Each account has an allowance of five devices, although you can de-register and re-register devices as much you want, it only takes clicking. So yes.

The way they were infuriating motivated the player and makes it satisfying when you beat them, so being annoying was absolutely the right choice. The last Pokemon games I played were on DS where your “rivals” were nice and supportive and non-annoying and they were boring and I would have fastforwarded them if I could have.

Yeah Navi is much less intrusive than people remember, she was really well done. And yeah Navi is concise and has a little personality whereas Fi is rambling and repetitive and just completely emotionless (yeah I know lacking emotion was intentional but that doesn’t make it enjoyable)

The human checkout gives a better service but the shop does not charge me differently for different checkouts. For shoppers, the equation is simple.

TL;DW: In which Moonie considers 1) actual California legal definitions, 2) exactly what was said in Jobst’s, SomeOrdinaryGamer’s and The Completionist’s videos, and 3) innocence until proven guilty, and importantly points out that tax filings can and often are inaccurate (due partly to the law being extremely complex) and are corrected/settled afterwards (possibly with a simple small fine), and concludes that:

1. charity fraud is plausible but is only a midemeanour

2. embezzlement is not substantiated by publicly available information - saying you don’t spend the funds on expenses and then spending funds on expenses would probably be charity fraud rather than embezzlement

3. missing funds is not substantiated by publicly available information - most of the publicly available information is the tax returns but tax returns are not really evidence of your accounts because they might be wrong, that would be quite common and would not be serious legal trouble.

and that Jobst and SomeOrdinaryGamer are comically lacking in legal understanding and knowledge when you look at the seriousness of the accusations they make.

Thanks

Yeah, just think that while the game awards were congratulating people and social media was abuzz looking back on the gaming year, a lot of the people who actually made those games were already laid off, watching that from the outside, at home. A reminder of something they want forgotten: that employees are not people or even team members, they are “human resources” of the shareholders.

Something was stolen - they were giving out copies of Link’s Awakening, not just the enhancements they made but the game and art content of the original game, which is Nintendo’s IP so it is piracy (not to dispute the rest of what you’re saying necessarily though). Projects normally get around this by releasing the fan enhancements as a patch that can be applied to a ROM, shifting the piracy from the project to the end user.

The event costs is embezzlement -the donations were taken with a promise they wouldn’t be spent on that, and paying for the event means paying for content for his channel, paying to promote his channel, paying to expand his subscriber base, etc.

Compare it to a non-charity event on his channel. He makes content, he takes the money from subscriptions. A “charity event” would then be when he makes content and instead of taking money from subscriptions, he donates it. If the “charity event” is still him making content, and him still taking money from subscriptions, then that’s more like a non-charity event. Even if a donation is made with some of the money then the event is still a non-charity event in the sense that he said he was donating the event itself, i.e. not being compensated for it - if he’s being compensated for the event then he didn’t donate “the event”, he was employed for the event.

I heard that it’s an internet joke that his character asks for donations, in fact what he actually says in-game is something else.

This video was almost entirely excellent but I was so disappointed to see Karl cross over into being rude and unprofessional in a couple of places. I want micro-documentaries, not youtuber fights.

Obviously coding this up isn’t accidental, so I guess they mean that activating the feature was accidental (not very reassuring) but also it’s kind of hard to believe that even that was accidental. Any very basic QA would have prevented that. It was probably deliberately testing the waters.