White-collar crimes. No mandatory minimums on any of those.
Unity themselves have committed to that option (if you don't like our new future TOS, keep the old version and don't update) in writing (that was in their deleted github repo). So it seems extremely likely that they would lose in court.
The key words in the above are 'in court'. If you're an indie unhappy with an x*$.20 charge, chances are a lawsuit will not improve your day.
Not even that. More like "stop shouting and give us a few days, we'll change some things, we promise".
Let's look at what are they apologizing for: "for the confusion and angst ... [the policy we announced] caused". Not for the policy itself. Right, "we're sorry you got mad".
And what are they going to do about it? "making changes"
As far as corporate non-apologies go, this is definitely one of them.
It's also possible that they can't track new installs either.
FAQ:
How is Unity collecting the number of installs?
We leverage our own proprietary data model and will provide estimates of the number of times the runtime is distributed for a given project – this estimate will cover an invoice for all platforms.
Which is some kind of weird nebulous BS.
They're not saying their engine phones home and/or collects data from end-user devices. With the associated data protection nightmares.
Was Unity lying yesterday or are they lying today?
Yes and yes. It's not an either-or situation.
Control over individual updates was abandonded halfway through Windows 7, when they found out their algorithm for evaluating updates is exponential and has trouble finishing within 24 hours. So they moved to a linear sequence of all-or-nothing bundles and diffs.
They used to offer two tracks of those: everything and security-only. I don't think they do that anymore either.
You can uninstall individual updates after the fact. Not sure this actually works to any useful degree.
Is the explanation that this is unintended actually better than owning up to it? So some rogue employee can code this up, pass it through localization teams and then on to customers' computers without any oversight? I'm somehow not calmed by that.
“We are aware of these reports and have paused this notification while we investigate and take appropriate action to address this unintended behavior,” says Caitlin Roulston, director of communications
"""unintended"""?
How do you implement shit like this by mistake and push it out to be executed on people's computers by mistake?
"least buggiest"? Hmm, I know what "least buggy" would mean, not sure how to parse this one. On the bottom end of the buggiest bunch?
SO's attempts at bolting some kind of AI into their site have been a great source of entertainment:
Assuming it's real, the material takes about as much current as a wet noodle. So no giant magnets for you. Maybe some low-current application like sensors? (SQUID etc.)
authorities have stated that they do not expect Cecot’s prisoners to ever be released
Innocence, joining a gang inside, survival don't matter. It's an extermination camp barely disguised.
"Is this AI written?" is a difficult/impossible question. "Did you write this?" is not. Running the language model against a text and recording its "amount of surprise per token" for all the released GPT x.y variants is something they definitely can do.