I had always thought this is where the term “bug” came from, but the log says “First actual case of bug being found”, which to me implies misperforming routines were called bugs prior to the “bug” being found.

Exactly. But I think the farmer actually did want to agree and lock in the price of the flax.

Only reason they were looking for a way out was because flax had skyrocketed and they wanted to sell to someone else.

Three times prior they replied with “Looks good,” “Ok” and “Yup.”, and then delivered the flax per the contract. It was only when the price went up they wanted to say they were not agreeing to it.

In either case the judge was pretty specific that this was not a precedent for the thumbs up emoji, but just that in this particular case it sure looked like consent based on past actions.

Wow this article on this subject has the least info. And the judge did not rule that it is always the case that a thumbs up would be binding, just that the context in this case it was.

The other party sent over the contract with he text: “Please confirm flax contract.” They then responded with thumbs up.

3 times prior to this, this exact same exchange happened. In each of these times the farmer replied with “Looks good,” “Ok” and “Yup.”. After which in all 3 instances the farmer then delivered the flax.

In this particular case the farmer replied with thumbs up. Then after 3 months the price of flax skyrocketed. And of course the farmer now wants a better price.

In this case the three prior contracts being agreed to with only a “Looks good,” “Ok” and “Yup.” and then being delivered seem to point that a thumbs up is pretty much along those lines.

Oh here is a version of the article that has a little more detail:

https://fortune.com/2023/07/07/canadian-judge-rules-thumbs-up-emoji-binding-contract/

I don’t know what the answer is, but I hope it is something more environmentally friendly than burning cash on electricity. I wonder if there could be some way to prove time spent but not CPU.