UrLogicFails

joined 1 year ago
[–] UrLogicFails@beehaw.org 3 points 1 month ago

Honestly, I'm not sure how I feel about this leak (assuming it's remotely accurate).

I suppose you could make a horror/thriller-esque story about Plas if you leaned into the body horror aspect of it; but he seems like a much better fit for a comedy instead.

The two most recent runs in 20 years (Gail Simone and Kyle Baker) definitely have Plas established as a pretty unserious guy. There's definitely a tinge of tragedy in his origin of being betrayed by his fellow goons, but he definitely bounces back.

Even runs where he isn't the primary focus (the Injustice tie-ins or the Terrifics) have him as a pretty comedic character.

Having said all that, I am not terribly familiar with Aronofsky's work; so I could definitely be missing something that makes him a good fit...

[–] UrLogicFails@beehaw.org 26 points 1 month ago

That stuck out to me as well. Disney probably made 50k USD in the time it took me to write this comment. This feels more like sending a message than trying to avoid a costly payout.

I'm sure they want to discourage lawsuits, but I'm worried they did this just to try to set a precedent on EULAs being the end-all-be-all.

I just hope they get enough bad publicity from this move to cost them more than the payout would have.

[–] UrLogicFails@beehaw.org 90 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)

The fact that Disney is asserting that whether a EULA has been read is irrelevant and that a EULA signed five years prior for an unrelated use is still enforceable feels more than insidious.

I hope Disney's claim gets thrown out because I worry about the precedent this could set for EULAs going forward.

 

While this isn't news about new technology, I thought it was an interesting look about how predatory EULAs can still hurt us even years later in seemingly unrelated ways

Archive.org link

Some key excerpts:

After a doctor suffered a fatal allergic reaction at a Disney World restaurant, Disney is trying to get her widower’s wrongful death lawsuit tossed by pointing to the fine print of a Disney+ trial he signed up for years earlier.

Tangsuan was “highly allergic” to dairy and nuts, and they chose that particular restaurant in part because of its promises about accommodating patrons with food allergies, according to the lawsuit filed in a Florida circuit court.

They allegedly raised the issue upfront, inquired about the safety of specific menu items, had the server confirm with the chef that they could be made allergen-free and asked for confirmation “several more times” after that.

After about 45 minutes, Tangsuan “began having severe difficulty breathing and collapsed to the floor.”

“The medical examiner's investigation determined that [Tangsuan’s] cause of death was as a result of anaphylaxis due to elevated levels of dairy and nut in her system,” according to the lawsuit.

He is seeking more than $50,000 in damages and trial by jury “on all issues so triable.”

In late May, Disney’s lawyers filed a motion asking the circuit court to order Piccolo to arbitrate the case — with them and a neutral third party in private, as opposed to publicly in court — and to pause the legal proceedings in the meantime.

The reason it says Piccolo must be compelled to arbitrate? A clause in the terms and conditions he signed off on when he created a Disney+ account for a month-long trial in 2019.

Disney says Piccolo agreed to similar language again when purchasing park tickets online in September 2023. Whether he actually read the fine print at any point, it adds, is “immaterial.”

“Piccolo ignores that he previously created a Disney account and agreed to arbitrate ‘all disputes’ against ‘The Walt Disney Company or its affiliates’ arising ‘in contract, tort, warranty, statute, regulation, or other legal or equitable basis,’” the motion reads, arguing the language is broad enough to cover Piccolo’s claims.

“There is simply no reading of the Disney+ Subscriber Agreement which would support the notion that Mr. Piccolo agreed to arbitrate claims arising from injuries sustained by his wife at a restaurant located on premises owned by a Disney theme park or resort which ultimately led to her death,” [Piccolo's legal team] wrote in the 123-page filing.

They confirmed he did create a Disney+ account on his PlayStation in 2019, but he believes he canceled the subscription during the trial because he hasn’t found any charges associated with it after that point.

“In effect, WDPR is explicitly seeking to bar its 150 million Disney+ subscribers from ever prosecuting a wrongful death case against it in front of a jury even if the case facts have nothing to with Disney+,” they wrote.

The court has scheduled a hearing on Disney’s motion for October 2.

[–] UrLogicFails@beehaw.org 13 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I've been holding onto my phone well past its prime since I can't help but see every new phone on the market as a downgrade because of this.

I know people say that you don't NEED an SD card if you buy the most expensive version and rely heavily on cloud services but it's definitely an intentionally worse customer experience.

I'm actually really sad Sony pulled out of the US, since I was planning on getting an Xperia this year. Now it feels like I'm limited to Samsung or Google if I want a flagship SoC...

[–] UrLogicFails@beehaw.org 2 points 1 month ago

I'm definitely a little late to the party to comment on this thread, but it blows my mind that any organization would pick a flight with SAG-AFTRA at this point (or the WGA, though that's not relevant to THIS issue).

SAG has already proven they will hold out pretty much indefinitely and the effects of the joint SAG/WGA strike are still being felt in Hollywood now.

Is the siren song of AI so alluring that companies are willing to die on this hill? At its peak hype, I could see executives salivating at the potential savings; but my understanding is there has been pretty substantial pushback to projects made with AI (or tech with AI in it). I can't imagine that these large studios think their potential savings would outweigh the potential losses in sales; but I guess that's why I'll never be a Fortune 500 CEO...

I wish SAG-AFTRA nothing but the best in their endeavor for protections against AI.

[–] UrLogicFails@beehaw.org 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Ever since I watched RedLetterMedia's "F*ck You, It's January" (YouTube | Piped) I cannot stop noticing how studios will drop movies they don't have faith in at the very start of the year.

To date, based off my very detailed research of quickly scrolling through Wikipedia, Marvel has only released two MCU movies in February: Black Panther, and Ant-Man & the Wasp: Quantumania.

With the numerous data-set of two points, it seems like Marvel has two potential reasons for not having faith in a movie:

  1. It actually is bad (see Quantumania)
  2. It is a Black-led movie (see Black Panther)

You could make the case that they dropped Black Panther in February because it is Black History Month, but Black Panther: Wakanda Forever was released in November...

With all this said, now, I am curious in their lack of faith in the new Captain America movie. I've already mentioned the two reasons, I would expect them to not have faith in it, but there is a third reason as well:

  1. New MCU movies simply don't have the draw that the old ones did. Even a decent quality MCU movie would really need to stand out for audiences to notice, and this movie may just not stand out...

Whatever their reason for releasing Captain America: New World Order in February is, I'm sure we'll find out soon enough.

 

Piped link

In Theaters February 14, 2025

[–] UrLogicFails@beehaw.org 4 points 2 months ago

It feels like a tale as old as time, that a company gets bought by another and immediately selling off assets; and I would very much like to stop hearing it.

While sometimes spending does need to be cut, cutting assets immediately after an acquisition usually does not maintain the company's health in the long term.

On another note, while I think Paramount/ Skydance is right that the current streaming environment is not amiable to the customer; I find it amusing this is just creating "Cable 2." I know each studio wants to keep all the money for themselves, but it feels ridiculous they are pretending "Cable 2" would be better for customers than a music streaming model, where any streamer can provide any content

 

Archive link

Some key excerpts:

Skydance executives who are set to take over the owner of CBS, Nickelodeon and MTV have identified at least $2 billion in cost cuts that can be made at the company, much of it from its linear media operations, according to Jeff Shell, who is slated to be named president of the new entity.

David Ellison, the Skydance chief who will become the CEO of a “new” Paramount, put a spotlight on his plan to boost the media conglomerate with content from his entity, which controls certain rights to top Paramount franchises like “Top Gun” and “Mission: Impossible.” He envisioned a new company that combined Skydance’s animation business with that of Nickelodeon, and CBS Sports with Skydance’s sports documentary division.

Shell indicated a willingness to sell certain non-strategic assets — which he did not immediately identify — and suggested the company hoped to add to the CBS Sports portfolio, which boasts the Masters golf tournament, Big Ten football, part of the NCAA March Madness tournament and NFL rights.

In time, Shell suggested, many of the streaming services were likely to be bundled together. The current streaming experience “‘is not great,” he said, with consumers forced to pay high fees to continue to receive most services. The current consumer experience “is not sustainable,” he added. “I think you already see the bundling process starting to happen,” he said, because consumers may have favorite media brands, but still crave a unified experience. “If you’re in that bundle you’re going to win, and if you’re not, you’re going to be in trouble.”

[–] UrLogicFails@beehaw.org 39 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I can't say I'm surprised to see Gamepass get a price hike; it always seemed like it was in the loss leader stage to try to grow market share.

I wonder what the reasoning was to institute the hike now, though, since I'm not sure how strong their market share actually is on it.

My theory is that either:

  • Microsoft is tired of footing the bill and expects results now
  • Microsoft/ Xbox think they have enough market share, so it is time to stop cultivating and time to start harvesting

My understanding is they are still releasing new Series S models, which are basically just Gamepass machines; so I would expect they are not happy with their current market share (though corporations literally never are), which makes me think it's the former option, not the latter.

All that being said, I wonder how much the price can increase before the value proposition of Gamepass is moot. Right now 20 USD a month doesn't sound bad as long as you're playing at least one new game a month, but I wonder how much more room there is in the price before the number of games you would need to play becomes unreasonable.

Personally, I've never been a fan of the Gamepass model since I like owning my games physically (it's the main reason I prefer console to PC), so I don't have much of a horse in this race; but I will be interested to see what becomes of Gamepass in the long term.

[–] UrLogicFails@beehaw.org 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

While I am tired of comedy sequels coming out decades too late, I am cautiously optimistic about Shrek.

Given its animated nature and fantasy setting, there isn't a lot of pressure to explain why the characters are all decades older. You can just set it right after the last one, which I think avoids a pitfall a lot of late sequels fall into.

Additionally, in my opinion, Shrek actually has a pretty strong track record. I mostly rewatch the first two, but the fourth and Puss in Boots 2 (if you count that as a Shrek movie) are both really good also. (I can't comment on the first Puss in Boots movie since I never saw it, and we don't need to discuss Shrek 3...)

I think it COULD also be fun to see Shrek lampoon more of modern Disney, since a lot has changed for them since the early 2000s; but it feels like Shrek has moved further and further from that style of comedy and have moved more into irreverently twisting broader fairy tales instead, so that doesn't feel very likely to happen, unfortunately.

Seeing as how the movie is years away, I think it is too soon to be making claims in either direction for the movie's quality; all I can decisively say is I really hope it doesn't disappoint.

 

Archive link

Some key excerpts:

DreamWorks Animation has announced that “Shrek 5″ is officially in development, with a far, far away release date of July 1, 2026. Original “Shrek” stars Mike Myers, Eddie Murphy and Cameron Diaz are all confirmed to return.

Antonio Banderas’ return as the feisty feline Puss in Boots is not yet confirmed. “Shrek 5” will be directed by Walt Dohrn, who served as a writer and artist on “Shrek 2” and “Shrek the Third,” and as head of story on “Shrek Forever After,” in which he also voiced Rumpelstiltskin. “Shrek 5” will be produced by franchise returner Gina Shay and Illumination founder Chris Meledandri; Brad Ableson serves as co-director.

[–] UrLogicFails@beehaw.org 9 points 3 months ago

That's a really good point about their business model potentially being unsustainable, but I still question if adding gambling is the answer.

Things that get me to go out (and I know that is anecdotal at best) are things like trivia nights, theme nights, stand up comedy, etc. I don't think I would be very tempted to go out by the opportunity to be hustled in Angry Birds.

I agree that Dave & Buster's needs to develop a more novel niche to not get erased by home entertainment, but I would be shocked if this was the best way to do it.

[–] UrLogicFails@beehaw.org 13 points 3 months ago

I remember when this news first leaked, people online were joking about getting into fights over a 200 dollar bet on a kid's game if skeeball.

While I'm not sure how common that type of phenomenon would be, I have to agree with the author of this article that I would certainly think twice before bringing a child to a location where gambling is encouraged (especially in conjunction with drinking).

 

Archive link: http://archive.today/c0FEu

Some key highlights:

Dave & Buster’s [...] recently announced plans to let patrons place real-money bets on the company’s main attraction: its arcade games.

The suburban gaming den’s new betting operation is part of a partnership with Lucra Sports, a technology company that describes its product as “gamification services.” In practical terms, Lucra licenses its software to other businesses, allowing them to integrate certain kinds of betting into their existing apps and websites. Lucra deals in the kinds of bookie-free “peer to peer” bets—say, on the results of a night of bowling or a game of pickup basketball—that might have previously been sealed with a handshake.

The chain is expected to roll out all of this in the coming months, and it will be available only to adults

Beyond that, neither Dave & Buster’s nor Lucra Sports—which both declined to comment—is saying what kinds of betting will be allowed and at what scale.

Gambling on games of skill has a much easier time cruising past legal roadblocks.

Because of these legal distinctions, Lucra Sports—which has financial backing from a host of sports executives and professional athletes, including former Milwaukee Bucks owner Marc Lasry and former NFL player Emmanuel Sanders—says its services are legal on some level in 45 US states.

Even in their relatively milquetoast skill-game form, these kinds of betting services normalize something that feels a lot like traditional gambling as most Americans now experience it

Kids too young to grasp how football works or what betting on it might mean will soon be able to encounter a version of it at the arcade, potentially priming them to open their own betting accounts once they hit legal age.

That Dave & Buster’s would decide to dive in right now is best read as an indicator of just how nervous traditional entertainment industries have become about gambling and its capacity to devour their customer base and its disposable income. In its 2022 annual report, Dave & Buster’s identified the spread of legalized gambling as an existential threat, even as the company was continuing to grow and its stock price was soaring.

this move feels motivated more by the fear of being left behind while others profit than by a genuine belief in the value of the product itself.

The vision that’s dancing in executives’ heads, I have no doubt, is something akin to the opportunity to be a little Las Vegas in every American suburb. They should probably be more wary of the likelier—and grimmer—alternative: becoming something closer to most of the other casinos in America, where no parent would ever dream of throwing their kid’s birthday party.

 

Archive.org link

Some key highlights:

The streamer announced at its upfront presentation to advertisers on Wednesday that it was moving forward with Happy Gilmore 2 with Adam Sandler on board to reprise his role as the titular rage golfer.

Netflix didn’t release any details about the film, such as its story line, writer or director.

Christopher McDonald who played the golfer Shooter McGavin the first film, has suggested his character might return in the sequel.

[–] UrLogicFails@beehaw.org 28 points 4 months ago (1 children)

At this point, I've lost count of the number of times Elon should have been let go. I recall him recently saying that dosing himself with cat tranquilizers was cool and a good business decision actually.

That's not even getting into turning Twitter into a Nazi bar (and throwing out its extremely valuable branding) or pushing for the cybertruck that cuts its passengers, looks like a dumpster, and corrodes if you look at it funny.

The fact any board of directors considers this man employable at all is mind boggling to me.

 

Archive.org link

Some highlights I found interesting:

After Tinucci had cut between 15% and 20% of staffers two weeks earlier, part of much wider layoffs, they believed Musk would affirm plans for a massive charging-network expansion.

Musk, the employees said, was not pleased with Tinucci’s presentation and wanted more layoffs. When she balked, saying deeper cuts would undermine charging-business fundamentals, he responded by firing her and her entire 500-member team.

The departures have upended a network widely viewed as a signature Tesla achievement and a key driver of its EV sales.

Despite the mass firings, Musk has since posted on social media promising to continue expanding the network. But three former charging-team employees told Reuters they have been fielding calls from vendors, contractors and electric utilities, some of which had spent millions of dollars on equipment and infrastructure to help build out Tesla’s network.

Tesla's energy team, which sells solar and battery-storage products for homes and businesses, was tasked with taking over Superchargers and calling some partners to close out ongoing charger-construction projects, said three of the former Tesla employees.

Tinucci was one of few high-ranking female Tesla executives. She recently started reporting directly to Musk, following the departure of battery-and-energy chief Drew Baglino, according to four former Supercharger-team staffers. They said Baglino had historically overseen the charging department without much involvement from Musk.

Two former Supercharger staffers called the $500 million expansion budget a significant reduction from what the team had planned for 2024 - but nonetheless a challenge requiring hundreds of employees.

Three of the former employees called the firings a major setback to U.S. charging expansion because of the relationships Tesla employees had built with suppliers and electric utilities.

 

Archive.org link

Some key excerpts:

Cage is set to star in the live-action show “Noir,” which has been ordered to series at MGM+ and Amazon Prime Video. The series will debut domestically on MGM+’s linear channel followed by a global launch on Prime Video.

Per the official logline, “Noir” will tell the story “of an aging and down on his luck private investigator (Cage) in 1930s New York, who is forced to grapple with his past life as the city’s one and only superhero.”

The show hails from Oren Uziel and Steve Lightfoot, who will also serve as co-showrunners and executive producers. They developed the series with the “Into the Spider-Verse” team of Phil Lord, Christopher Miller, and Amy Pascal, all of whom will also executive produce. Harry Bradbeer will executive produce and direct the first two episodes.

The role will mark the first regular television role of Cage’s career.

 

Archive.org link

Some key excerpts:

Court filings unsealed last week allege Meta created an internal effort to spy on Snapchat in a secret initiative called “Project Ghostbusters.” Meta did so through Onavo, a Virtual Private Network (VPN) service the company offered between 2016 and 2019 that, ultimately, wasn’t private at all.

It’s Meta’s in-house wiretapping tool to spy on data analytics from Snapchat starting in 2016, later used on YouTube and Amazon. This involved creating “kits” that can be installed on iOS and Android devices, to intercept traffic for certain apps, according to the filings. This was described as a “man-in-the-middle” approach to get data on Facebook’s rivals, but users of Onavo were the “men in the middle.”

Facebook ultimately shut down Onavo in 2019 after Apple booted the VPN from its app store.

Prosecutors also allege that Facebook violated the United States Wiretap Act, which prohibits the intentional procurement of another person’s electronic communications. Onavo could also be considered straight spyware, but also seems to fall under the definition of wiretapping, according to prosecutors.

The court filings show chats and emails that depict Zuckerberg as being directly involved in these communications.

Prosecutors allege Project Ghostbusters harmed competition in the ad industry, adding weight to their central argument that Meta is a monopoly in social media.

 

Archive link

Some key excerpts:

New York judge has scheduled an April 15 trial date in former President Donald Trump’s hush money case.

The judge earlier had scolded the former president’s lawyers as he weighed when to reschedule the trial after a last-minute document dump caused a postponement of the original date.

The hush money case, filed last year by prosecutors in Manhattan, has taken on added importance given that it’s the only one of the prosecutions against Trump that appears likely for trial in the coming months.

Trump has pleaded not guilty to charges that he falsified business records. Manhattan prosecutors say Trump did it as part of an effort to protect his 2016 campaign by burying what he says were false stories of extramarital sex.

Trump’s lawyers say the payments to Cohen were legitimate legal expenses, not cover-up checks.

Cohen pleaded guilty in 2018 to federal charges, including campaign finance violations related to the Daniels payoff.

 

Archive link: https://archive.ph/sVDYB

Some key excerpts:

Senator Bernie Sanders this week unveiled legislation to reduce the standard workweek in the United States from 40 hours to 32, without a reduction in pay

The law, if passed, would pare down the workweek over a four-year period, lowering the threshold at which workers would be eligible to receive overtime pay.

Senator Bill Cassidy, Republican of Louisiana, said at the hearing such a reduction would hurt employers, ship jobs overseas and cause dramatic spikes in consumer prices.

Mr. Sanders is far from the first to propose the idea, which has been floated by Richard Nixon, pitched by autoworkers and experimented with by companies ranging from Shake Shack to Kickstarter and Unilever’s New Zealand unit.

Representative Mark Takano, Democrat of California, introduced the 32-Hour Workweek Act in the House in 2021, and has reintroduced it as a companion bill to the one sponsored by Mr. Sanders in the Senate.

In proposing the legislation, Mr. Sanders cited a trial conducted by 61 companies in Britain in 2022, in which most of the companies that went down to a four-day workweek saw that revenues and productivity remained steady, while attrition dropped significantly. The study was conducted by a nonprofit, 4 Day Week Global, with researchers at Cambridge University, Boston College and a think tank, Autonomy.

 

Archive link: https://archive.ph/Tol6G

Some key excerpts:

All of the sites in Aylo's network, including Pornhub, YouPorn, and Brazzers, are blocked in Texas, their homepages replaced with a message about the company's rejection of age verification laws.

Pornhub has blocked access to its site in Texas during an ongoing legal battle with the state.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed HB 1181 into law in June, which would require not only verification of age through government ID, but for all adult sites to display in large font a message claiming to be from Texas Health and Human Services about pseudoscientific “dangers” of porn.

Today, Pornhub and all of the sites in Aylo’s network are inaccessible if you’re visiting them in Texas.

there’s a message about the company’s objection to age verification legislation:

“Dear user, as you may know, your elected officials in Texas are requiring us to verify your age before allowing you access to our website,” the message says. “Not only does this impinge on the rights of adults to access protected speech, it fails strict scrutiny by employing the least effective and yet also most restrictive means of accomplishing Texas’s stated purpose of allegedly protecting minors. While safety and compliance are at the forefront of our mission, providing identification every time you want to visit an adult platform is not an effective solution for protecting users online, and in fact, will put minors and your privacy at risk.”

Text from the Brazzers.com page that shows up if you try to access it in Texas. The text reads: Dear user, As you may know, your elected officials in Texas are requiring us to verify your age before allowing you access to our website. Not only does this impinge on the rights of adults to access protected speech, it fails strict scrutiny by employing the least effective and yet also most restrictive means of accomplishing Texas's stated purpose of allegedly protecting minors.  While safety and compliance are at the forefront of our mission, providing identification every time you want to visit an adult platform is not an effective solution for protecting users online, and in fact, will put minors and your privacy at risk. Attempting to mandate age verification without any means to enforce at scale gives platforms the choice to comply or not, leaving thousands of platforms open and accessible. As we've seen in other states, such bills have failed to protect minors, by driving users from those few websites which comply, to the thousands of websites, with far fewer safety measures in place, which do not comply. Very few sites are able to compare to the robust Trust and Safety measures we currently have in place. To protect minors and user privacy, any legislation must be enforced against all platforms offering adult content. Unfortunately, the Texas law for age verification is ineffective, haphazard, and dangerous. Not only will it not actually protect children, but it will also inevitably reduce content creators' ability to post and distribute legal adult content and directly impact their ability to share the artistic messages they want to convey with it. The safety of our users is one of our biggest concerns. We believe that the only effective solution for protecting minors and adults alike is to verify users' age on their device and to either deny or allow access to age-restricted materials and websites based on that verification. We call on all adult sites to comply with the law. Until the real solution is offered, we have made the difficult decision to completely disable access to our website in Texas. In doing so, we are complying with the law, as we always do, but hope that governments around the world will implement laws that actually protect the safety and security of users. We encourage you to: A) Learn more about device-based age verification* solutions that make the internet safer while also respecting your privacy. B) Contact your representatives and demand device-based verification solutions that make the internet safer while also respecting your privacy. *Device-Based Age Verification refers to any approach to age verification where the personal information that is used to verify the user's age is either shared in-person at an authorized retailer, inputted locally into the user's device, or stored on a network controlled by the device manufacturer or the supplier of the device's operating system. Whether through pre-installed content blocking and filtering software, the disabling of web-browsing permissions, or other means, the user will then be prevented from accessing age-restricted content over the internet unless they are age-verified. To come to fruition, such an approach requires the cooperation of manufacturers and operating-system providers.

Texas residents join users in Montana, North Carolina, Virginia, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Utah, all states where age verification laws have passed and Pornhub has blocked access in response. Ohio faces the possibility of being next.

Critics of these laws have highlighted the privacy and security risks of handing over one’s ID to websites in order to view legal entertainment online. Adult industry advocates propose device-level controls, as the blocked sites’ messages mention.

In August, Pornhub and several other porn sites sued to block the Texas age verification law from going into effect, and a judge granted a stay.

But Paxton appealed to the court’s injunction with the Fifth Circuit, and the law went into effect.

view more: next ›