Yes, that is what gambling is.  Risking something of value for the possibility of receiving something of value (hopefully greater) in return.

By your logic every decision you make in life is gambling, everything you do has an element of chance and randomness. I’m talking about the legal definition of what gambling is, not what someone’s opinion of what gambling is. 

The logic that says what I said to you originally was telling you why loot boxes are unregulated by gambling standards. They aren’t regulated by gambling standards because they do not legally fall under the definition of gambling. Whether or not you think it is gambling doesn’t make it what the law says.

I don’t live in Belguim so I don’t know what their law says. FYI here’s the legal definition in the US:

There is no regulation because it doesn’t really fit the true definition of gambling because the things you can “win” have no real monetary value and can’t be sold.

Don’t you mean they are the worst of-fender???

There are also the little robots that look like the Apex packages hidden on the map that drop gold and purple stuff, depending on the color of the little robot. You typically find them on top of buildings or hidden in corners or on furniture of buildings.

“Free-range baby” is fantastic.  I bet you could get a thing going with the hipsters and vegans.

Technically, they do hit something because they are hitting the atmosphere with enough force that they burn up, but let’s split the difference and say he hits like a meteorite.

They do it on the lakes by me in Iowa too. To get the clock to stop, they wire it and use something that dissolves (I think aspirin maybe) to hold the wires together.  That way, when the car goes through, the aspirin gets wet and dissolves and the circuit loses the connection and the clock stops.  Took me years to…

They do that other places too? I’m from Iowa and they do it on the lakes by us too. They have been for as long as I can remember. It’s a raffle thing that you buy tickets for and all the proceeds go to charity. There is a webcam and everything. To record the time the car goes through the ice, there is a clock in the…

You are right, I believe Ben Stiller said himself that the movie was supposed to be a parody of itself.  It really is a pretty brilliant movie.

They pay Respawn to develop the game and trust that they are developing it well enough that EA will make their money back. You can demand your publisher keep their hands off a game, and a publisher can fund a game and keep it to that, it just doesn’t happen very often.

Respawn has already come out and basically said EA has almost nothing to do with Apex.  They made a statement recently saying that they basically came to EA with an idea, and told EA they needed to keep their hands off it.

If you have read my responses you would see that, yes I agree he should have just paid the guy, what I am saying is that they had an agreement, and Kucher seems to have paid him what they had initially agreed to.  When that wasn’t enough, Kucher offered him another $15000, still below what he pays his normal caddie,…

I guess I have read what Ortiz is saying is that the agreement was for $3000 and an unspecified amount of winnings. I get that a pro golfer coming to you and saying “I’ll give you $3000 and a cut of my winnings if I win anything” could easily be taken as “I’ll pay you $3000 and the normal 10% of my winnings”, but that…

The amount was unspecified, I get how someone could just think, “oh, he’ll just give me 10%” but if you don’t have that clarified, any amount more than the $3000 that Ortiz says he agreed to is “some percentage of any winnings”.  Again, Kucher probably should have just paid the guy and this wouldn’t even come up, but…

I didn’t see anything that said Ortiz is disputing that they had made that agreement. To be clear I did say IF that was their agreement he has no grounds to complain. 

Yes, we are in agreement that Kutcher pulled a dick move, what I’m arguing is that the caddie has no justification for demanding more money if he agreed to do the work for $4000 and was paid $5000. This really isn’t even a story, the guy agreed to be paid a set amount, was actually paid more than what he agreed to,…

Kind of, but if he still agreed to do it for $4,000 he doesn’t really have grounds to demand more. My point was that he entered into an agreement to work for $4,000, you can’t just demand more money after the job is done when you have already agreed upon the price.