Connections
Puzzle #379
🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟨🟨🟨🟨
🟦🟪🟦🟦
🟦🟦🟦🟦
🟪🟪🟪🟪

Quite a few people in my other groups got exactly the same result.

Wait, am I not understanding what AO3 is? I thought it was a site for fanfiction. This makes it sound like it’s something more than that?

What are the policies that AO3 is enforcing that Wattpad doesn’t? I honestly have so little context here.

Your attempt to use spoiler syntax didn’t work. You need a space between the opening three colons and the word “spoiler”.

What is the difference between a hesitation and a censure?

Honestly censoring it like this just calls more attention to it. Had it not been censored I’d have just read the word and moved on. Had it been censored but using the same colour as the background I’d have read it, spent some time thinking “I hate this trend of censoring benign uses of language to bypass big social media companies’ filters, but I guess it’s necessary” (because I’d have assumed you grabbed this from a Twitter or Facebook post).

But censoring with a big red squiggle, the first thing I read was tits. All the downsides of the subtle censoring, but then it also gets seen over and over again because it visually stands out so much.

I’m just a well-read interested amateur, not a lawyer, let alone an American contract lawyer.

Leonard was a case where Pepsi advertised, basically, that they’d sell you a Harrier Jet for $700,000. Leonard sent them a cheque for that amount and tried to get them to honour the deal. There was nothing explicit in the ad that made it a joke, but Pepsi refused, and ultimately won the lawsuit because it was absurd. Likewise, in my opinion, giving away a multibillion dollar company on the basis of three tweets, one of which is describing the possibility of a mysterious death, and another which is literally just “Ok” is very similar to that situation, in that it’s played straight, but is obviously a joke because of the content.

You’re right that a lawsuit could be brought. I suspect it would even pass summary judgment, because whether or not it’s a joke would be a finding of fact, not a simple finding of law. And I don’t know what’s hypothetical Musk Estate would do, but if it were Elon himself in charge there’s a good chance you’re right, he’d try to settle it. Not because he’s afraid of losing or concerned about the cost of the lawsuit, but for the same reason he hurried to buy Twitter when he did: to avoid going through discovery. He obviously doesn’t want details of his finances made public, for whatever reason. And his estate might very well inherit that shyness.

But all that would rely on Mr Beast being stupid enough to press his claim in the first place. I only know about him third-hand as a famous YouTuber with a history of doing some rather silly stunts, but surely this would be beyond him. The case might make for good Content™, but entering into it would be very expensive with almost zero chance of proper success and nowhere near a guarantee of even a favourable settlement.

There’s plenty of criticism from the “normal” left. It’s only the far-left tankies on certain instances of Lemmy that play dumb. Anyone from the centre-left mainstream political parties to non-authoritarian leftists (e.g. those aligned with Greens, Socialist, or Left parties in their respective countries) is far more likely to be opposed to this than supportive.

but it absolutely does

I get why you would say that, because verbal contracts are definitely a real thing that can be binding, and this basically takes the form of a verbal contract, with the added advantage of being written down so it’s easy to prove what was said.

But I don’t think any court would ever find that this constituted a binding contract. No reasonable person would believe that this was intended to be taken seriously, and an offer made in jest does not constitute a binding contract. See Leonard v Pepsico.

edit: With Twitter, as far as we know, he had actually signed a more standard contract in which he waived his right to due diligence. It was rash and stupid, but not really comparable to this at all.

This constitutes a legal binding contract. No I will not be taking corrections.

No, the price is a fact. If the price were included in a paragraph of prose, that prose could be copyrighted. The whole design and layout of their site could maybe be considered creative enough to be copyrighted. But the raw numbers cannot.

Actually long desks are no longer considered best practice. At my work, some devs have a lazy suzan, while others prefer a circle that they can pivot around to face the right computer.

So, the point in time that I was trying to point to was not just when some science had been done, but when the amount of research into the area was so overwhelming, and so widely available, that any lay person who even just casually reads reliable news sources cannot possibly not be familiar with it. The point at which there is no longer any excuse for not knowing about and accepting the science, beyond wilful ignorance. A deliberately vague concept that can’t be pinned down to one specific date, but that has, as its absolute upper bound the Kyoto Protocol, which was first signed over two decades, but not quite three, ago.

Certainly interesting, but I feel like the X-axis needs to somehow account for all the valuable qualities of the food. If we’re wanting to compare meats and meat alternatives, that means at least protein, iron, and energy, not just protein.

that’s technically their intellectual property

No it’s not. You can’t copyright a fact, only its presentation. There might be some laws that they could legitimately use to stop you doing this, but it wouldn’t be copyright.

I do find history and etymology very interesting, but I didn’t know any of this. It’s literally all taken from the Wikipedia page for the name Fitz.

So what you are saying is a majority of people

I mean, I guess, technically, yeah… But geez, for something that’s been settled science for well and truly over two decades now, that’s a pretty appalling score.

Gibbon was actually a pet name form of “Gilbert”.

It depended on the time and place. Fitzroy is particularly associated with illegitimate children of the king, but until the 17th century revival of the Fitz prefix, it was mostly just meaning “son of” without any particular inclination towards or against legitimacy. But in the Stuart era it was frequently used for illegitimate children of royalty and nobility.

Connections
Puzzle #378
🟨🟨🟨🟩
🟨🟨🟨🟨
🟩🟪🟩🟩
🟩🟦🟪🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟦🟪🟦🟦

Very strange. What client are you using, out of interest? If it’s an app that pivoted from being an old Reddit app into a Lemmy app, it might be an issue worth pointing out to the developer.