BartjeD

I see people pay with cash in the Netherlands, but half the time it's with card or mobile.

The reality is that you measure and get information on all of these things to determine more accurately what odds you have. The act of measurement changes the probabilities, because if you do it right you will know more than you did before.

The exception I dare say are the UK and US.

The legal tradition in the west largely stems from the Roman Iius civile. Even the so called common law. And there too we see a role for civil officers to authenticate real estate transactions.

So... your statement is false

You can replay this in an LLM and ask how common people would interpret such a reply as you made. I believe you'll find it's exactly as my reply stated.

The real issue is that you are questioning an academic consensus. It's not you, not me, not the baker down the street. It's a very large, global, group of academics with many years or research to substantiate their claims.

If you want to investigate the topic it's on you to find the data and study it. I'd question your sanity if you actually did that. Because I'll wager you're not equipped to interpret the data, so you'd first have to train for the maths and science, before moving on to interpreting the data and deciding whether or not you agree with it.

For most people it makes more sense to respect the academic consensus. Even knowing that it can change if new discoveries are made. Because that's what science is about.

Has the consensus ever failed? The question belies the false belief that it shoudn't ever fail.

The entire idea of science is predicated on it failing and leading to new discoveries.

Hence it's on you to provide new data. That's science.

Sitting in an armchair questioning if science is accurate is exactly like questioning whether gravity exists. You know nothing either way, unless you measure it and provide data,

The reality is mixed. Many legal terms have fixed meanings. But many expressions don't, and could be simplified.

Students learn to write that way because their source material is like that. And because they want to appear knowledgeable.

Normal commercial purchase contracts don't need the added insurance that offers. And no one wants to pay for it.

Asking for data implies it's yet to be proven.... do you have data disproving the current academic consensus?

In al seriousness, Engineering is about verifying systems to make sure their lifespans and failure modes are known, up front.

This has a legal dimension and a practical one. Legally you can make people liable for unreliable systems. But you can also be liable for failure to maintain properly, or failure to warn about impending calamity. Because it's all documented and verified.

Practical you can live worry free in earthquake and flooding proof buildings, trusting in the diligence of Engineers, and maintenance workers, because they and others have liability imposed on them.

For software this is only the case in a few sectors. For buildings in all cases. Not comparable.

If you don't disclose the vulnerability then affected parties cannot start taking countermeasures, except out of sheer paranoia.

Disclosing a vulnerability is a way shift liability onto the end user. You didn't update? Then don't complain. Only rarely do disclosures lead to product liability. I don't remember this (liability) happening with Meltdown and Spectre either. So wouldn't assume this is AMD being secretive.

If you don't disclose the vulnerability then affected parties cannot start taking countermeasures, except out of sheer paranoia.

Disclosing a vulnerability is a way shift liability onto the end user. You didn't update? Then don't complain. Only rarely do disclosures lead to product liability. I don't remember this (liability) happening with Meltdown and Spectre either. So wouldn't assume this is AMD being secretive.

Ofcourse this evolves as the landscape changes. And it isn't always the case. But the comment is accurate.

It's good to work out. Perhaps it offsets any loss.

I get that it's upsetting and might contradict what you think.

At this stage we don't know for sure. It's something you might want to keep in mind. Especially if you take this drug without working out.

All the art in Beijing summer palace is fake. It got destroyed by these folk's. Same story all over China.

It happened without coordination and later on wasn't stopped by the people in management, either.

It was number-2 all the way up.

But I don't think it is quite so black and white in the world. Because the legal system is also a way to give feedback to companies. And it can stop them in their tracks.

I've read about sane defaults before, it used to be a best practice haha.

I can tell from experience there is a big difference in the air. In that area it smelled like exhaust and smog, while the center had no such thing.

When I reflect on it, I feel that the less affluent areas have been left out to dry / rot in the exhaust. While the upper class city center is now pristine.

Employees have a legal right to work from home, so far as is reasonable in their circumstances and their employer's. There is legislation and jurisprudence on that, which makes it a lot less soft than it at first appears. The boss can't just say 'no'.

I think it's just your little corner of the woods that isn't adopting it. Over here the trend is very clearly to move away from IPv4, except for legacy reasons.

A) In the Netherlands and Switzerland the articles of the law don't always mention if they allow deviation by agreement. In those cases the assumption is: No, unless the legislative process documented that it was intended to be. I haven't checked but I recall the same is true for France and Germany.

B) The refere-legislatif (pre-judicical question) first appears in the Eastern Roman Civil Law (Byzantium) where Emperors use it to guide the interpretation of their law. But nothing about Civil Law systems presuposses it. EU Law does use it. But courts in the Netherlands don't. Instead, they are required to adjudicate as best they can. And if they screw up, a higher court can be used for appeal.

C) Appeals, these also exist in Common Law and many other legal systems. This doesn't require elaboration.

Your example concerning drunk-driving is troubling, because that would usually be treated as a misdemeanor or a crime. Not as part of a Civil Code violation. You could claim damages under the Civil Code, but then you are asserting a violation of the 'Public Order' Code, which you then have to prove.

The 'Public Order' Code is itself subject to strict Human Rights codes from various sources. Both international as well as EU Charter of Rights. Which translate into specialized courts and stricter rules of evidence and defense. Guild by proximity to a crime is an example of a scenario that this prevents. Whereas the Civil Law can (and sometimes does) assume causation based on balance of probabilities, due to proximity and lack of counter statements refuting said probabilities.