this means that if Unity sends you a bill, you don't have to pay it, and if they take you to court, you prove that you're acting within the terms of the license you agreed to, which keeps your lawyer fees to a manageable level because you already have all the documents you need: the contract and your source code.
I mean right? IANAL.
you're still operating on the 2014 patch, it's 2024
As far as I'm concerned Zizek went the right amount of hard, considering how effortlessly, utterly, and thoroughly he dunked on Peterson without Peterson ever having any idea what had happened.
In no way was that fair play. That was the rudest thing I've ever seen done to a person where I yet personally applauded the maneuver. I love Zizek.
Peterson left that debate believing discourse had happened and that's just hilarious.
the 'right wing' believes climate change is a hoax. you're struggling with a failed conception of 'both sides' politics. please receive a plot update.
I know you mean well but you're like the person who makes suicidal tendencies more powerful because you want to shut all the windows in a burning building because you personally find falling bodies less aesthetically pleasing than burning ones.
Pence was on a pulpit, and he condemned Trump to the court system from it.
is very fascist in of itself.
No. It's not fascist to have a firm and authoritative opinion. It is, perhaps, violent and authoritarian in outlook, but conservatives have just tolerated if not endorsed an insurrection under false pretenses and those conservatives have yet to kill the traitor responsible for it, so contemplation of violence is justified because this 'cold civil war' as Vivek called it is not going to end with that boomer criminal in power ever again.
This kind of idpol idiocy is dogmatic. It's not ableist to keep babies from holding office and old people degenerate into babies. It's not hard to understand.
gen z didn't elect a russian asset to public office and then try to burn down the country with a fascist insurgency. wake up.
We can do both but the existence of one old lucid person doesn't mean we shouldn't be avoiding 65 year olds holding onto power. They're demonstrably worse at politics: you can tell because a reality tv boomer bumble is dividing our country and we're in a frequently hot civil war with an actual insurgency targeting power plants.
All of these equivocators about the issue seem to fail to understand what has actually happened with mass boomer dementia. That needs to change. Learn the party line: 65 or over, no more governing.
I don't think I shall commit to the insane proposition that humans use logic, rationality, and data to make decisions and inform their behaviors when climate change is currently killing the planet's ecosystems off. To some extent I think you've got a high bar to clear for that proposition to be accepted!
Jokes or half-jokes aside, it's not a new observation that people rationalize their politics after having decided what it is they feel. I've seen too much consensus reality with completely reasonable paragraph after paragraph to take reason all that seriously.
But I do believe that people are 'reasonable' in the way that you say: we don't go around doing things just because (and to the extent that we do, it's a good thing!). It's when a group of people gather around a list of reasons that become an ideology that I start to get twitchy.
Feminism is a great movement but men who apply it as an ideology have missed something fundamental about the basis for reason in the expression of emotion.
idk man you said we didn't know if Trump was going to be like Sulla and give up his power and that's a stupid fucking thing to say.
You're an idiot because you think that Trump would ever resign like Sulla did.
These are not problems I have. I do have the problem of pseudofascist apologia being literally everywhere. You emitted trash nonsense. We already know what Trump is. Shut the fuck up.
Risk of them becoming unable to execute the duties of the office is a main factor. It's ok to discriminate against adults for the qualities of a high risk of developing age-related degenerative disorders over the course of their tenure.
This isn't that hard to understand. Your line of reasoning is pointless.
A bunch of people are living in the delusional reality of an old person and it's pushing us close to civil war for no good reason beyond boomer mass dementia. You have failed to understand the present crisis, so you fail to comprehend the necessity for this simple preventative measure.
No more people over 65 in federal politics. Ever.
solid troll
you tell yourself a pretty story to make you feel better
Life extension has already begun redefining what "old" means: it means holding onto 40+ years of political bitterness and partisanship until a reality tv boomer has successfully divided us from our countrymen.
It would have prevented the Trump disaster and that's really all I care about.
There's no point continuing this if you can't read.
This isn't about their values at all. You keep on mindlessly returning to your algorithm for evaluating candidates assuming that people can make a decision as to whether or not an old person is healthy. But we are living in the aftermath of people failing to make that decision.
If you don't believe this, you've failed a basic political awareness test. If you don't believe that Trump was unhealthy for this country and that a vote for him is a vote against our civilization, you've failed a basic political intelligence test.
Your model of how well people make these decisions is flawed, wrong, and irrelevant.
If what you care about [is] in fact [their] health then their age should be irrelevant.
This is wrong. Health and age are deeply connected. If you can't accept that, you're failing a basic biological intelligence test.
Hint: There's nothing about a 28 year old that would make them unfit to be President. But our society has made the decision to set an arbitrary line at 35. There is no reason not to set a corresponding arbitrary line at 65.
Age isn't the only risk factor I care about, it's just the only age factor I care about discussing with you.
Age limits are de facto term limits. If you want to make it 60 I'm willing to hear it.
learn to write.
But fair enough, I can see how that might have been misinterpreted.
Yeah speak more carefully.
When I was young I blamed previous generations too.
This is very precisely the dysfunction of the old: they think they've seen it all so they're unable to listen.
At least you will can rely on Matt Gaetz, Ron Desantos, Elon Musk to always do the right thing.
More old person histrionic dribble.
Are you really this incapable of recognizing the problem that geriatrics face? You're showing me precisely the problem I'm describing.
you're in here with me, take a break for a bit.
here, have an upvote. that means you're doing a good job.
yeah. because if you hit a controversial point well, you are still net up.
I understood this perspective already. You'd rather process suicide into a pipeline in which "reasonable" suicide is more common than deal with the factors driving people to suicide.
Your need to control the "problem" is part of the overbearing control driving people to suicide. It's my opinion that you'd be better off accepting the choice and not trying to second-guess men who shoot themselves, even if they're drunk, impulsive, or any manner of "irrational" about it. (Rationality is a myth designed to sell more socially approved behaviors.)
But the leaders of this country aren’t trying to make the best country for 25 year olds. They’re trying to make the best country for everyone.
And they're failing, because they're old, and too many of them don't believe in climate change. It's not hard. Get all the old people out immediately.
you've never actually advanced to the level of writing beyond "say things, get applause," have you?
well let me tell you, it's harder to make controversial points, but that's the only real work.
otherwise, you're just speaking into a mirror
That's nonsense. But if it's all I have, maybe it's all you left us. The burning need to make sure the old people get out of office immediately.
You can demean it if that's all your old person flailing can do, but you can't shake that burning need.
I'm sorry the topic confuses you but yes, this is why your 14 year old can't have a driver's license even if they might be a perfectly good driver.
You're overthinking things. People over 65 are experiencing physical and mental deterioration and should not hold office. That's the end of the conversation, stop muddling the issue.
You're overthinking it. Babies can't run for office and that's a good thing.
it's absolutely an inherent quality of being old. no not every 66 year old is unfit to fly a plane. but airlines don't let them fly. that's the way it is and that's the way it should be. stop whining about discrimination.
I can't hear your opinion over the upvotes I'm getting for my main comment
Neither did I. I’ve been aware of and concerned about the greenhouse effect since the early 70s. I was part of the first Earth Day. I was around and active for a number of anti-monopolistic decisions.
And none of that will save you from your generation's failure. You failed and you're leaving a broken country to your offspring. Don't make that my problem. 65 year olds shouldn't be in office and that's the end of it.
If that hurts your feelings? good. It should. You should have to face your failure, and vote for age restrictions on people in office.
Your leadership didn't work. You led us here.
You want to alienate our allies. You are pushing a hidden agenda or you are a tool of those doing so. I am awake. You are a member of a cult.
This is incoherent old person rambling.
unironically, he ought to be next, and he better know it, and he better go quietly