ClarityJones

The question of signing generally arises with dueling forms, where there's no dispute that "a" 20-page contract was signed on June 4, 2017, and that this is page 20, with all of the signatures, but... What did that contract say in Paragraph G on Page 12?

Perhaps the bank only retained page 20, and is saying that they used the same master form for every mortgage and the master form says "this" on page 12.

Or one party discovers that other has misplaced their copy of the contract and then shows up with a copy that has advantageous wording on page 12.

Honestly, it would be great to swipe on filters of what I would look like with different hair-cuts.

You want this hair style that's longer than you currently have? It will take this many months and here are two intermediate styles you can do as it grows out.

It would be absolutely reckless for SpaceX to not blow up rockets. How could they credibly claim to know the limits and abilities of their spacecrafts if they did not test those limits to the breaking point?

I don't know about German law, but this sounds like a situation of mandatory joinder where Github and YouTube should have been indispensable parties.

There's no way to determine whether Uberspace's activity was illegal without involving the party who's rights are allegedly being violated or the alleged principal distributing the tool.

My understanding - which may be wrong - was that long-life bulbs used more electricity to operate and that the efficiency gains of a 1,000/hr bulb reduced the overall cost.

So, making up numbers, a 2,500 hour bulb may cost $5 to replace and would incur $20 of electricical charges for a total cost of $25 or 1 Cent/hr. Meanwhile, 1,000 hour bulbs would cost $10 ($4 * 2.5) while incurring $10 of electrical charges for a cost $20 or 0.8 Cent/hr... even factoring in the cost of having to replace the bulbs.

So, I skimmed the recent 4th Circuit opinion (copied below).

Ultimately the NSA won on the state secrets doctrine. However, as it relates to standing the gist is that Wikimedia only proved that the NSA had the capacity to copy their communications, but the NSA showed they had the technical capacity to perform the operations without copying Wikimedia's communications. I.e. Even though the NSA tapped the backbones, they could filter out what they did and didn't review / copy independently from Wikimedia's communications...

Is that true, IDK. I haven't reviewed the evidence.

Quote:

Both parties have focused their discussion of Wikimedia's standing on the three prongs necessary to establish the Wikimedia Allegation,[32] which were enumerated in the Fourth Circuit's remand order in this case. See Wikimedia Found., 857 F.3d at 210-11. The three prongs are: (A) Wikimedia's communications almost certainly traverse every international Internet backbone 601*601 link connecting the United States with the rest of the world; (B) the NSA conducts Upstream surveillance at one or more points along the Internet backbone; and (C) the NSA, for technical reasons, must be copying and reviewing all the text-based communications that travel across a given Internet backbone link upon which it conducts Upstream surveillance. Together, these three prongs would establish that the NSA has copied and collected some of Wikimedia's communications in the course of the NSA's Upstream surveillance program, thereby providing Wikimedia standing to sue here.

The sufficiency of the evidence with respect to each of these prongs is discussed in detail below. The summary judgment record contains specific facts which show no genuine dispute as to the veracity of the first two prongs of the Wikimedia Allegation. With respect to the third prong, however, the summary judgment factual record contains specific facts that establish, without a genuine dispute of material fact, that the NSA, in the course of Upstream surveillance, does not need to be copying any of Wikimedia's communications as a technological necessity. Thus, the summary judgment record does not contain the facts necessary for Wikimedia to establish standing at summary judgment via the Wikimedia Allegation.

Part of the purpose of standing it to prevent "friendly lawsuits." If _anyone_ can challenge a law simply because they claim to be opposed to the law, then people who support the law could establish favorable precedent by mounting a flawed challenge that's designed to fail.

Standing does not _fully_ prevent this. Sometimes a person may want to plead guilty to conduct that is not a crime, or intentionally lose and serve a few years in prison if the state has agreed to not prosecute them on charges that would land them several decades.

However, it's a somewhat useful ~"you have to have some skin in the game if you're going to participate in making the rules."

Yeah, I’m suspecting a merchant vessel that frequently docks in Russia.

These errors largely sound like obfuscation... like a potentially true narrative with the names and places changed:

- Instead of revealing the fishing vessel, he describes a vessel that it couldn't have been.

- Giving the real timing would expose the vessel, so he gives timing that wouldn't have worked as a placeholder.

- Too many people were involved, because only a subset were actually involved - or maybe even just an analogous group.

Hersh eliminates the intelligence value by obfuscating exactly who did what and how, but provides lay readers (to whom the specific details don't matter) a story that conveys a general sense of how the mission was achieved.

> It is illegal in most states to give legal advice if you are not licensed to practice law.

You also can't have a human in the next room feeding you lines... even if that person is an attorney.

However, a party / attorney certainly can bring in notes / a casebook / etc. You can usually bring in a laptop, with search functions, pdfs, etc. An AI that quickly presents relevant information, documents, caselaw, etc. would 100% be allowed. However, if they're sworn in to testify, these would usually be taken away, because testimony is supposed to be from personal knowledge / memory.

He never said it was a mistake. In acknowledging that hires were made on the basis of temporarily cheap money and a temporary opportunity, the CEO seems to be acknowledging that they never intended to maintain that level of staffing.

This is a common part of the boom-bust cycle of many corporate firms. They use cheap money and labor to reposition / grow / etc., then when the work is done and wages start increasing, they cut back on staffing and reap the profits of their new position with a skeleton crew.

The symbolism is important too. If the company is dedicated to reviving the canary, then that helps miners believe that the company also cares about their lives and will work to rescue them in case of a disaster.

If they don't care about the death of the canary in the coal mine...

If we frame it as a maneuver that's associated with / driven by a major liability, then that sort of begs the question.

However, generally, companies may spin brands off for reasons such as: https://www.finra.org/investors/insights/splitting-differenc...

Are these reasons sometimes convenient covers for what is really an attempt to avoid liability? Of course, and probably fairly often.

The maneuver can be pierced if the plaintiffs prove that the subsidiary was undercapitalized.

So, a non-corrupt judge may allow this if the maneuver is genuinely done for accounting / management / etc. reasons and the new subsidiary has sufficient capital to cover the liabilities.

A non-corrupt judge may also "allow" it if the plaintiffs never attempt to pierce the veil in the first place. Like a lizard casting off its tail, this may be enough to appease the lawyers representing the class. With the issue never getting to the judge, the judge never has enough information to disallow it.

> Of course a chargeback, the final legal method through which you have issues redressed, is a valid reason to deny you further access to a private company's platform.

I would completely disagree. It depends on whether the chargeback was justified. If a company illegally charges a user and the user merely declines to pay it, the subsequent blackballing (and damages associated with it) are damages of and resulting from the original crime / tort. It begins to smell like extortion.

These first couple aren't from the Fed directly, but: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/09/20/fed-inter...

> Higher rates ... are designed to slow the economy by dampening consumer demand.

> The Fed can’t do anything to boost chip manufacturing or build more houses, which would fix the supply side of the equation. So it has to focus on slowing down demand instead. It wants fewer people to buy new cars or put in bids for houses,

https://www.levyinstitute.org/publications/why-does-the-fed-...

https://fortune.com/2022/03/17/fed-slowdown-rates-economy-in...

Interpreting the Fed's own statements take a bit of critical reading since they're both open about it, but also aware that most of the public would have a different view if they heard and understood what was being said. So, their wording remains cautious: https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/cook2022113...

> When firms see rising output per hour, they have room to keep prices low. For consumer goods, this can help lower inflation.

Here the Fed demonstrates a preference that the value produced by increases in productivity shouldn't go to labor, but that their share of value should be reduced to keep prices low (aka a wealth transfer from labor to capital).

Then: https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/waller20221...

> I will begin with some comments on the overall outlook for economic growth and then try to explain how tighter monetary policy this year is intended to dampen demand and put downward pressure on inflation.

Here the Fed refers to wage growth and inflation as interchangeable, but even if you disregard that they state a goal of dampening demand. Perhaps the ends justify the means in terms, but it should be acknowledged that both supply and demand feed productivity. Dampening demand is tantamount to the Fed shutting down factories and keeping employees off of work. The demand for goods and services exists because they are needed inputs into other aspects of the economy. The goal is not to facilitate a productive economy, but to facilitate a stable one even if that means reducing productivity.

Wage Growth != Inflation. Wage Growth = Value / Share++ (i.e. workers obtain a larger share of value generated by their work) Inflation = Shares++ / Value (i.e. the same value is split into more shares / dollars)

Maximum employment != minimal unemployment. Maximum employment == maximum labor force participation + minimal unemployment.

The US economy is a great example, just look at the historical real GDP growth. The cost of goods, houses, cars, etc. have all increased over the past 200 years, but few would say that our standard of living has decreased.

Sure, if you only look at "runaway" inflation and decouple wages from real economic growth. However, the present growth in wages has been backed by increased productivity. The Fed has been open about the fact that it intends to slow productivity itself.

Fed has been open about the fact that it intends to slow productivity itself (pulling sources now...)

Phrased more cynically the goals of price stability and maximum employment may be phrased as: Suppress wages and prevent workers from attaining financial independence / retiring at a young age.

Inflation is an increase in the general price of goods and services in an economy. Ask yourself what is currently driving price increases?

In my estimation it's the Fed's own rate hikes. The price of mortgages is going up. The price of car loans is high. The production of consumer goods relies on leverage and the increased finance expenses are pushing up the price of milk, gas, clothes, etc.

Of course the rate of inflation is slowing, the Fed is slowing their hikes from the previously imposed a .75 raise to the present .5 hike.

> Does Taiwan recognize itself as a sovereign state separate from mainland China? No.

The Republic of China (Taiwan) is not going to say that China is separate from china. Their position is that Taiwan is the rightful ruler of mainland china (currently controlled by the communist party).

Thanks.

I don't think that's a contract. We need an offer and acceptance (and consideration). More broadly we also need adequate specificity to determine the essential terms.

Here there were two essential terms: 1) the author would write a poem for use in Minecraft, and 2) Minecraft would pay consideration.

Stepping through the rounds:

1. ... skip prior rounds ... 2. Minecraft demands that Julian accept Minecraft's first offer. [This is not an offer because it does not specify the essential term, consideration.] 3. Julian agrees to accept Minecraft's first offer. [This is also not an offer, because they still have not indicated what the consideration will be.] 4. Minecraft offers $20,0000 in exchange for the poem. [This is the first offer.] 5. Julian refuses to sign. [This is a rejection of the offer.]

> an agreed upon offer

Where do you see that? I went back and re-read the section and it still seems to say that the negotiations failed and no agreement was reached.

I don't personally know whether it's possible, but the NYT has reported that every year a couple of people die from leaving a running car in the garage:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/13/business/deadly-convenien...

If it is possible to do accidentally, then it's also possible to do on purpose.

With that said, I would expect more 28 false positives 12 years. Those very low numbers may indicate that - contrary to their reporting - it is not actually possible (barring weird circumstances).

When someone is believed to have "committed suicide" or "accidentally" left their car running in the garage, is it routine for investigators to audit the manufacturer's remote-start logs? Do those logs even exist?

Well, it’s safe to say I won’t be going to Harvard.