For the first example, absolutely. If some execs have a meltdown, it could change future services but anyone who was promised Disney+ on their Tesla with no limit on it should get a fair refund. I understand that there’s a slippery slope argument here, and no– the value of Disney+ in a car isn’t 100% the value of it. But it’s BS that a manchild having an Internet meltdown loses people a service they had and “paid for”
You can disable (today, anyway) the internet search, and it gets wildly more useful after that. I wonder if it’s trying to be two things: searching your computer like it should, and for the less computer literate it’s “help me”
I use VoidTools Everything for searching. It’s absolutely lightning fast and super powerful.
The built in Windows search is such garbage
Obra Dinn is an absolute banger of a game and soundtrack and I’d love to be able to forget and re play it.
Okay now’s my time to shine. The words “emoji” and “emoticon” are false cognates, as in they aren’t actually related. Emoticon is a few-decade old word to describe emotion+icon, like :)
Emoji is Japanese (kanji - 絵文字) for picture-word, basically. It super outdates computers.
They just happen to sound similar; isn’t that fun?
I don’t know that non-lawyers need to figure out exactly what it means, but in an ideal world: if you pay for something that includes a continuation of services and the services stop continuing, you should be compensated fairly. I am not smart enough to word that in a way that can’t be worked around, “gotcha’d”, etc. but I’m guessing the spirit of the rules is fairly common ground for anyone who isn’t trying to rug-pull a service out from under those they sell it to.