• 0 Posts
  • 58 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 22nd, 2023

help-circle
rss


  • People overestimate the fiduciary responsibility of public companies. It’s true they will often pursue aggressive short term gains to attract more investment in several forms, including higher stock prices. But as long as they are arguably trying to help the company they are considered to have fulfilled their obligation. You have to be able to prove in court they are trying to harm the shareholders to run afoul of that responsibility, which is a fair hurdle. And it isn’t really that difficult to avoid a forced IPO by keeping under the 500 shareholder threshold if one really wants to avoid it.



  • While it is true that will always result in a winning line, it’s not true that it is the only way to force a win. Half of their moves will allow you to play adjacent to you starting corner towards an open corner and still force a win, as long as their first play isn’t the opposite corner or any of its 3 adjacent spaces. In fact, if they start in one of the adjacent sides or non-opposite corners, you have 3 winning moves. If they start on a side, you can take either the open, non-opposite corner, the side leading to that corner, or the middle. If they start in a non-opposite corner, you can take the first two moves above, or the opposite corner.



  • Even more specifically, if we are talking a temporal teleport, then this shouldn’t be a surprise. Most mainstream fiction uses teleports for time travel, pop out of one time and into another without experiencing the time between. As opposed to the device Farnsworth made in The Late Philip J. Fry, where they actually just change speed through time instead of skipping through it. In the latter case, you shouldn’t have to worry about this issue at all. But with a teleport, any teleportation device is simultaneously a temporal and spatial teleport, due to causality and the nature of spacetime. So any teleport would need spacetime coordinates, not just spatial or temporal coordinates.











  • Neither happened. The restaurant isn’t owned by Disney, it is just listed on their website as a recommended place for allergy free dining, and they while own the property, it isn’t a part of the actual park, springs, etc. The family signed up for D+, and therefore “read” the terms, including the arbitration, and then used their D+ account to sign up for the trip, and had to “read” the terms again. The whole D+ argument wasn’t that they had to go to arbitration because they used the streaming, it was to show they had to go through the same terms multiple times and should be familiar with them. And basically, this is an issue with the labeling on the website, so would be covered by those rules. Who they really should be going after is the restaurant, if they made the same allergy free claims there. Agreements requiring arbitration are indeed bullshit and should be more limited, but this is proper enforcement of a shitty system, not the batshit insane enforcement it has been memed into.