It’s pretty common for corporate stuff (legal or otherwise) to start with no payment changing hands, just a contract. Then an invoice lands either monthly or on completion afterwards.
That makes it easier for the work to actually start (otherwise you need to engage the finance dept up front and they’re often slow), and once the contract is signed and the work started that’s the sales process complete.
“Winning” is like making it to max level in a mmorpg. It’s not the end but it is the beginning of the endgame.
Best of luck with that.
deleted by creator
One gold upvote costs $2, the recipient might get either $0.90 or perhaps $1. But most likely they’ll get nothing.
But Steam doesn’t have a monopoly. There’s Epic and GOG and whatever Origin’s called now and probably others. They’re all free to exist, Valve doesn’t do anything to stifle competition, and even lets other companies sell games that start their launcher from Steam.
The only thing you have to lose by using a different system is that it’s probably not as good.
All they’ve done is produce a really fucking exemplary product and it’s become really popular because it’s honestly just good. The second it stops being good or Valve stop being awesome there’s plenty of alternative ways to buy games that I’m sure will be there to replace it.
But for now… it’s pretty good.
Isn’t the “take it or leave it” approach to consent considered consent bundling? Didn’t google get fined for doing a similar thing?
If you’re making a mil a year in revenue there’s a good chance your profit margin is tiny and licensing fees could obliterate it.
Hotmail was 2mb.
Yet more evidence that aggressive adblocking is cyber security.
Surely those broadcasters will pull their streams (it’s not like they’re not already hurting), FireTV will get a reputation of having restricted access to broadcast TV, some people will live with it and some will buy a smart TV and not worry about Amazon any more…
I mean yeah basically. Same as if you have anything illegal.
I mean. The short term solution is to ban them.
I get the concept but the downside of banning sales without banning ownership is it will have zero immediate effect, risks creating a black market in the short term. It may even increase the demand for those dogs (see the increase in gun sales in the US when there’s a threat of legislation).
So I can’t imagine any reasonable government supporting that approach.
The way it works is that there’s a symbol table entry for “foo” which has a slot for a hash, scalar, array, glob, etc.
That leads to some super weird behaviour like, for example, if I declare a scalar, hash and array as “x”:
$x = "sy";
%x = (foo => "mb");
@x = ("ol", "s!");
You can access them all independently as you’re aware:
say "x: ", $x, $x{foo}, @x; # Outputs: x: symbols!
But what’s really going to bake your noodle is I can assign the “x” symbol to something else like this:
*z = *x;
…and then the same thing works with z:
say "z: ", $z, $z{foo}, @z; # Outputs: z: symbols!
Oneliner if you want to try it:
perl -E '$x = "sy"; %x = (foo => "mb"); @x = ("ol", "s!"); say "x: ", $x, $x{foo}, @x; *z = *x; say "z: ", $z, $z{foo}, @z;'
Congratulations! You now know more about one of Perl’s really weird internals than I’d wager most Perl programmers (I have literally never used any of the above for anything actually productive!)
The issue with pugs is not that they’re evil or bad creatures, it’s that humans have selectively bred them for their looks, but that’s lead to the animals suffering because their breeding means they have massive problems with breathing, their knees, spine, eyes, etc. That’s unfair on the animal.
It’s like saying we want to eliminate genetic diseases like Down’s syndrome or Haemophilia. Nobody’s saying individuals with those conditions are bad, it’s that we don’t think people should be born with conditions that give them a worse life.
Now for dogs it’s a bit more complicated because those conditions are afflicted upon them by us purely for aesthetics, and if dogs are banned that inevitably leads to some being killed which isn’t very fair on those animals, but if we can’t find a way to reverse the worst aspects of their breeding is the only way we can prevent further suffering.
Well the black market doesn’t exist because it’s not legal to own a pitbull - as you say, who wants a dog they can’t take outside?
My point is if you ban breeding but you don’t ban owning the dog then you risk creating that black market.
You mean the fact that you can have a hash called %foo, an array called @foo and a scalar called $foo all at the same time? I agree that’s a weird choice and there’s potential for insanity there, but it’s pretty easy to just not do that…
20+ years of Perl experience and while Perl has a load of idiosyncrasies that make it harder to work with than other languages, I don’t think that particular one has ever caused a significant problem.
Some of them, yes. They didn’t go hunting them but any complaints or incidents or they find one when investigating some other crime then you can be sure your pitbull would be taken away and destroyed.
I don’t think owners got prosecuted or anything as long as the dog was born before the ban, just the dog taken away. Breeders that continued selling them certainly did get prosecuted though.
Guaranteed they’d find a way to double dip. Price gouging, restricting content behind further paywalls, adding ads anyway… absolutely they’ve investigated all those and undoubtedly more.
Switch to Firefox, Chrome is their biggest lever to force this kind of stuff onto people. While Firefox exists and it remains uncool for them to block it they’ll have to compete against piracy and adblockers which will limit their ability to aggressively monetise.
Switch to firefox!