Right, got it. So the argument is basically: "Sure it's gambling and addictive as shit, we intentionally made it that way. It's just not that specific type of gambling that the law makes illegal."

a couple seconds with Google would have given you answers. Here's a meta study that is pretty clear: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fa...

So yes, consensus among people doing research into this area is that it's problematic and it's gambling.

I don't go to McDonalds so I don't have enough information to answer to the 2nd.

On the first two, IMHO: The "blind bags" are not gambling because at least the ones I know contain a given value of items (+/- a bit) you just don't know which ones. And in no case would you get an empty bad.

For CCG I wouldn't even claim that they aren't gambling. It's somewhere on the edge because what you get has a utility value - you can play a game with the cards. And rare cards are often better cards for the game as well. So while I'm sure some people buy the cards purely to trade them, there are a lot of people who buy them to play with them.

You can say the same thing about loot boxes. However, the people selling you the loot boxes and the people running the marketplace for them and the people running the game they can be used in are all the same people. That means your entire process is at the mercy of the party running the game. Which is basically the same thing for casinos, so I don't see why the virtual casino should be different.

How do you define gambling then?

I would argue that the payout does not have to be cash. If you and me play russian roulette, I'd argue that we gamble. We risk something and the outcome is determined by chance.

It's interesting to see people DEFEND loot boxes. What are you? Retarded?

Loot boxes are pure exploitation and are intentionally designed to your disadvantage and the advantage of the company. The only honest defense of them is to reveal what most of us suspect already: That they aren't really random, but run by carefully engineered algorithms to maximize the company profits, in which case they might dodge the label "gambling" and exchange it for "scam".

You can't make this up. People who came to the land a few generations ago and took it by force deport those who have been there since written history began for being "illegal immigrants".

In other words: "Your job here is done, bye bye." - so basically, you had a temp job without knowing it.

Should companies bw forced by whatever, unions, or anything else, to maintain employment numbers that does not make sense to them? why? compare to this: once you had your haircut and paid for it, should you be forced to pay the barber every day until you need your next haircut?

Because a company that spent billions building its headquarter, computing infrastructure and talent pool is going to move someplace else because of one silly law. Yeah, right. When only one of them (Apple) actually manufactures an operating system.

Of course church clocks existed for a long time, but as you said: They were as precise as the local priest felt it needed to be.

Though I think the clocks that ships used to navigate later on were the first actually precise and coordinated times, and they pre-date trains.

You put them on ships and send them to some backwater continent an ocean away.

Oh wait. We did that already.

It's much more than a slippery slope. It's an intentional trap. Politicians have been trying to remove anonymity from the Internet from basically the time their kids first told them about it. Nothing has been more consistent than these constant attempts, usually under the typical "protect the chiiiiildren" guise.

Mind you, the same type of people crying "protect the children" are the type of people who visited Epstein island.

Because that "one part of the USA" is the 4th largest economy in the world. Or the 5th or so depending on which statistics from which year you prefer, the point being: It's too large to ignore. Even it it's just a part of something else.

Yes, as soon as you are not local anymore, everything becomes much more difficult. Is it an urban legend or true that clocks in public became common with trains, because it was the first time that time between fairly distant places needed to be coordinated?

You are right that a lot, if not a majority of jobs need fixed schedules.

No, I don't propose a gradual shift. I think that would be even more confusing. I do think it would be easier to simply change the start and end times rather than changing the actual time. With school especially it should be possible to align it with the school holidays, so between spring and autumn holidays school starts at 8 and from autumn to spring holidays at 9.

But yes, I admit, if we want to cater to people's "I don't like it dark in winter and I also don't like it bright in summer" then DST might indeed be a shitty solution but less shitty than others.