Up until now companies have been getting away with this because of "user agreements." Nobody has had the money and interest to get them in court.
I don't see any possible way this survives a lawsuit, for exactly the reason you said. This is almost certainly not legal but nobody has had a reason to get precedent to say it until now.
The obvious rebuttal to that is that it is in the financial interest not to detect false installs because the developer will owe them money for those. Why would ANYONE trust their word on this?
OK this article is infuriating, as is the product it's hyping up.
If 2.5% of our emissions is going toward feeding 4 billion people then I'm totally fine with letting those emissions continue. This isn't a thing we need to "solve," this reeks of a capitalist looking at graphs of our emissions and going "we could cut emissions by 1% here and not have to actually change our habits at all!" This isn't the problem causing climate change.
The energy sector accounts for over 70% of our emissions. Instead of trying to stop emitting less than 1% by pouring money into genetically manipulating plants to need less fertilizer, why don't we instead cut 30% or more by replacing coal plants with solar, wind, and nuclear power?
Is the "commie" in the room with you now? This is an unhinged level of angrv to get over a really quite tame comment.
In what universe have corruption and lying not been rampant in "the west" over the last hundred years? Did you just pull this comment out of a book titled "Red Scare Propaganda?"
I disagree with this take. I live in NOVA. What happened in the last gubernatorial race was that the democrats ran the worst campaign I have ever seen. It was so bad that democratic turnout wasn't high enough to beat the Republicans. That's it.
If they democrats had run a halfway competent campaign then they would have handily won.
My fiancee and I both got artificial sapphires in our engagement rings.
Real ones were nearly double the price.
You wouldn't know they're lab grown. They look great.
OK, then why fucking make them? Aren't games supposed to be fun?
This whole genre really bugs me, and I'm someone who LOVES space games. The best game in the genre IMO is elite dangerous, because their ship to ship combat is so damn fun to play that I can hop in for a bit and have a blast without having to engage with the other systems that are often painfully boring.
The problem here is that people what the feeling of being explorers and finding new things, but video games inherently can't provide that. There aren't computers strong enough to produce thousands or millions of planets that all have genuinely interesting features on them that are worth exploring for. "Exploration" in current space Sims is basically "stick your name on something someone else hasn't already stuck their name on, maybe grab some resources from it, and leave." That gets dull very fast.
Developers COULD choose instead to make a couple of good, big planets that are interesting and full of actually good content. They could give you a reason to explore beyond "look other planets cool."
If you made 1000 planets and only 10 of them are at all interesting, and your game is centered on exploring other planets and not really focussed on much else, you've made a boring game.
It got us so much good will that the French still ban us from wearing religious garments in public, and antisemitic attacks across Europe have been increasing steadily for at least 20 years, with governments seemingly unable to do anything about it.
If you "recognize your roots" but changed your name and also have spent your entire lifetime attempting to murder your parents and grandparents, I think it's fair to say that you don't respect or care about your roots.
It's so funny to me that so many people in this thread are like "well technically it also applies to christians wearing crosses! So it isn't discriminatory." I guarantee you that a kid wearing a cross won't get in any trouble for it, they certainly won't be sent home. They'd probably be asked to hide it better and let off by the teacher, if anything at all was said.
These kinds of laws are classic examples of laws that are deliberately targeted at specific groups, but worded in a way which technically makes them apply to everyone, with the intent that enforcement will not target the group it wasn't supposed to.
No, it has Christian roots. I'm Jewish, and I hate the term "Judeo-christian." We do not believe the same things, and we do not share the same history. Christians have been persecuting us for well over a thousand years, they've driven us out of our homes, murdered us en-masse multiple times in multiple different countries in multiple different centuries, and have refused to give us any respect and dignity until after World War 2, when it became politically convenient for them to do so.
Our values are different, our history is different, the only thing we have in common is that the Christians read our bible sometimes when it's convenient for them to cite it to reinforce their intolerance.
We have 2 cats and 2 dogs. You've seen 3 of them now.
She came with the name when we rescued her. We call her Ethel most of the time.
He's a full-bred Bernese Mountain Dog, he's a real sweetie.
Because Google has gotten the law steuctured such that THEY aren't liable for false advertisements they host and serve.
If I posted an ad that was blatantly false on Google, legally I'm the one liable, not Google.
It's ass backwards, Google should be on the hook for this and should have to curate advertisements. Especially when so any of them are not just fake but are openly malicious