@CeePlusPlusCanFightMe's banner p

CeePlusPlusCanFightMe

Self-acceptance is bunk. Engineer that shit away.

0 followers   follows 5 users  
joined 2022 September 05 17:01:33 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 641

CeePlusPlusCanFightMe

Self-acceptance is bunk. Engineer that shit away.

0 followers   follows 5 users   joined 2022 September 05 17:01:33 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 641

Verified Email

It's more Unity's an adtech business with some game engine sales on the side; last I heard they had maybe 2/3 of their revenue coming from advertising. App Tracking Transparency savagely brutalized that business model, sadly, and I think Unity's frantically flailing around in search of a different one.

I think an underappreciated aspect of this whole situation is that according to https://seekingalpha.com/symbol/U/income-statement , Unity Technologies is losing a billion dollars a year and is already 3 billion in debt, with their total market cap being 15 billion. This is a company that's circling the drain; this seems transparently like a hail-mary play that probably fails but maybe brings Unity to profitability.

Legally, I have no idea how big a grey area retroactive ToS changes are; the fact that Unity's doing it implies that they're not obviously illegal but I'm also aware that, in kind of a brute legal realism sense, different domains of law have judges that feel very differently about contracts where the fine print states "also we are allowed to fuck you in arbitrary ways defined by us, no limits, neener neener"

Like: apparently (based on what I've read in Matt Levine articles) corporate debt courts are really really specifically about the letter of the contract; someone puts in the fine print "also we can fuck you at any time" and the judge looks at it and is like "well, it's in the contract, guess you shouldn't have signed that one" which is in large part because corporate debt contracts are assumed to have been extremely well-vetted by lawyers on both sides. Everyone is assumed to be extremely saavy. My suspicion (not a lawyer) is that this is less true of consumer-facing EULAs (like Unity's); if I have a bunch of reddit posts saying "Unity will never fuck our users who sign this contract" and I have a EULA saying "Unity will never fuck our users. Also Unity, in its sole discretion, reserves the right to amend this contract" and then I do the obvious thing-- amend the contract retroactively to allow user-fucking, and then proceed to fuck our users-- I'm not sure how it would fare in court but it's not obvious the judge would love me for that?

Of course, there's also the legal-realism idea of "Unity probably just settles out-of-court with anyone big enough to challenge them, and hoovers up money from indies that can't afford ruinous court fees". Which is of course deeply unethical and also vibes like they're eating their seed corn (since who wants to go into business with a company that has, historically, not been willing to honor contracts.)

My expectation is that this ends with Unity sticking to its guns and declaring bankruptcy in a couple years.

Realistically I think what happens is Unity goes up to Nintendo and says "please pay me 100 million dollars for all these installs I see using my proprietary methods" and Nintendo is like "i will counteroffer with this Twix bar" and Unity looks at the Twix bar, compares it to the prospect of a lengthy and expensive trial vs the Nintendo legal team, and accepts the counteroffer. Repeat with Microsoft et al.

Guys! There is a simple explanation for this that explains everything:

This is an outage. Twitter's load balancers or whatever are fucked and they can serve a small percentage of typical traffic. This is damage control, i guess to avoid acknowleging an outage?

It feels likely this is in some way related to twitter not paying their google cloud builds as has been reported by various sources.

Would you require monogamy from the woman? And if so: why?

morally, i feel i should be able to lose weight myself

No! Bad! The decision to take a drug is a practical one with no moral implications. Similar statements include "morally, i feel i should be able to drive a bit longer without stopping at a rest area" or "morally, i feel i should be able to walk to the grocery store rather than drive."

Hell yeah, dude. Remake yourself as someone hotter! Nobody can stop you! FUCK THE NATURAL ORDER.

Yeah, the legs thing is probably the most invasive of the items on the list, and the one i know least about.

Have you considered that physical appearance is one of the most malleable things about a person, particularly for a person with a high income? I have no specific knowledge of what about you is unattractive, but you have the following options open to you:

  1. plastic surgery if it's an unattractive face or jawline or your ears stick out or whatever

  2. weight loss drugs if you're overweight

  3. testosterone replacement therapy + personal training if you have a severe lack of muscle mass. (Girls mostly really like muscle mass.)

  4. that leg-lengthening procedure if your problem is height

  5. wigs or medical hair replacement (dunno the clinical term) if you are balding.

This is an entirely serious comment. Western society has a stigma against trying to change your appearance in these ways, but if your appearance is an impediment to you living your best life, you should change it if you have the money, which it sounds like you will.

Do these have side effects? Yeah, probably. Life is full of tradeoffs. Still, given current medical tech the OP reads a bit like a (more expensive) version of "i am worried that no woman will ever love me because all of my clothes are ugly. Should i resign myself to dying alone, or just really go hard on settling?" My dude! Just buy some new clothes!

Self-acceptance is bunk. Engineer that shit away.