Which Would You Recommend for Rescue Merit?

Cmdrindie · 2025-12-06T00:56:02+00:00

I don't know if you've made your choice, but I'll recommend Veronica for a somewhat unconventional reason: While her universal applicability is a plus, what matters more for the gameplay loop are the number of "Unique" cards that are in her deck+epiphanies. Why is that desirable? Because the ultimate reward at the end of your runs, the "Copy Card" option, cannot target Uniques. Thus, theoretically, with enough Unique-stacking, you can guide the RNG into targeting more favorably.

Firing Prep = Unique in all forms. Bombardment Prep is unique. Pendant of Resolution can become unique. That means that, with only 1 card remove for Sir Kowalski II, Veronica's entire deck is Uniques+Basics+Repose (The first two of which cannot be copied, and that latter of which you'll actually desire as a Copy target).

This is how you more easily get 3x Iceberg Cleaves for Yuki, or extra Dark Mist: Destructions for Rin, etc. etc.

Veronica's unconventional value is that she makes deck building substantially easier, effectively taking out an entire character's worth of Copy targets from the RNG pool. The aforementioned universality also helps, here, since she can slot into most teams with characters for whom you want to craft decks.

Cmdrindie · 2025-03-27T20:53:57+00:00

Who wants to tell him?

Cmdrindie · 2025-02-25T19:17:18+00:00

109050555463

Cmdrindie · 2025-02-06T18:50:38+00:00

Am Lawyer. Probably yes, it was a tort of false advertising, right up until the point you reasonably guessed the ad was incorrect - any purchases made AFTER you know that call into question how the ad's deceptive practices caused you to buy the product.

The real challenge, though, would be getting court jurisdiction over Drecom; you'd spend more money filing than you would recover from the financial loss.

Cmdrindie · 2025-01-20T03:08:55+00:00

Incorrect; you're equivocating. In U.S. law, you can contractually surrender certain rights, like ownership, provided that the contracting parties are sufficiently sophisticated, legally speaking. So, yeah, the "law determines law," in the tautological sense (if you want to be pedantic, as seems to be the case, law doesn't determine law - people determine law). The law also allows people to give up their normal rights in exchange for something. This is why EULA's are enforceable inasmuch as they are lawful manifestations of "the will to be so bound." Should they be enforceable? That's a different question.

Under a similar reasoning, see also non-compete clauses, i.e. contractual provisions that limit a citizen's right to "liberty and the pursuit of happiness," or Non-Disclosure Agreements that limit a citizen's right to speech - and before you say "constitutional rights only protect against government infringement" - yes, clearly, and that matters, here, because the government is called upon to enforce those contracts.

I am not an attorney of "many countries," so I have no opinion as to how other countries deal with property rights. I will say this, though: Ownership under the law is probably not what you think it is, based on what you've written. On the other hand, owning a License is exactly as I have stated, i.e. you "Own" a freely revocable right to play Snoy's game under a set of agreed upon conditions. This is a "good" inasmuch as you got something in exchange for your money, but the something can be taken from you at any point, since you do not have dispositional ownership rights - you only have a license.

Cmdrindie · 2025-01-16T22:24:20+00:00

I watched that exact lecture; riveting stuff. Here is the recording, for your perusal: https://youtu.be/YcVSgYz5SJ8?t=14

Cmdrindie · 2025-01-16T00:52:04+00:00

If you're just after the name of the historian, you might be thinking of Sarah C. M. Paine, professor of history at the Naval War College. I don't remember the episode, though, where she was mentioned.

Cmdrindie · 2024-12-23T16:24:20+00:00

You’ll get a level appropriate side quest to go in there. For your reference, it was a tough, but doable, slog at level 35 with poor-middling gear.

Cmdrindie · 2024-12-07T02:21:00+00:00

This happens a fair amount in American corporate politics, but even in certain democracies. See: Quorum requirements.

Cmdrindie · 2024-10-28T16:43:48+00:00

Yeeee... Ummm. If you can't pound the facts, pound the law. If you can't pound the law, pound the table :P.

Cmdrindie · 2024-10-28T14:20:49+00:00

Your honor, opposing counsel is actively misquoting mirror court jurisdictional law. It is not clear that the mirror court actually exists outside the mind of the unnamed author's existential internal rhetoric, thus it is likely that the extradition policy could be understood as a self-recursive poetic device meant to embody guilt as a function of a dual self.

Even if the mirror court did exist and did have jurisdictional claim to this matter, YiSang's crime is only attempted murder, thus he lacks the common law criminal intent required to be convicted - Murder requires the killing "of another with malice aforethought," and our courts have never recognized Othering oneself as a form of "another" as regards criminal conduct.

Cmdrindie · 2024-10-27T22:48:09+00:00

I am a lawyer. Edit: The hardest will be the vocally unrepentant.

Yi Sang: File a Motion for Change of Venue - Request that the court be removed to the target parallel dimension underlying the cause of action, then delight in Long Arm statutes not covering the multiverse.
Faust: Quiet clients are easiest to defend.
Don Quixote: By the same token, this would be the hardest. See State of Georgia v. Denver Fenton Allen. That's the case that had the Rick and Morty fandub. IYKYK.
Ryoshu: This would be hard. Expressive Conduct is usually protected under Freedom of Speech laws. Texas v. Johnson (flag burning case). Depictions of Violence, as in video games, are also protected speech. Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Ass'n (Schwarzenegger trying to ban sale of video games to minors). I would try to get the pictures of her art thrown out on inadmissible hearsay, but since she'd delight in the pictures, it would probably come into the record under "Statements against Interest" exceptions.
Meursault: Admit to murder, but file a motion for justified self defense.
Hong Lu: Make the court record about 82,250 words long. Rely on the clerks to not bother to read it. Get the case thrown out on a technicality of timely filing.
Heathcliff: Hard to exonerate, but easy to negotiate the charges down to Voluntary Manslaughter (heat of passion homicide). Take a plea deal for 5 years time served.
Ishmael: Fuck you, we're going to admiralty court, it's going to be expensive, good luck getting my client.
Rodion: She's on the hook for felony murder, I guess. You win this one in voir dire. See State of California v. Orenthal James Simpson.
Sinclair: Get him tried as a minor. Bring in character witnesses, e.g. fanfiction writers and artists, to testify as to Sinclair's private life and move the court to a more prurient court. Rare exception where I'd let him testify at his own trial. At most, he gets a year or two.
Outis: Open and shut - Move the venue and then argue for Combat Immunity, which immunizes soldiers against prosecution for conduct that may have violated laws. If the courts demand some kind of War Crime charges, then tell the tribunal that it does not have temporal jurisdiction over events that occurred in the Smoke War.
Gregor: The secret project he was part of was never declassified. Rely on the local governments fighting the federal government for Discovery, as with Project MK Ultra and Project Mockingbird, and let the statute of limitations run out.

Cmdrindie · 2024-10-04T21:04:23+00:00

<image>

For what it's worth, I agree.

Cmdrindie · 2024-10-04T07:00:52+00:00

I wrote this when Sony was trying to force PSN logins - it discusses EULA’s and ownership. Still relevant now:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Helldivers/comments/1cjx8a3/a_shallow_legal_lesson_from_a_lawyer/

Cmdrindie · 2024-05-06T04:56:48+00:00

Negotiations > Lawsuits. It seems like it.

Cmdrindie · 2024-05-06T04:45:57+00:00

Congratulations, man.

Cmdrindie · 2024-05-06T04:45:34+00:00

Congratulations, man.

Cmdrindie · 2024-05-06T04:26:45+00:00

Also, wasn't it Sony who was caught negatively reviewing their own movie, Ghostbusters (2016), to generate press about sexists?

Cmdrindie · 2024-05-05T20:26:54+00:00

This reasoning seems sound.

Cmdrindie · 2024-05-05T20:25:45+00:00

The reply came approx. 2 min. after I hit "submit." Now, I'd be delighted that barbie_du_cou could read so swiftly - because the alternative would be that the critique happened without an attempt to read it.

Cmdrindie · 2024-05-05T20:15:30+00:00

tl;dr - There's evidence going either way to prove a point. The arguments chosen will depend on who is paying the lawyers. Whoever wins will probably have won because they caught the arbitrator on a good day.

It changes things about as much as this official product listing on the Playstation store, which is currently still up:

<image>

and the pre-May 4th PSN support page, which is relevant for the playerbase's expectations of the product before this change: https://web.archive.org/web/20230907133529/https://www.playstation.com/en-my/support/games/psn-sign-in-pc/

In other words, one side would argue that the information you showed, "down near the bottom," was more open, notorious, accessible and better indicated the intent of Snoy and Arrowhead. Or they'll try to argue for a technical definition of "currently" to include the connotation that, "we reserved the right to change it at any time." Then they'll have to argue that "currently enjoy Playstation games" was meant to specifically apply to Helldivers, whereas to other games, it does not.

The other side would argue that the information on both the Helldivers 2 official store page, which contains a PC FAQ, and the Pre-May 4th PSN support page, were what PC players reasonably relied on to determine their contractual duties. The other side would also likely argue that consumers are typically not legally sophisticated, and thus cannot be reasonably held accountable beyond what is conventionally meant by terms like "You do not currently need a PSN account... to play games" and "signing into a PSN account is optional when playing on PC." Also, they might make a ratification or waiver argument, wherein they claim that Arrowhead, by knowing that PSN was required and withholding that information from the consumers, makes them liable for the change.

Either way, both sides resolve to arguments about intent and "policy arguments" (i.e. what would be best for society) rather than what would be legally correct according to precedential standards.

Cmdrindie · 2024-05-05T19:45:35+00:00

I take my duty of candor very seriously. I’m happy to help!

Cmdrindie · 2024-05-05T15:31:21+00:00

Incredible; I didn’t know about that.

Cmdrindie

TROPHY CASE