She refused to attend court in the UK. After a lot of pressure she reluctantly agreed to appear via video link. She was sentenced in absence by the UK court to eight months in prison, suspended for 12 months. The UK court had no choice but to suspend her sentence as her lawyers made it clear she would never travel to the UK to serve time.
Meanwhile the Wikipedia entry makes zero mention of any attempts by the US justice system to prosecute her. There was an attempt at a civil lawsuit by the Dunn family in the US, but no sign of a criminal lawsuit.
It seems you don't understand the difference between a conviction and serving a sentence. She was convicted, but has not served any time. Your own link confirms that she was convicted.
The equivalent crime in the U.S. is "vehicular homicide" which is a state-level crime. The general sentence for that in the U.S. is usually a suspended sentence of 1 year or less, unless substance abuse or extreme negligence was involved, so she's effectively serving the same sentence here as she would in the U.S., i.e., none. (Yes, the U.S. is very lenient about this.) That's why the U.S. won't extradite her. Over here, she wouldn't have served any time for what she did, and the U.S. generally won't extradite citizens to countries where the punishment for the crime is significantly in excess of what it would be in the U.S. This usually works against the U.S., as many countries (including the U.K.) frequently won't extradite to the U.S. because our punishments are harsher.
If she ever travels to a state with an extradition treaty with the U.K. that also has a vehicular homicide equivalent, she can be extradited to the U.K. to serve actual time. The U.K. has one of the largest extradition treaty networks, so basically she's prohibited from traveling outside the U.S.
But you know, keep ranting about the laws without understanding how they work. It will serve you well in life.
I mean, putting your penis in someone who didn't agree is rape. The fact that you use threats instead of using violence doesn't really change what it is.
>Tempest Rising made more in profits than Marathon
Choosing the biggest flop as your benchmark is a very poor argument. If you lose half as much money as Marathon, you're technically twice as good, but it's still a flop and investors and publishers want successes, not half flops.
Marathon existing does not justify the investments into new RTS games. Quite the contrary. Marathon got hundreds of millions in cash because the shooter genre was making billions (at the time) so for them it was worth the gamble even if they lost. But the RTS genre is not making nearly enough money to justify Marathon levels of gambling on new IPs.
Quite the contrary. Marathon got hundreds of millions in cash because the shooter genre was making billions (at the time) so for them it was worth the gamble even if they lost.
Two shooters were making billions at the time Marathon began pre-production (Fortnite and Destiny). Only two other live-service AAA shooters have made back their budgets (Apex Legends and The Division). Most live-action shooters generated huge losses; even Destiny wasn't doing great anymore by the time Sony acquired Bungie. Sony itself had a horrendous track record with live-service games (of any genre). Other than Final Fantasy Online they have no profitable live-service games developed internally (Destiny and Helldivers are both acquisitions).
But the RTS genre is not making nearly enough money to justify Marathon levels of gambling on new IPs.
We agree on the first half of that statement, but (a) RTS games don't need Marathon levels of gambling to be successful and (b) live-service shooters also aren't worth the gamble of Marathon levels of spending. Tempest Rising cost less than $10 million to develop, which is less than 1/25th of what Marathon cost. Starcraft 2, the most expensive RTS of all time, cost about $150 million (in today's dollars) and made that back in its first month and made at least $240 million in revenue before going free-to-play. COH3 cost somewhere between $25m and $50m, and earned approximately $50m in sales but also received significant tax incentives in Canada, for a modest profit. On the AA front, Iron Harvest cost approximately $5 million and grossed $15m ($10m going to the studio), for a 100% profit. Similarly, Zerospace has grossed over $5 million on a $2.5m budget.
Meanwhile, Fortnite, Destiny, Marathon, and Apex Legend revenues have all been trending downhill for several years. All of the studios behind these games have had sizable layoffs. Sony has lost more on Marathon alone than every AA and AAA RTS game's development budget in the last decade. To put it bluntly: the era of the live-service shooter is almost as dead as the RTS era. Fortnite is the only thing keeping the genre alive.
Objectively speaking, if the goal is to make a profit, RTSs are a lower risk than shooters. If the goal is to lose money, make a live-action shooter.
>Meanwhile, Fortnite, Destiny, Marathon, and Apex Legend revenues have all been trending downhill for several years.
Other games having done bad is not proof that your unique RTS will do good. That's my argument.
> If the goal is to lose money, make a live-action shooter.
When your examples that lost money got the green light to start development, the shooter market was very different which is why they got all that money to begin with. But then you take 5-7 years to ship, and by that time the market has changed, so they lost the gamble but that doesn't mean that at the time it was a bad business decision.
Meanwhile new RTS is known for the start it won't make any money since the young players are captured by MOBAs and boomers still play the OGs. That's also my argument.
>Objectively speaking, if the goal is to make a profit, RTSs are a lower risk than shooters.
Feel free to put your money where your mouth is. THere's some indie RTS games out there who probably need some money.
hen your examples that lost money got the green light to start development, the shooter market was very different which is why they got all that money to begin with.
No, it wasn't. You are just ignoring the dates. When Marathon got the green light, the shooter industry was already a feast-or-famine niche, with most entrants starving to death.
Meanwhile new RTS is known for the start it won't make any money since the young players are captured by MOBAs and boomers still play the OGs. That's also my argument.
Which is false. Almost every AA and AAA RTS in the last decade has made a profit. My point is that they don't make much of a profit, but a small profit is better than a huge loss.
Feel free to put your money where your mouth is. THere's some indie RTS games out there who probably need some money.
I probably already have purchased them.
By the way, I used to work in the video game industry, so my knowledge is firsthand.
An RTS game would generate lower revenue but higher profits. Low risk but low reward.
A shooter is a high risk high-reward endeavor. The track record for shooters for the past 5 years is actually much worse than it has been for RTS games, but the ceiling for success is much higher. In 2026 alone, several AAA shooters have failed in the market. Most of the shooters released in the past 2 years have failed to survive. The few that succeeded made a lot of money.
Companies that plan to go public don't push back their IPO dates if things are going well. It's a universal sign that the finances aren't in order when a company pushes back its IPO multiple times.
OpenAI and Anthropic are barely profitable on a "unit" basis when ignoring the costs of marketing and other COSS expenses. They're definitely not profitable on an EBITDA or GAAP basis or they'd already have IPO'd.
Musk displayed uncommonly detailed knowledge of the Southeast Asian child sex trade in the aftermath of the Thai Cave Crisis. It's not a big stretch to allowing CSAM on his own social media network.
Your link shows that the progressives were in favor of the cameras, but the moderates voted it down because a study showed no change in police behavior so it wasn't a critical need when they were facing a budget shortfall.
LLMs have been making so many mistakes that the big firms have slowed or even paused their LLM spend. And that was before CA passed a law relating legal AI use.
2) She was convicted by the way....
3) and our boys died in yours.
reply