Silver, when they talk about me in the future, make sure my name is something cool, like “Jessica Grimdark”.

Or Blaze?

Yes! The coolest name in the world!

Note the weird artifact in front of their left shoulder.

Edit: Note also how fucking unnaturally buoyant the floatation device is.

Specifically, look at her left eye.

I work on PCSX2 in a small capacity. They’re not my cup of tea, and I feel like they actively hamper a first or second or possibly even third playthrough. However, I’ve had some modest enjoyment adding them to games I beat 50 times over in the PS2’s heyday just to have a better sense of permanence, to see if I’m good enough for the harder-ish challenges of dedicated fans, and to (ideally) see cute puns/references in the achievement names.

I think achievements are actively bad for a first playthrough and only, in that capacity, serve to turn games into a checklist simulator that cynically exploits dopamine pathways. But I also won’t nag the people who do use them for first playthroughs, even though I think they’d holistically enjoy them more without.

On the whole, RetroAchievements clearly breathe new life into games for a ton of people, and I’ve got no problem with that.

Also, the people who develop the RA infrastructure are really cool from what I’ve heard and seen.

More like Sonyphus.

Jesus fuckin’ christ, Christofuh, get off the drugs and quit castin’ aspersions! Gabagool.

Reasonable to assume (given this decision to run takes place over like two seconds) that Indy suspects that the boulder could block him in if he ducks under it (spoiler: it would).

Edit: Full scene for anyone who forgot exactly how the sequence plays out. This was a 100% reasonable move by Indy.

deleted by creator

And then wipe off the scissors because they still got this shit all over their cutting edges.

How many more times is Lemmy going to recycle this shitty Futurism ragebait article about a stupid marketing gimmick?

Vote now on your phones/pervert glasses.

Well lookie-lookie who ain’t got a cookie.

Get 'em, boys.

The lack of a leading 0 gives it away (with month–date formatting lending circumstantial evidence).

I hate that I’m defending Google here

So do I; believe me, I went into this hoping Google had badly fucked up, which is why I was admittedly miffed enough to write that comment and to try to prove myself wrong in the edit. Very “that was just a bunch of cheap walk cycles!” energy; I wanted the lost episode.

regarding the marketing of the product or the functionality of the product?

The marketing, to which Google is going to obviously and correctly respond that:

• A reasonable consumer would not expect that “ad-free” means that creator-submitted sponsored material is not present in the videos, descriptions, etc., which they create.
• There’s a “Restrictions Apply” link taking you to the ToS, which itself in the “Advertising” section prominently – literally the first word – links directly to a FAQ stating that YouTube Premium has nothing at all to do with blocking sponsored content.
• That is to say that the terms and FAQ clarify what a reasonable consumer would already assume.

I’ll repeat what I think you already saw in another comment: I’d love to have it shoved in my face when a judge or jury actually buys this (I’d assume plaintiffs would request a jury and the defendants would not) and Flemming et al. see a dime.

while.claiming to not care.

I claim not to care to keep up with this after this thread because it’s obviously doomed. I do, however, care enough to debunk it when it’s shared on Lemmy like it has any chance of success.

I don’t understand how you got “emotional” from my last comment where all I did was make a matter-of-fact statement followed by a joke about MrBeast CBT.

Can a company market a submarine but then define a submarine as a lamp in their ToS and you’d just be out of luck?

No, because a ToS can’t cure an obviously false advertisement, but when looking at what a reasonable consumer would take away from the advertisement, you can see the ToS is clarifying what a reasonable person would already assume – namely that MrBeast, before sending 42 junior high students to fight to the death in a chocolate factory, spending 45 seconds raving about how much he loves to put Hello Kitty-branded capsaicin under his foreskin isn’t something that YouTube Premium is going to get rid of.

Edit: Oh, I see, you meant in the ToS themselves. But it clearly links directly and unambiguously to the ‘features’ page right at the start of the section.

The lawsuit tries to claim that the terms of service reinforce this, when in reality, they directly contradict this already-bad-faith interpretation of what Google advertises. “Restrictions apply” is extremely normal for any advertisement and is effective in negating claims of false advertising provided they clarify what a reasonable person could plausibly already assume.

and think you’re off the hook

Come back to me when Flemming et al. win this lawsuit. Even a token settlement, come back and rub it in my face. I encourage you, because I won’t be wasting the time to keep up with this doomed nonsense.

Please see my two edits regarding this. YouTube very clearly spells out that these sponsored segments are fair game for YouTube Premium. This lawsuit is utterly frivolous, and I hope it burns for being such a joke that I could debunk it in five minutes.