Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[McTraveller]

Bonus if you give the mugger an electronics device which you can compel to have a rapid exothermic chemical reaction a short time later?

[hector13]

For the mugger collective its better if the individual mugger guts you like a fish the moment you try to fight back, therefore disencouraging further acts of bravery.

But then you can strangle the mugger with your intestines before you die, further discouraging muggers.

But then that just encourages muggers that are into erotic asphyxiation.

[Great Order]

For the mugger collective its better if the individual mugger guts you like a fish the moment you try to fight back, therefore disencouraging further acts of bravery.

But then you can strangle the mugger with your intestines before you die, further discouraging muggers.

But then that just encourages muggers that are into erotic asphyxiation.

Oh! Oh, my God. Ronnie, how'd you get that belt stuck around your neck, then caught on the filing cabinet, which made your pants fall down while you were researching pornograph— Oh, I see what happened here.

[McTraveller]

I found out today that you can buy gold and platinum bullion at Costco.  Like, literal 1oz bars of the precious metals.

I mean in some ways it's pretty cool because it makes it more available to the general public, but... what?

[Maximum Spin]

I found out today that you can buy gold and platinum bullion at Costco.  Like, literal 1oz bars of the precious metals.

I mean in some ways it's pretty cool because it makes it more available to the general public, but... what?

Why is that surprising? It makes sense to me. They rolled it out... a year or two ago now?

[Great Order]

Well, it's certainly not something you'd normally see.

I looked it up, it actually goes up to half a kilo of solid gold.

[Eric Blank]

Im surprised its available at Costco. I definitely wouldnt have thought to call and ask them if I wanted to buy some gold.

[pisskop]

Costco glizzys are basicslly more valuable than their weight in gold anyway

[Truean]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/couple-cant-sue-uber-daughter-180722748.html

And another one from the "it's simple," it's easy" group where it isn't either and lawyers are needed to keep this type of stuff in check.
"Should" doesn't matter. It's how to actually do it. These large companies absolutely have legal departments, because it works.

[hector13]

Bit of a misleading headline, considering the lady had previously agreed to Uber’s terms to waive her right to a jury trial.

Corporations demand those terms because they’re allowed to. If they weren’t allowed to, I imagine they’d put a bit more effort into keeping their consumers safe because it costs less than being sued by someone who got injured consuming their products or services.

[Maximum Spin]

Bit of a misleading headline, considering the lady had previously agreed to Uber’s terms to waive her right to a jury trial.

Corporations demand those terms because they’re allowed to. If they weren’t allowed to, I imagine they’d put a bit more effort into keeping their consumers safe because it costs less than being sued by someone who got injured consuming their products or services.

The article doesn't seem to explain what they're suing Uber for either - I'd like to know if there was some previous indication of dangerous driving on the driver's part or otherwise what they expected Uber to do to prevent this.

[Mech#4]

Bit of a misleading headline, considering the lady had previously agreed to Uber’s terms to waive her right to a jury trial.

Corporations demand those terms because they’re allowed to. If they weren’t allowed to, I imagine they’d put a bit more effort into keeping their consumers safe because it costs less than being sued by someone who got injured consuming their products or services.

I believe this is the same case.

So the couple are suing Uber because of severe injuries they suffered in a car accident in March 31 2022 when using Ubers ride-sharing service. The coupled challenged the terms because they said their 12 year old daughter was the one who agreed to the last updated terms of service when ordering food from Uber Eats in January 2022, which requires the user to attest that they're 18 or older.

[hector13]

Can’t say I’m wholly familiar with Uber t&c’s given I don’t use it, but would a minor agreeing to updated rules override the previous occasions that they agreed to the rules, which I would imagine (though I’m not certain) would contain a similar waiver on rights to jury trials?

It does seem similar to the Disney one from earlier though, in which the person sues the major corporation because they have more money than the individual who was at fault.

I’m not sure what Uber could reasonably do to have avoided this happening. Again, not knowing how drivers are vetted, if at all, the fact someone has a driver’s license at least suggests they understand traffic laws and how to safely operate a vehicle (contrary to all the (anecdotal) evidence I’ve seen in and around major cities of people flagrantly disobeying them) but maybe if they partnered with folks who offered driver safety courses or something?

[Maximum Spin]

Can’t say I’m wholly familiar with Uber t&c’s given I don’t use it, but would a minor agreeing to updated rules override the previous occasions that they agreed to the rules, which I would imagine (though I’m not certain) would contain a similar waiver on rights to jury trials?

Not normally, no. The way that would be an out is if the updates introduced the arbitration clause so that the parents never agreed to that. Which, from the article, does not appear to be the case. Furthermore, because it sounds like the parents were fully aware that their daughter accepted the terms, and continued to use the service themselves, I don't think they could ever get away with claiming that it's invalid for that reason anyway - you can't just poison-pill any terms of use by asking a minor to agree to the contract on your behalf.

[heydude6]

If there's one thing that's become clear over the years, it's that contracts between corporations and consumers don't really work.

The way you're supposed to prevent minors (or anyone really) from impersonating you when you sign a contract is by using a signature that is in theory difficult for the child to forge. Since signatures are actually a pretty flawed method of authentication, real companies will go further and get their deals notarized by a guy with a license whose sole job is to confirm that the client genuinely agreed to those terms (ie. a notary).

All of that is much more robust than a freakin checkmark, and it's a tragedy that the courts didn't stop companies when they were pushing this crap during the dawn of the Internet.