In civilized countries that kind of contracts are illegal.
USA is not a country of law, if such contracts can stand. Here it would void everything that contract gives Disney. EVERYTHING!
In America, cooperations are allowed to twist the law and turn everything on its head, and there are no repercussions!
In a country where law matters, you can’t sign away basic rights, if this is generally allowed, you can by the same method create a system where de facto slavery exist.
Do they need to split off different departments? Since most of the stuff that Google dabbles in is digital, can’t they just start a few new companies with the exact same IP and split up the work force instead?
“Sharing” the IP wouldn’t really work. The point is to have multiple companies that are either not overlapping, or are competing with each other. If they’re all working on the same IP but with different work forces, then you either have single products that diverge as multiple teams independently develop them (No longer the same product) or you just have a single large company with extra steps.
But if you split Chrome and the browser team, from the Search Engine team, and from the Advertising team, then all of a sudden they’re not all just one stacked product anymore, and so while Chrome may currently have the lions share of the market, it’s now competing on the same footing as Firefox and the rest.
It would start at 90%, but drop for reasons the other reply said
Also: no longer would it be advertised as a browser to everyone who visits the Google search page. No longer will a conglomerate of what should be like 20 different companies in 14 different sectors be able to easily manipulate every website into optimizing for their products, so the average user will feel far less inclined to stay with them if there’s an alternative that works better for them
I mean, it sounds here like the mulch was already touched, so I don’t think that could be changed even by taking on first degree murder charges. I think the question here is more whether it’s better to go down for murder than to let the mulch-touching go uncontested.
Private sales not requiring a background check means it’s easy for people to buy a gun without even giving the seller a name. Like, they don’t even have to give a fake one, they can just not mention a name.
But a lot of idiots are convinced the reason they can sell a used gun for more than a new one costs is they’re savvy businessmen…
And not that people pay a premium if they can’t pass a background check.
You know perfectly well why. Because one of his buddies who believes “gun ownership is a human right” gave it to him. Or “accidentally lost it” at his place.
This shit is rampant, and is why the US needs gun registration.
This is great, but I want to see auto-renewal be something you have to opt in to when you sign up for a subscription service. It should never be the automatic default (as it always is everywhere now).
333 million people in the states and even more guns. We’re not all nuts. My next door neighbor just thanked me profusely for scraping the weeds out of her driveway, and I didn’t even have to use my rifle!
Kidding about the rifle, but seriously, don’t let the news make you think every day in America is the purge
Event happened at raglan road Irish pub, when raglan road staff failed to do their job in regards to food allergens.
Diner dies from anaphylaxis due to ingested dairy and nuts, which they were ASSURED BY THE WAITER WAS NOT IN ANY OF THEIR FOOD.
Disney is calling for the lawsuit to be dismissed because her husband signed up for a one-month trial of the Disney+ streaming service years prior. The company says signing up for the trial requires users to arbitrate all disputes with the company
I think in this case, it wouldn’t count because of the “of course the terms of service only applies to the service, dipshit” and maybe “hey how about you grow a pair of eyes and notice her husband is not the Lady herself”
Edit: and maybe just a taste of “how about you go fuck yourself.”
ABC News - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for ABC News:
> MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
> Wikipedia about this source
If anyone is going to exploit a “no tax on tips” law, it’s going to be high-income lawyers and hedge fund/high finance people, and the IRS will lose vastly more tax revenue from them than what they’d lose from service workers’ tips.
So while it may sound nice, it’s just another avenue for exploitation by the rich and not a good idea, Think about it: it’s Trump who brought up the idea (which ofc some advisor gave him since he doesn’t do ideas), and who do you think they are trying to benefit? Not service workers, we can be sure of that.
If we could just get rid of stupid tipping culture and pay a living wage that doesn’t depend on tips but is accounted for in the prices, then we could also not track and therefore not tax tips, since they’d rarely be given, and even if they are they’d be in smaller amounts than the usual 15-20% or whatever, since the customer is not feeling a burden of providing their living but just wants to add a small monetary recognition for especially good service.
I’ll believe it when I see it but it was nice to have a court case actually convicting them.
Edit:
the most likely units for divestment are the Android operating system and Google’s web browser Chrome, said the people. Officials are also looking at trying to force a possible sale of AdWords, the platform the company uses to sell text advertising, one of the people said.
That would be so nice, there was already a huge thread about how much Google screws over Android too.
Battery life would suddenly be through the moon if all their tracking and metrics gathering in Android was removed. Wonder what the carbon footprint of all that is at scale.
news
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.