4 ms·
Your point is correct, but you've got it backward. It was the husband who signed up for the free trial and bought tickets to Epcot. Yet he is suing not on his
by jawns 2y ago
Your point is correct, but you've got it backward.
It was the husband who signed up for the free trial and bought tickets to Epcot.
Yet he is suing not on his own behalf, but on behalf of her estate, and she never entered into any such agreement.
You can think of it this way: Disney wronged the woman who died. She is the one who is owed damages. But since she's dead, her estate is owed damages. Her husband is the administrator of her estate, and he is suing on its behalf. So whatever agreements he has entered into in his individual capacity are irrelevant. It would be like trying to force arbitration on someone because their lawyer had a Disney+ subscription. That doesn't mean that they themselves entered into an agreement with Disney.
- gambiting 2y agoAh. Totally got it wrong then, thanks for explaining :-)
- jawns 2y ago[flagged]
- ASalazarMX 2y agoForgive me if I'm being too grumpy, but giving others the gift of cheap AI output is a trend I'm beginning to see everywhere, and I really hope it doesn't become more popular. I frequent a few programming communities, and right now a question like "How do people solve objects clipping into walls in isometric Godot games?" will have at least one person posting what chatGPT told them without even checking if it's relevant. I guess my point is, proxying LLMs should be considered low-effort participation in most discussions.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- tstenner 2y agoAlso, the rhyme scheme is just plain wrong.
- compsciphd 2y agoHN denizens don't like when AI experiments are run on them ;)