Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Why are they transplanting? (Score 1) 16

That's too much future tech, but for now -- why not install a titanium plate? At least it won't cause rejection issues, and functionality wise is no worse than current transplants. And, instead of on-lookers getting revulsed, you'll get looks of awe. Severely disfigured wetware makes people say they offer compassion, but in reality they're severely disgusted and feel an urge to distance themselves from you -- because biologically, looking ill means something potentially transmissible, which our instincts try to protect us from. A visibly artificial face avoids all that.

Comment Re:I thought we were saving the planet? (Score 1) 158

Driving from Dublin to Donegal means that you take a short cut through Northern Ireland. Crossing the border is an everyday occurrence. And that border is one of the main reasons why a) Northern Ireland voted against Brexit and b) the Brexit negotiations were so complicated, as it is easier to levy tariffs on the ferries between Northern Ireland and Great Britain than between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

Comment Re:This is fantastic news (Score 2) 10

Meta will add "financial scams" to the list, hire a few more third-worlders in their WFH moderation team, and continue their day of obscene profits.

They've been using AI based moderation for awhile now. Was actually a bit hilarious the time my partner ended up getting a brief "vacation" from Facebook because it misidentified a picture of a new Samsung phone as containing nudity.

Comment Re:Blaming the victim (Score 1) 108

Let's break this down:

Tangsuan was "highly allergic" to dairy and nuts, and they chose that particular restaurant in part because of its promises about accommodating patrons with food allergies, according to the lawsuit filed in a Florida circuit court.

They chose the restaurant because of incorrect/misleading information on Disney's site. The site is subject to the same blanket TOS as most of Disney's online portals.

The complaint details the family's repeated conversations with their waiter about Tangsuan's allergies. The family allegedly raised the issue upfront, inquired about the safety of specific menu items, had the server confirm with the chef that they could be made allergen-free and asked for confirmation "several more times" after that.

"When the waiter returned with [Tangsuan's] food, some of the items did not have allergen free flags in them and [Tangsuan] and [Piccolo] once again questioned the waiter who, once again, guaranteed the food being delivered to [Tangsuan] was allergen free," the lawsuit reads.

The restaurant made a terrible, deadly mistake. That was the crux of the issue, and trying to argue that they wouldn't have eaten there in the first place had Disney's website explained that the restaurant was not likely to accommodate their specific needs is the kind of logic only an ambulance chasing lawyer would use.

If you have life-threatening allergies, it is on you to make sure the restaurant can accommodate you. You can't have it both ways - if you know your allergies are serious and you know you're going to verify with the restaurant, you really can't claim that incorrect information on the website was truly at fault. If the restaurant swears up and down they can accommodate you and then fail to do so, you (or in this case, your next-of-kin) has a case against the restaurant itself - not its landlord.

Look, Disney gets things wrong often enough. If they had argued that Disney's TOS means you're SOL if an alligator kills your kid on Disney property, that'd be a whole different ballgame. But this was an independently owned restaurant that screwed up badly, and the lawyers saw the potential for Disney-sized dollar signs.

Comment Re:Blaming the victim (Score 1) 108

What's with the simping for Disney?

The law should apply fairly to a company regardless of their size or whether or not you happen to hold a favorable view of them.

And Disney DOES own the restaurant, it's just they argued another business operated it - which is extremely typical in the theme parks industry. Virtually every component is run by contracted companies.

Google says:
The Irish restaurant in Disney Springs, Raglan Road, is owned and operated by Irish partners John Cooke and Paul Nolan through their company, Great Irish Pubs Florida, Inc.. Although celebrity chef Kevin Dundon was a founding partner, he ended his partnership in 2017. Disney leases the property to Great Irish Pubs Florida.

The situation is similar to how a mall (remember those?) will lease out its space to various vendors. Malls have their own terms of use that it is implied you've agreed to once you've stepped through their doors. Here's an example.

Slashdot Top Deals

Real computer scientists like having a computer on their desk, else how could they read their mail?

Working...