemed like thousands of games.
Pepsi Frito Lay is big enough not to care about the profits from one market globally. In Canada a couple years back they had a pricing dispute with the country’s largest grocer which resulted in all of their snack products being unavailable nationwide for that grocery chain. Pepsico increased prices during the heart of the pandemic and the grocer refused to pay the higher price so Pepsico just stopped shipping product to them. It lasted for 2 months, and in the end the dispute resolved with no benefit to the customer whatsoever. Lays, Doritos, etc. remain the highest priced chips in the store by a long shot.
You da real mvp
This actually really happened in Michigan, and the woman was convicted, partly owing to the bird. It’s super creepy to hear the bird say “don’t fucking shoot!”
I do Semantle. It’s sort of like a hot or cold kind of game where there is a word of the day and you guess words and they are scored as to how close they are semantically. You have an unlimited number of guesses and also a seemingly unlimited number of hints. Even with the hints it sometimes takes me 60 guesses, but sometimes it’s 5 or 6. There is a link to the paper where they discuss the relativity model they use. I find it challenging.
Like they said in the article, Homicide Life on the Street is where I remember him from. Lots of good actors and performances in that show, but he was a standout. RIP.
You’re right, and also, fuck this timeline.
I misgendered a woman who was already very irate. This was probably 30 years ago, before trangenderism was as common as it is now (or at least as publicly presented). It did NOT go over well, to say the least. Other customers were smirking and giggling, and even a coworker was having trouble keeping a straight face. In my defense, she was heavyset, had shaved hair and a raspy voice. Luckily I didn’t say any of this to her. I just got my manager and let her yell at me (and him) for 10 minutes. I learned the value of keeping your mouth shut until you’re certain that day.
The officers took it when he checked into jail
Even Media Matters admitted that the circumstances under which the antisemitic content appeared next to the named advertisers would be very hard to replicate - they basically followed only the advertisers and the antisemitic accounts to see how long it would take to link the two, but still, it’s not like they hid what they were doing. It’s not quite the gotcha that Media Matters held it out to be, but is still only a factual account - they were able to get hateful content to show up beside an advertisers name, and that’s why I’m sure X gets their ass handed to them in this lawsuit they’ve filed. It wasn’t fraudulent, or in bad faith, it was simply an exposition of what the platform can do.
Kind of like a KitKat, but the filling between the wafers is a bit thicker and sweet coffee flavoured.
The TLDR of the article near the end:
“Once a woman has sex, there’s really no limit to the pain that Republicans believe is her just deserts. Bleeding out from an untreated miscarriage, losing a job, delivering a baby to watch it die on the table, struggling to feed young children, being stuck in an abusive relationship: They understand perfectly well that these are among the likely outcomes of forced childbirth for women. But of course, making women suffer is, and always has been, the point. Ed Durr’s only mistake was saying so out loud.”
The key point of the article is that they haven’t actually been asked these questions multiple times, because they exclusively stick to right wing media which exclusively lobs softball questions at them.
I think it has to be EA because Atari as I think of it was just a company that launched the success of home gaming but mismanaged themselves into bankruptcy, putting a pretty big dent in the north American video game industry in the process, but a dent that Nintendo very easily fixed with the NES only a few years later. The subsequent uses of the Atari name and IP by successive owners doesn’t really do anything but make me sad - I can’t really attribute anything that Atari does these days to the company that did all the good (and bad) stuff in the 80s. More like Bernie from Weekend at Bernie’s, being trotted out by companies hoping to capitalize on long-dead goodwill.
EA, on the other hand is the same company that started back in the 80s; they have an unbroken bloodline from the scrappy company making good quality computer games that hit the jackpot with their sports titles to the behemoth they are today with all the shitty practices we all know and hate. They are the company that lived long enough to see themselves become the villain.
It’s not even necessary to challenge it. You quit, go work for a competitor, they send you an angry lawyers letter threatening you, you ignore it and the company backs down. Unless you are legitimately stealing their customers, it’s not even worth the cost of filing a lawsuit for an employer to go after an employee for violating a non-compete, so they just stop at the angry lawyers letter.
That only happens when he’s learning about 'Nam.
When I first scrolled past I thought someone was jumping on the bed. I’m like, WTF gam-gam doing?
But the treatment of photographs in the decision fits your description. The photographer sets up the environment that allowed the image to exist but it’s the camera that makes the image. The judge held that was protectable because the image represents the human’s mental conception of the scene. It’s not a ridiculous stretch to consider AI to be merely a camera for the prompt-writer’s mental conception. I am certain this argument has been or will be tried in court. The IP owner industry is far from done litigating this topic.
Gout, probably