This is a double negative. Depending on how you interpret the comma, it could mean "guarantees are given for everything." (Pointing this out in case you intend to protect yourself from liability with this statement.)
There's also a misalignment on the sell side. Since the seller's agent gets paid a percentage of the sale price you'd think they're incentivized to sell at the highest price possible. But they don't make any money at all until the sale actually goes through. They'd much prefer to sell 2 houses at $125,000 than 1 house at $175,000 for roughly the same amount of time and work. Since cost is the only knob they control of the three affecting the time/effort it takes to sell a house (the others being condition and location), they are going to turn it as low as possible.
Agree. A listing agent would much rather that the house sells for 2M than try to eke another 100k out of it and risk the house sitting on the market for months. The 3% of the incremental amount is just not enough to matter. They’re incentivized only by getting the deal done. Full stop.
I'm in the US and for years wrote software for the medical industry. I was contracted by a European company to write an app, and of course filled it with disclaimers and extra clicks asking "Are you sure?" When I demoed it, they asked what all that crap was for. I said something like, "Umm, liability, duh." Their response: "Oh, we don't sue people for honest mistakes here."
I just want to mention this in case someone reads your comment and does something inadvisable: "European" is an insufficiently general term. Some countries in Europe are more litigious than others.
Furthermore, while confirmation prompts can certainly be taken to an extreme (and they probably don't do much good if people get inured to just clicking "Yes"), they absolutely make sense for some operations.
That's wild! I'm in Canada, which I generally consider to be much less litigious than the US and A, but we still cover our bases for liability all the time.
Deleting a record causes requests for that record to be negatively cached. The negative cache TTL[1] is often set to 1 day. So, deleting and immediately recreating a record can take your site offline for days. (Source: I made this mistake when changing a Route53 record for a subdomain that was getting about 70Krps. Luckily it was our source code making the requests, so we could change it, but that took an hours or so to roll out.)
>IANAL, but I think she absolutely has a legal case.
If she does, it seems like a bunch of greedy lawyers looking for a big pay day would be willing to take her libel case on contingency which would cost her nothing. If a lawyer is willing to risk a ton of their own firm's money because they're confident of a winning big multi-million dollar judgement from the filmmaker, that would a good signal that Amanda has an excellent case.
Maybe her phone is ringing off the hook with calls from such lawyers but I doubt it because such defamations lawsuits against works of fiction have been historically hard to win.
Another aspect that's made more confusing by the various replies in this thread is that the film's official marketing (trailer, official website, posters) do not mention "Amanda Knox" or even have a tagline of "inspired by a true story". Instead, it's the various news media (such as Vanity Fair magazine article she cited) making the parallels to Amanda Knox.
Yes, the filmmakers may be sly about avoiding the mention of "Amanda Knox" while being fully aware that the media outlets will make that connection in the minds of the public for them.
>The small penis thing doesn't seem relevant here,
To clarify in case the sequence of ideas got lost in the replies... I mentioned the "small penis" informal rule was a strategy for Amanda Knox to hypothetically write a fiction story about someone named "Mack Dorkin not being well-endowed" and the real Matt Damon not pursuing a lawsuit to silence her. It wasn't about "Stillwater"'s filmmakers using that strategy to protect themselves from Amanda Knox.
This is exactly what happens when you optimize for engagement. Usually when I find myself on Reddit, I'm looking for something specific and want to get it as quickly as possible and move on. The increasing level of noise created by "engaged" users makes me more and more hesitant to click on a Reddit link when one comes up in search results.
I've found the opposite to be true. Several lawyers I've worked with have asked to see what I've started with, perhaps because they're used to people grabbing stuff off the internet. I really like this idea because the hard part in my mind is the negotiation with the other party, in part because it inevitably becomes more complex as you go. Having something to start with and iterate on is great. At the end, as long as it's a relatively simple matter, having a lawyer review it is probably going to be lots cheaper.
One thought I had for a future version -- why not let both parties access the document on the site and build it together? That's something I'd definitely pay for.
I also was very confused by the pipe, which renders exactly like an uppercase I for me. [EDIT: oh wait.. it is an I? either way...] Replacing with a hyphen or colon would be a quick fix. Additionally consider bolding the main text and/or greying the subtext.
On a positive note, I really like the way prior answers appear below the current question on the survey!
