• 0 Posts
  • 162 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: August 3rd, 2023

help-circle




  • kungen@feddit.nutomemes@lemmy.world•Well, I tried.
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    The only smart excuse I could come up with would be that parking is cheaper at work than at home? 😅 My current job is only like 6km away and I still drive there usually, but mostly because street parking is like $4/hour during working hours, whereas I have free parking at work.

    A fully acceptable reason for someone to become an ex, though I assume there were many other reasons as well.




  • Imagine this: when you start your car, you’re forced to watch a 30 second commercial. Your car already has eye tracking, which actually is a good safety feature, but we’ll be using this to make sure you’re watching the entire time.

    If you stop watching, it will change to a 1 minute long commercial instead. If you still don’t watch the entire time, we might just start an even longer commercial.

    Or better yet: your inattention is enough reason for us to turn off your car. Lawmakers can’t ban this now, because it’s a secondary safety feature: you don’t have enough attention to mindlessly watch a 30 second commercial, so you’re obviously not alert enough to operate a motor vehicle. Think of the kids.

    Damn, I need to be like Sony and get a patent on this, just to stop anyone else from doing it.







  • In what way would the EULA/contract be illegal/invalid? The US has a pretty broad freedom of contract. No one has forced you to buy that licensed computer program. You don’t need it to survive. You’re not discriminated against by not being allowed to buy the software instead of a license.

    Understand I’m playing devil’s advocate here. I agree that such contracts are morally corrupt, but I’m not aware of anything that’d make them illegal. Only by being truthful regarding the current laws is how we can make change.







  • Bundesrecht Art. 28g:

    1 Any person whose personality rights are directly affected by a representation of events in periodically appearing media, especially the press, radio or television, shall have a right of reply.

    2 There is no right of reply in respect of accurate reports of the public dealings of an authority in which the affected person took part.

    I’m not an expert on Swiss law, but I don’t see any reason that they’d be entitled to a reply…? Let’s hope the courts see it the same way. Bullying small independent media for their factual reporting is just low.