Fellow VIC 20 starter! I recently dusted one off (from ebay) complete with a cassette tape player and the 8kb (from 3kb!) expander. I even wrote a little program on it. 10/10 by 1983 standards but was not that fun haha.

I have to ask …

Lol

At least @mgeist.bsky.social they took your commentary seriously! I think you were 1 of the 1st to highlight that Bill C-63 was bill in two parts, one relatively good and one hugely problematic.

My colleagues and I cited you in our piece on it! www.dlapiper.com/en-ca/insigh...

12/X Standard disclaimer: This is not legal advice, I'm not your lawyer, etc. Consult your own :)

If anyone finds these interesting, let me know and I'm happy to do more!

11/X So the next time you see a STQ, just remember: it's a silly Canadian anachronistic thing that is still required to ensure that the contest-runner doesn't go to jail. (More realistically, one of those provincial gaming monopolies/authorities will come knocking on your door.)

10/X What happens if STQ fails? Yikes, is that contest runner in a difficult position! They want the positive vibes of awarding a prize/winner, but someone just failed a math question. The legal answer is clearly to deny the prize: the person doesn't win until they correctly answer the STQ.

9/X That's why contest rules commonly require the skill-testing question (STQ) be something difficult that needs to be answered without a calculator and in a time-limited fashion. Because with enough time and with computational assistance, almost EVERY math question would not be skill-testing.

8/X So at least a 4-step, multi-digit math question is skill. We've seen contest-runners push those boundaries (1+1=?, A question about a 2024 contest very clearly resulting in the answer 2024 i.e. What is 2000 + 24) and, likely, cross back from skill to no skill.

7/X You may have seen a math "skill-testing question", often used. This is because a relatively (relatively... 80s) modern case held as skill:
1) multiply 228 times 21
2) add 10,824 to the answer from Step 1;
3) divide the answer from Step 2 by 12; and
4) subtract 1121 from the answer to Step 3.

6/X A whole (ancient) body of Canadian caselaw fights about what is/isn't skill-testing. For a flavour of how oddly historical they are, 2 cases from 1902/1958 establish that shooting a turkey from a particular distance IS NOT skill (50 yards in 5 shots), while a greater distance/less shots may be.

5/X If a Canadian contest has both a truly free entry alternative (i.e., competitor doesn't have to "pay money or other valuable consideration") AND a genuine skill component (i.e., it is a game of "mixed skill and chance", then it is NOT- illegal under this section of the Criminal Code.

4/X A second part of our Criminal Code says that games of "mixed chance and skill" are also illegal, but there's a catch! They are only illegal when the competitor has to pay money or other valuable consideration to enter the contest. So, clever reader, I think you know where this is going...

3/X Why do we usually want to avoid a contest of pure chance? Because our Criminal Code essentially renders games of chance illegal unless operated or managed by a province. It's pretty oblique wording, but the net is: it's a jailable no-no (later exceptions allow provinces to conduct/manage these).

2/X WHOLE THREADS potentially, but my fave: Most contests avoid illegality in Canada with a free entry alternative (nothing valuable given by the entrant), common to many US jurisdictions. But, uniquely Canadian is our SKILL-TESTING QUESTION requirement, to ensure the contest isn't PURE chance.

Im just glad that there will be a second movie in the rotation cuz my daughter has a Moana obsession (!)

I loved the first movie but 100+ times….

Tell the world, stop the war

It is absolute eugenic darwinism and its disgusting.