sparky
excusiez moi, monsieur; what the fuck?
This is kind of interesting but not surprising, jurisdictionally. Putting the politics of Israel/Palestine aside for a minute, you can see how it could open a can of worms to allow a foreign government (Israel) to be sued abroad (Netherlands). Presumably if you wanted to do that, you’d need to sue in the government’s jurisdiction (israel).
Even if you won a case like this abroad (Netherlands), they would have no mechanism for enforcement, as they can’t force a foreign state (Israel) to abide by their laws.
Now I get your point too. Alas, hard to phrase it for objective answers, as who would choose to do this without any incentive?
For travel I usually use as a rule of thumb, that you need to stay the same number of days as there were hours in the flight to get there. So for example a quick two hour hop lends itself nicely to a weekend getaway, whereas a transcontinental flight implies staying a week or two. This tends to be advantageous anyway, for jet lag purposes.
Answering the intent of the question: no I don’t think so as that would rule out 99% of stuff we all watch and play these days.
Answering the literal phrasing of the question: these types of “would you do X for Y dollars” questions are suspect because the impact of the amount of money is subjective and entirely dependent on your personal situation. Readers who are broke and readers who are millionaires will have entirely different thoughts due to their own financial situations, and so the answers are unlikely to be informative. As opposed to something more objective like, “do you think you could deal with only consuming free content for a year”.
Health insurance.
Therein may lie the point; when I worked there, teams were forever over-burdened with outstanding tasks and under-budgeted with time and resources. So the only way to work in that environment is to stack rank priorities and defer less important stuff to later updates. And well, a journal app is a pretty low priority, compared to performance and stability of the OS as well as more important features like iMessage, Maps and so on.
Important to note, this doesn’t affect online multiplayer or availability on newer consoles, eg you’ll continue to be able to buy, download and play 360 titles on Xbox One / Xbox Series.
Isn’t doubling down on this with the indictment in hand especially stupid? Surely opening him to further charges?
MS probably wants to make sure that Series S doesn’t end up missing out on games or getting subpar experiences, given they promised their customers that it’s the same as an X just at a lower resolution. You can see how they want to avoid outcomes like Series S being confined to lower player counts, smaller maps, or other game-restricting features.
But they’ve painted themselves into a corner in this case. Split screen requires rendering the whole game twice, which the S isn’t powerful enough to do. It’s also probably a feature few players will actually use.
Seems like this case should be an exception to the parity requirements.
Anyone know if this work is tracked anywhere? I’m suddenly really suspicious of continuing to run my own instance.