It’s difficult to call for Trudeau to resign and also vote that you have confidence in Trudeau as a leader. Obviously he doesn’t want to hand the government to the Conservatives but supporting Trudeau wasn’t winning any favours either.

Real G’s move in silence like lasagna

That’s mixing up actions with intent. Their actions made it seem like it was a gift, sure. Their intent was that it was a prank. They even told the uncle it was a prank from the start.

If I go to a store an stick a PS5 into my jacket I can’t be charged with theft. It looks like theft, but intent to steal needs to be shown. How do they know my intent isn’t to pay for it? It’s not theft until I leave the store without paying. Just like sticking a PS5 into my jacket isn’t instantly theft, handing someone a PS5 isn’t instantly a gift. Actions and intent are different things.

The article has been updated to say they’re actually giving the kid a PS5 because of the bad press so in the end they’re doing the right thing anyways.

Capital G Gamers are the worst! It’s fine to not enjoy something, but Gamers seem to spend more time getting upset over literally everything than actually playing video games. They also don’t acknowledge that indie games exist. They’ll complain every game now has microtransactions but pretend not to see the thousands of indie games that don’t have any.

Gift law, what the original person was talking about, literally states that the donor must intend on giving the gift.

The donor of the gift must have a present intent to make a gift of the property to the donee.

If you come over to my house and say “hey, nice PS5” and I say “you want it? It’s yours!” and then before you leave I say “I was just joking, you can’t leave with my PS5.” You really think you can go to the police and have me charged with theft?

How is my claim false?

Gift law

The donor of the gift must have a present intent to make a gift of the property to the donee

Intent needs to be proven or it’s not a gift. They did not intend on giving a gift.

They never intended on giving the kid the gift. If they allowed them to go home with the PS5, and then requested it back the next day, then the family would have a good argument that ownership was transferred to them. This was just a bad joke.

Edit: on lemmy.world it’s like I never left reddit!

It seems Trudeau can’t even convince his own party that his ideas are good. Resigning and allowing another party member with more popular ideas to take on the Prime Minister role and put forward a new plan of action could help prevent a no-confidence vote and landslide Conservative victory.

Make sure to add “…in Mario Kart”

“Canadians are rightly fed up,” with the strike, the labour minister said.

That’s the point. Strikes aren’t meant to be convenient. They’re meant to show the importance of the work being done.

The main reason why corporate personhood exists is to limit the liability of owners. If I run a company and a customer slips and falls, they can sue the company, but they can’t sue me or my shareholders. Without any form of personhood there could be no limited liability. The customer would be suing me and the shareholders directly.

I don’t think it would change much for giant corporations but that would be terrible for small businesses. I have a friend who makes his own stuff and sells it to people. He doesn’t make much, a few thousand a year. He incorporated to prevent losing his house from a customer suing him.

I once worked for an Unlimited Liability Corporation (ULC). It’s a corporation where the owners and shareholders can be sued directly for company actions. They took on that higher risk because the tax breaks that come with a ULC were worth it I guess. So it’s not like giant corporations wouldn’t exist if they weren’t considered people, but it probably would hurt entrepreneurship.

The main issue Americans have with corporate personhood is the “freedom of speech” thing the US Supreme Court ruled on in Citizens United v. FCC. The ruling basically said corporations can’t be prevented from giving their money to political causes because its a violation of the corporation’s freedom of speech. That’s specifically a US ruling. Other countries don’t grant rights and freedoms to corporations.

You’re right. It’s not just executives. I believed the criticism was over inflating executive salaries, but it is indeed all salaries. Wikimedia operated with a total salary of $26million in 2014 but now has salaries totalling $107million. Quadrupling their salaries in 10 years with little explanation. You’re assuming it goes to IT infrastructure workers, but they don’t explain where it actually goes.

The total for just the executives is $88million. Leaving $19million for the 700 employees, or $27,000 each. You are donating to executives.

Edit: whoops, it’s total salary in 2021, I misread

That’s the joke

Here’s their audit report. 59.8% of their expenses are in executive salaries, a total of $107,793,960 this year. They list internet hosting as 1.7% of their expenses at $3,116,445.

I would ask for a refund.

Switch this meme with “people want video games they own” and it’s this thread. There are still plenty of games you can self host: Palworld, Minecraft, Satisfactory, Factorio, Terraria, Space Engineers, Counter Strike 2, The Forest, ARMA III, 7 Days to Die, Rust, Valheim. The average person obviously doesn’t care about self hosting their own game server.

He has refused to allow Ukrainian troops to use Starlink within Russian occupied regions to avoid “conflict escalation”.

Most hackers are responsible. Hackerone is a site where anyone can sign up and start claiming bug bounties for reporting vulnerabilities. They claim to have 2 million active hackers. Just like anything else, the people breaking the law are in the minority and probably resorted to it after trying to make money the legal way.