What's in the News? 2.0

[Sara Nilsson]

Some dipshit carved his name in the Colosseum and his excuse was that he 'didn't know how old it was.'

Like carving your name in a new building is somehow ok...

What a strange defense

[Oniya]

Like carving your name in a new building is somehow ok...

What a strange defense

Yeah, that's what a representative sample of the comments were saying, along with 'How the fuck did you not realize this building was ancient?  Did you miss all of the signs, tourist information, gift shops...

[Keelan]

Okay, Canadian law stuff of which I'm far outside my familiarity, and the premise of the case has given me a headache, but... https://www.canlii.org/en/sk/skkb/doc/2023/2023skkb116/2023skkb116.html

In short: Thumbs-Up Emoji ruled as being equal to an Electronic Signature for the circumstances of the 'contract' in question for the case...

[Al Terego]

Okay, Canadian law stuff of which I'm far outside my familiarity, and the premise of the case has given me a headache, but... https://www.canlii.org/en/sk/skkb/doc/2023/2023skkb116/2023skkb116.html

In short: Thumbs-Up Emoji ruled as being equal to an Electronic Signature for the circumstances of the 'contract' in question for the case...

That particular case follows a pattern of "informal" contract acceptance by the same parties, to quote:

So in short, what we have is an uncontested pattern of entering into what both parties knew and accepted to be valid and binding deferred delivery purchase contracts on a number of occasions. It is important to note that each time Kent added to the offered contract “Please confirm terms of durum contract” and Chris did so by succinctly texting “looks good”, “ok” or “yup”. The parties clearly understood these curt words were meant to be confirmation of the contract and not a mere acknowledgement of the receipt of the contract by Chris. There can be no other logical or creditable explanation because the proof is in the pudding. Chris delivered the grain as contracted and got paid. There was no evidence he was merely confirming the receipt of a contract and was left just wondering about a contract.

[Keelan]

That particular case follows a pattern of "informal" contract acceptance by the same parties, to quote:

So in short, what we have is an uncontested pattern of entering into what both parties knew and accepted to be valid and binding deferred delivery purchase contracts on a number of occasions. It is important to note that each time Kent added to the offered contract “Please confirm terms of durum contract” and Chris did so by succinctly texting “looks good”, “ok” or “yup”. The parties clearly understood these curt words were meant to be confirmation of the contract and not a mere acknowledgement of the receipt of the contract by Chris. There can be no other logical or creditable explanation because the proof is in the pudding. Chris delivered the grain as contracted and got paid. There was no evidence he was merely confirming the receipt of a contract and was left just wondering about a contract.

Right, given context it actually makes sense and seems a reasonable ruling.

Yet still, a part of me remains utterly incredulous screaming 'it's a FUCKING emoji, why did this need to be a case?!'

[Oniya]

In the early part of the page, there are a lot of references to 'acts of god [sic]' which - I guess - means that the defendant ran into some unforeseen and unforeseeable difficulties in filling the order.  Very well, but those same difficulties would have been just as unforeseen and unforeseeable if the two had been sitting in an office, pushing papers and pens at each other - the difference being that the defendant would have an actual signature to contend with afterwards, as 'act of god [sic]' clauses are apparently not typical in these sorts of contracts.  I suspect that, in the event of actual signatures and unforeseeable difficulties, there's a Standard Lawyer Tactic that is applied.  I could see an American lawyer - realizing that there isn't an actual signature - trying to make a stab at the 'not a binding agreement' line to wriggle out of the whole thing, probably with the same result.

Again - I am not a lawyer, not even Canadian (although I've been told that I do a decent impression of the latter.)

I don't think that this case could be used to argue that a 'thumbs-up' is legally binding in the generic.  There was - as Al pointed out - an established pattern of communication between the two specific parties that makes the interpretation of the plaintiff reasonable.

[Al Terego]

Again - I am not a lawyer, not even Canadian (although I've been told that I do a decent impression of the latter.)

I am a Canadian, albeit a pretty unconvincing one (I don't like hockey and have no taste for poutine).

[Chulanowa]

That is indeed what I was asking about, although it was a straight-forward enough path of inquiry as I perceived it.  Seeing as the bill was referenced in relation to LostInTheMist's comment about student debt, I went to the text of said bill to find out what it had to say about student loans in particular, as the title of the bill in question only referenced 'bankruptcy' and 'consumer protection'.

As a point of note, both chucklefucks from Alaska, Kentucky, South Carolina and Alabama also voted for this (along with ~three quarters of the Senate), while neither of the chucklefucks from Illinois, New York, or California voted for it.  For what it's worth.

Anyways, having actually read the bill, I did stumble across that bit about a report to Congress on whether student loans to dependents affected bankruptcy cases - the aforementioned section 1308.  Mind you, this report wouldn't have been submitted until after the bill had passed, and could not, therefore, have affected which way any of the chucklefucks voted.

The bill made it significantly more difficult to discharge student loans via title 7 bankruptcy. There were already restrictions on that since 1976, with advancing restrictions in '78 and '84 (mentioned in the first article.) It requires you to meet a legal standard of "Undue Hardship" which was determined by people who probably think having a refrigerator is a luxury and that walking barefoot in the snow uphill both ways "builds character." The short of it is you have to be permanently disabled to a point where receiving a non-fixed income is beyond your means. Even then you might only get a partial discharge or a lowered interest rate.

Everyone who voted for that bill is someone who believes that the profits of banks and lenders is paramount over the well-being of Americans. And yes that absolutely includes Ted Stevens and Lisa Murkowski and Jeff Sessions and Richard Shelby and Mitch McConnel and Jim Bunning and Jim DeMint and Lindsey Graham. No surprises on any of those names huh? 

[Oniya]

The surprising thing is that your post says that

Yeah. Too bad the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act exists. Some chucklefuck senator from Delaware pushed that thing into being like a bulldog giving birth and now poor President Biden is stuck with it I guess.

(I'm being facetious of course; both chucklefuck senators from Delaware were on board with that shit.)

Now, 'pushed into being' is disingenuous.  The chucklefuck senator that 'pushed it into being' was Chuck Grassley (R-IA), who introduced the bill on February 1 of 2005.

In addition, 'a bulldog giving birth' is similarly misrepresenting the facts.  The bill was passed 74-25, with one non-vote.  Bulldogs are notorious for difficult births (as the breed standards involve large heads and relatively narrow loins), and this particular bill would have needed 23 more 'Nay' votes for Delaware's contingent to be the tipping point - unless you were suggesting that the 'delivery' was the result of a C-section?

Finally, you seem to imply that a person's opinions from 2005 couldn't possibly have changed by 2023.  I can say that in 2005, I was still of the opinion that I might eventually own a home, and Little Oni was of the opinion that the Wiggles were the coolest thing since sliced cheese.  This is one of the reasons I inquired about the report that the bill required - which could have potentially provided an impetus for reconsideration in the nearly 20 years since then.

Facetiousness does nothing to enhance your arguments.  If you'd pointed out the existence of this act as a terrible thing that had to be contended with, you would have raised valid points.  The framing of your post, however, was to lay the existence of this act in toto on a pinpoint of blame.  This is not a good-faith argument, and you would do well to consider your arguments more carefully.

[Chulanowa]

Oniya, friend.

The president does not and never will know of your efforts to defend him against snark posted on a site where people spend all day writing Lucifer fan-smut. Ease the heck up. I'm taking schadenfreude amusement at him having to deal with - in however minimal a way - the consequences of his own actions. Speaking of that, though?

Finally, you seem to imply that a person's opinions from 2005 couldn't possibly have changed by 2023.

We're not talking about personal opinions. We're talking about policy actions that have real and lasting impact on peoples' lives. "Maybe they changed their opinion!" is just making a special pleading argument about something that literally does not matter. After all, how often do politicians go "This is against my personal beliefs, but I'm voting for it anyway." Their opinion doesn't matter. Their actions matter.

[greenknight]

https://apnews.com/article/local-elections-voting-corporate-entities-c9d0e49f5e475b45cb957fbec110d3e7
And it isn't a precedent for Delaware....

[Vekseid]

Oniya, friend.

The president does not and never will know of your efforts to defend him against snark posted on a site where people spend all day writing Lucifer fan-smut.

This is a forum. We've had a few members join solely to participate in PROC.

Argue in good faith, or not at all.

[Chulanowa]

The Screen Actor's Guild has voted to go on strike with the Screenwriter's Guild after  contract talks broke down.

https://apnews.com/article/hollywood-actors-strike-ca3e3eddc910f1e52d618e5e3c394554

[TheGlyphstone]

Well dang. Hope nobody was planning on seeing movies this fall/winter.

[Oniya]

'Reality shows' emerged from the desperation of one of the past writers' strikes.  I'm betting some 'enterprising' producer starts trying to make AI-generated movies.

[Regina Minx]

'Reality shows' emerged from the desperation of one of the past writers' strikes.  I'm betting some 'enterprising' producer starts trying to make AI-generated movies.

We have lots of foreign film and TV available to us this go-around. The Great British Baking Show alone could keep us comforted for months.

[Callie Del Noire]

The guild covers more than Hollywood. No shows this fall   Ah well.

[Al Terego]

I'm betting some 'enterprising' producer starts trying to make AI-generated movies.

Wait, they don't already?
You mean this crap is made by humans???

[TheGlyphstone]

They've already got someone making AI-generated South Park episodes.

[Chulanowa]

If they're gonna make AI bullshit then it needs to just be a seben-hour animation that's nothing but AI jazz and acid rock and takes advantage of the way AI generates fractal fingers and teeth.

[TheGlyphstone]

If they're gonna make AI bullshit then it needs to just be a seben-hour animation that's nothing but AI jazz and acid rock and takes advantage of the way AI generates fractal fingers and teeth.

So 90 minutes of this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQO-aOdJLiw

[Oniya]

It says something that I recognized that artist from his channel mark.

I'm not sure what it says, but it says something.

[Keelan]

We have lots of foreign film and TV available to us this go-around. The Great British Baking Show alone could keep us comforted for months.

Never have I been happier to be an Anime fan who watches Youtube and Streamers otherwise :3

[Oniya]

Never have I been happier to be an Anime fan who watches Youtube and Streamers otherwise :3

*debates getting a microphone and pimping myself out as an audiobook narrator*

[Beguile's Mistress]

Syndication!