I have no idea how accurate this info on FindLaw.com is, but according to it, you don’t need a lawyer in small claims court (in the US). And according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_claims_court there are many other countries with similar small claim courts: “Australia, Brazil, Canada, England and Wales, Hong Kong, Ireland, Israel, Greece, New Zealand, Philippines, Scotland, Singapore, South Africa, Nigeria and the United States”. I know the list of countries is not even close to covering a large amount of Steam users, but I suspect that us Europeans are covered in other ways, so there’s that.

The Wikipedia page also mentions the lawyer thing, by the way:

A usual guiding principle in these courts is that individuals ought to be able to conduct their own cases and represent themselves without a lawyer. Rules are relaxed but still apply to some degree. In some jurisdictions, corporations must still be represented by a lawyer in small-claims court.

And I don’t think you need to sue Valve in the US. I think they’re required to have legal representation in the countries in which they operate, which should enable you to sue them “locally” in many cases. Again, not an expert, so I’m making quite a few assumptions here.

Yeah, you’re right. Sorry. I’ve edited my comment to reflect that. I didn’t read OP’s image but rather the news post by Valve on Steam, but missed the part that said: “the updated SSA now provides that any disputes are to go forward in court instead of arbitration”.

it’s certainly not GOOD for Steam users to not be able to complain without lawyering up.

But doesn’t the change open up for litigation in small claims court? (Again, I’m in no way knowledgeable in US law, so I’m just asking.)

If, for example, I want to return a game in accordance with the rules and they won’t let me, I’m not gonna lawyer up and sue them from the other side of the Atlantic.

While supposedly being a lot cheaper than litigation, arbitration isn’t free either. Besides, arbitration makes it near-impossible to appeal a decision, and the outcome won’t set binding legal precedent. Furthermore, arbitration often comes with a class action waiver. Valve also removed that from the SSA.

I’m far from an expert in law, especially US law, but as I understand it, arbitration is still available (if both parties agree, I assume), it’s just not a requirement anymore [edit: nevermind, I didn’t understand it]. I’m sure they’re making this move because it somehow benefits them, but it still seems to me that consumers are getting more options [edit: they’re not] which is usually a good thing.

Skrev en mindre rant om det indlæg her: https://infosec.exchange/@madsen/113086673971699662

Synes godt nok, at Rune Lykkeberg (chefredaktør på Information) og Henrik Gottlieb (sprog- og oversættelsesforsker ved KU) reducerer det danske sprog unødigt til kun leksikografi her: https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/indland/drukner-det-danske-ord-i-engelske-udtryk

Ud over mindre nuancer i betydning (“team” vs “hold” i arbejdssammenhæng), er der jo også stilistiske valg og sociale og/eller geografiske tilhørsforhold på spil, når folk vælger et ord fremfor et nogenlunde tilsvarende andet.

Sociolingvistik er jo sit helt eget felt indenfor sprogforskning — det kan jeg ikke forestille mig, at Henrik Gottlieb er ubekendt med — så det er sgu lidt tyndt og fattigt med udsagn som:

Pludselig bliver et hold på bedste mellemleder-facon kaldt et “team”, noget godt er “nice”, og et sammenstød er pludselig et “clash”.

• Der er en snobbeværdi, der gør, at man indfører smarte gloser for noget, man har i forvejen, siger Henrik Gottlieb.«

Kandis “udgiver et nummer” og Kendrick Lamar “dropper et track”. Jeg forestiller mig ikke, at sprogbrugerne vælger “nice”, fordi de ikke kender til ordet “godt” eller andre nær-synonymer. Det han kalder “snobbeværdi” er jo enten bedst at betragte som stilistiske valg eller ren sociolingvistik, og måske endda begge dele. At kalde det snobberi udviser en mangel på forståelse — eller respekt — for de aspekter af sprog og sprogbrug, der ligger udenfor ordbogsdefinitioner.

Folk tilpasser (oftest ubevidst) deres sprogbrug for at signalere, hvilken gruppe af sprogbrugere de tilhører. Det er ikke anderledes end, når en skribent i Information har haft godt gang i fremmedordbogen for at signalere, at det er Information man læser, ikke BT eller Billedbladet.

/rant

I can dig both, but I much prefer precision platformers.

I think they vastly underestimate how many things Meta tracks besides ad tracking. They’re likely tracking how long you look at a given post in your feed and will use that to rank similar posts higher. They know your location, what wifi network you’re on and will use that to make assumptions based on others on the same network and/or in the same location. They know what times you’re browsing at and can correlate that with what’s trending in the area at those times, etc.

I have no doubt that their algorithm is biased towards all that crap, but these kinds of investigations need to be more informed in order for them to be useful.

Didn’t something similar happen in Turkey with Erdogan a few years back? Pretty sure he was accused of being behind it himself too; don’t know what the final verdict was though.

I think it’s a pretty common accusation, just like when a politician is attacked, someone will invariably suggest that they staged it in order to get more support.

De skriver, at den er startet i taget. Håndværkere igen?

Jeg spiser ikke engang den slags ramen, så forbuddet rammer mig “kun” principielt, men det er simpelthen det vildeste klovneshow, det her.

Af rapporten fra DTU fremgår det også, at der ikke er foretaget egentlige målinger af nudlernes indhold af den kemiske forbindelse capsaicin, som er i chili.

I stedet har de eksperter, der har lavet rapporten for styrelsen, regnet sig frem til indholdet ved at læse beskrivelser af produkterne på en hjemmeside, hvor de blev solgt.

På hjemmesiden asiatorvet.dk har der blandt andet stået: “OBS: denne nærdødbringende version har mere end 13.000 fucking Scoville”. Scoville er en enhed, man kan beregne capsaicinindholdet ud fra.

Ud fra den beskrivelse har eksperterne beregnet, hvor højt indholdet af capsaicin er i nudlerne.

Eksperterne noterer sig desuden i rapporten, at der på hjemmesiden er billeder af tre “drenge/unge mænd”.

- Ud fra ansigtsudtryk og kropssprog ser det ud til, at to af drengene har ondt i maven eller brændende fornemmelse i mundhulen efter at have spist af nudlerne, står der i rapporten.

Kan man ikke få lov til at læse den rapport? Det lyder som om, det kunne være en god intro til hvordan man ignorerer den videnskabelige metode, datagrundlag og fakta generelt, og bare skriver hvad man nu lige føler for i dag. Det lyder i hvert fald ikke som et grundlag, hvorpå fødevarestyrelsen bør agere — og da slet ikke med vendinger som “risiko for akutte forgiftninger” og lignende.

Hvad er det for en “forbruger”, der har henvendt sig og hvem er den i familie/venner med fra fødevarestyrelsen?

De må hellere tilbagekalde nisseøl pga. risiko for akut alkoholforgiftning. Fucking klaphatte…

Edit: Jeg antager, at det her er billedet, de henviser til i rapporten: https://web.archive.org/web/20231003202700/https://asiatorvet.dk/shop/53-samyang/ Et promo-shot for produktet, der sælger sig selv på at være stærkt.

Edit 2: Rapporten er her: https://janax.dk/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Nudler-med-chili-6.-juni-2024.pdf Den er ikke helt så dum, som først antaget, men det er sgu stadig en usaglig affære.

Cloud Saves may be difficult to deal with, depending on what games you play.

I don’t think anyone should fear for their lives because of their opinions regardless of how stupid they are.

Edit: It’s pretty fucked up that this is somehow controversial…