JS (run in chrome console just to be quick and dirty) agrees

Nah it’s a 0-index die

I wish this were true, but unless companies were forced to stop licensing then they’ll never do that. And even then, if the company decided to not sell smth anymore or stop supporting it or they went out of business you still wouldn’t be able to get things legally a lot of the time.

The title says “paid lootboxes,” and I don’t think they mean in-game currency.

Maybe not then, read reply

I had fun playing it as a kid, no apology will be issued!

Women are so cute I love it

I knew that much, I was more interested in how diodes work on AC lol

So if these are people wiring their Christmas lights wrong, assuming these are led lights, doesn’t this “solution” not work bc of the polarity anyway? Or is that only a DC thing with diodes? I only did okay in my physics electricity stuff lol

Too much work, just play on bedrock edition on your phone, free heart attack machine!

Probably not, they say that you agree to settle your disputes with x corporation through arbitration, nothing about x corporation’s disputes with you. Don’t test the most expensive lawyers in the world, especially when they get to pick the arbitor.

🚨 PEDANTIC POLICE 🚨

Clearly he did sue, he just can’t succeed and gain monetary damages since no civil damage occurred.

It’ll be more likely to be thrown out/mistrialed

Ngl, bad idea. She is doing amazing and an expert in her field. Bernie is already doing a good job representing his people, let him be.

Pro tip: look up your local police station and dial their full 10 digit phone number instead of 911

I’d say it’s very reasonable. Steam is EXPENSIVE. If you know anything about bandwidth, it’s the insane cost. They don’t do many exclusivity deals, and they even let you sell steam keys elsewhere with 0 cut for steam without giving users a degraded experience.

I mean why do we eradicate any diseases if there is profit involved?

They overturned the courts previous decision. Technically it wasn’t a law before, it just was heavily implied (as in Congress specifically left things vague bc they wanted federal agencies to fill in the blanks in accordance to the Chevron doctrine).

Basically, there wasn’t any part that was unconstitutional, they just said the court was overstepping their boundaries when they “created” the Chevron doctrine.

Edit: please read the comment below, it seems like my understanding wasn’t quite right

!orphancrushing@lemmy.world

Isn’t AOC too young anyway?

I 100% learned that in 7th grade. I’m in a blue county if that helps, but I definitely knew.