Twitter is being sued for letting Saudi spies inside the company

The repeating k scale is better than m, b, t, etc because it still preserves a sense of scale. 2m does not look 1/1000000th the size of 2t. 2kk does look a lot smaller than 2kkkk. You can also still easily convert to real number by substituting each k with 3 0s.

And lastly, I don't know the letters going all the way up to 10^47th. That's nearly enough to wrap the alphabet twice, and it's not even that high for that style of game.

The scale is fine, it's just the letter that's unfortunate. M is the Roman Numeral for 1,000; they could just use that. The worst thing I can associate with any number of M's is someone enjoying their food entirely too much once you hit like 7 of them.

>The Year 2000 problem, also known as the Y2K problem, Millennium bug, Y2K bug, Y2K glitch or Y2K error,

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2000_problem

https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/39370/what-does-k-me...

The espionage is something Twitter was unaware of, as was the status of the spies at Twitter. Nobody is saying that Twitter committed espionage. But if they knew that the employees were doing or enabling something severely shady (without knowing specifics) in a way that they should have investigated or mitigated more than they did, but chose not to investigate or mitigate for an inappropriate reason like wanting good commercial outcomes from Saudi Arabia, they're choosing to be negligent in stopping the thing from happening. This is easily described in a press statement as complicity in something, even if they didn't know the something is espionage. In other words they negligently facilitated a bad thing that to their surprise turned out to be espionage.

So if I understand how this quote fits into the allegations: according to the plaintiff, the plaintiff was a victim of the espionage by the spies and not by Twitter, but Twitter's negligence enabled the espionage and they should have known something wrong was facilitated by their choices, therefore Twitter indirectly contributed to the espionage against plaintiff without having committed espionage themselves. Since Twitter made the situation worse and met the bar of negligence regardless of knowing that the specifics involved espionage, they allegedly should be liable. (I am not citing laws here because, again, I have not read the complaint and don't know the specific relevant laws.)

So, yes, it's based on the espionage incident, and yes Twitter was probably a victim of the espionage as well. But the plaintiff's argument doesn't depend on Twitter's status as victim of the espionage.

I've already stayed up far later than I should tonight to reply to lots of rapid-fire text from you, so this is my last one for now and hopefully for this subthread at all. Good night and be well.

Absent a contract, there is, and even with a contract there are limits.

> Your bank does it all the time.

Within a contractual relation and governed by the contract, sure. But that's not what you are talking about.

> It does not make a mockery of the justice system.

Outside of the bounds of contract, it would, as it would amount to private parties making and adjudicating public law.

> If a failed frivolous lawsuit against Twitter automatically gave Twitter a claim on the plaintiff's assets, that would in fact not violate every tenet of the western justice system,

Yes, it would. Now, if merely a failed lawsuit did, it might not, as the failure itself is the conclusion of an adjudication, leaving no private determination to be made.

> It is a system that has obtained elsewhere and that people frequently advocate for.

No, its not, nor is it Twitter assessing a penalty. Loser pays is civil lawsuits is a thing, but it involves the court, not the offended party, assessing the penalty.

Loser pays for frivolous lawsuits only (but not all failed lawsuits) is also a thing, and is common in US jurisdictions, but requires a separate court determination that the claim was frivolous as well as the court assessing damages.