PepperdineG

He has to tell the Ukrainians that he's using their data for chats with Putin:

"We don’t knowingly sell your personal information, but we still have to tell you what we collect from you and how we use it."

https://www.starlink.com/legal/documents/DOC-1000-41799-67?r...

Location data is specifically covered and Musk was not using the location data for 'goods and services' but instead in violation of privacy rights was using this information for geopolitics instead:

"Location Data (not precise geolocation), which includes your general location in order to provide you with the appropriate goods and services."

Only if they're from Australia or New Zealand

Not directly related to the article itself, but many years ago early in my career I worked at the Cheesecake Factory HQ as a temp and all the executives were very nice to me. It surprised me how well I was treated, like they weren't being nice to me in an attempt to hire me permanently, but that just seemed to be who they were.

The investment bankers lost money even before the transaction completed. Interest rates rose while Musk dawdled and delayed buying Twitter, so the debt lost value (this is the same issue that drove some banks into bankruptcy is the debt they owned - bonds - devalued as interest rates rose). Ordinarily what the investment banks do is sell the debt and then enter into other deals, but with the Twitter deal they either have to take a bath and sell the debt at a loss or keep their money tied up as the debt gets paid off.

>Octopuses are very much a water-only type of organism.

They're not though. Octopi generally don't like being out of water, but they're capable of traveling on land short distances and in fact the Abdopus Aculeatus octopus regularly goes on land by choice in order to hunt crabs in different tidepools. Sir David Attenborough discusses the octopus here, which this octopus was one of the animals featured in The Hunt documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebeNeQFUMa0

>You can, today, buy any manner of uncertified experimental aircraft and fly them in general aviation.

No you can't. Experimental aircraft have to get certified by the FAA.

>If every innovator listened to expert advice to stop, we’d have a lot less new things in the world.

However, for something to be useful you have to prove it. Rush could have contributed if he used his VC money to rigorously establish how many deep sea dives a carbon fiber submersible could make and concomitant with that whether carbon fiber was cheaper than titanium. Rush seemed to object to serious scientific validation but instead did minimal testing. Despite taking paying customers we don't really know anything more about carbon fiber submersibles that we didn't already know before OceanGate came along selling their undersea tours. Maybe scientifically you'd have to replace the carbon fiber hull after 10 deep sea dives to maintain a safe operating environment and maybe that would be more economical than titanium hulls, but seems like OceanGate wasn't even looking for such data. It's not like the hull rating groups were unwilling to work with him on carbon fiber, but he instead refused to work with them.

>Why does that matter?

$$$

>What makes them tourists and not explorers?

Paying $250K for a ticket. If I buy Carnival cruise trip, does that make me an explorer?

The issue seems to be hull integrity, namely being able to inspect the hull before it's failing in order to detect issues without risking anyone's life. The only thing they could do with a carbon fiber hill is use an acoustic hull monitoring that only told you that the hull was in the process of failing - so potentially getting no real warning at all. It does you no good finding out your hull is going to implode in 10 seconds when it will take you an hour to get to safety. This is what the ex-OG employee got fired over because he made a stink about how the carbon fiber hull was unsafe for this reason.

>Just how instant is that death?

Similar to the Arbogast in The Expanse, but even greater disassembly.

No, it doesn't as it would depend on the root cause of the implosion, like whether or not it crashed hitting the bottom then imploded or imploded partially descended from it's target depth. Slamming into the ocean floor would point to other things than the structure itself being the root cause.

Actually the wireless controller points to a bigger problem like, I think the underlying reason for using a wireless controller may have been because the computers were inaccessible when the craft was under way. It's not so much the device itself, but if there was a need to use a wireless device that would point to a design flaw.

>How can you demand monetary compensation for working on an entirely voluntarily basis?

It's actually quite easy. There's much ink regarding this issue as this has come up regarding Internships and the like, so is nothing new. As a new user I don't know what I can link to off-site, but there's for instance specific rules in California for what is allowable for unpaid internships and if that's not met, those volunteer interns can file successful unpaid wage claims.

>Reddit is a privately owned business that moderators access as public users under agreement by a terms of service document.

There isn't exactly a bright line in this regard as what's to be considered paid work as multifactor tests of one kind or another are used, but Reddit being a for-profit business (versus being a non-profit or government entity) has the least level of protection against subsequent claims for unpaid wages from volunteers and FLSA rights cannot be waived. In other words with wage claims regarding volunteer work, being a for-profit corporation is a negative not a positive as that works against an entity.

>There's a youtube guy who goes around and landscapes people's yards for free. He does good work; it's a valuable service. But if he later returned to the house and demanded payment he wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

What you are describing doesn't sound free though. It sounds like in consideration for media and film rights - the compensation - the property owners get a service. It's like Extreme Home Makeover was done for 'free' for homeowners but was not remotely free in that was a broadcast cable show that people assigned certain rights to in consideration for 'free' work.

>That would be the same leg that the Reddit mods are missing.

There isn't exactly a bright line as to when someone should be considered a paid employee or not, but just with your own example, if that 'YouTube guy' was filming and profiting off the videos he made without releases from the homeowners he himself could be sued where it would be that he could owe the property owners, which is not a remotely applicable situation to Reddit moderators. If film, TV, commercials, etc are done on someone's property that's a whole different thing from employment law.

>But I also sort of like the "aristocracy" term for mods. I've found roughly 50% of time I hit the front-page my posts are taken down by a mod for ulterior reasons. It can be infuriating. So I think some pushback might be warranted.

However, wouldn't that be on Reddit too? Reddit made the conscious choice to have unpaid non-employee moderators doing the frontline grunt work. Reddit could for instance have paid, trained employee mods with a standard of conduct where there would be consistency in what to expect on a Reddit sub. If some company cheaps out and looks toward getting free labor notwithstanding they're for-profit, it's not really the free labor's fault if they're not good, there's an inconsistent work product, etc as you get what you pay for, so if some company isn't even paying at all, well that's on the company for doing that...

It could be made optional but not required where you'd have a choice of either Category View or Feed View.

>reddit moderators have an unbelievably inflated sense of their worth

If moderators were inconsequential Reddit wouldn't be trying to hire and fire them.

>I assure you, there is a line around the block of people clamoring to become mods.

The willingness of others to do the same work doesn't make what someone does inconsequential. Would you say an NBA player is inconsequential because you could find a million people who would like to play in the NBA? Obviously being a Redditor moderator and being an NBA player are two different things but by how you are valuing based on willingness to replace, an NBA player would be more inconsequential than a Reddit moderator.

>Mods don't work for Reddit. They volunteer for Reddit moderation. Much like you can volunteer to be the leader of the DND club at a local hobby shop. They are not an employee.

DND has no control over people doing DND at a local hobby shop, but if Reddit gets directly involved in hiring and firing and other such management of free labor then it is setting up to be viewed as an employer. There are many differences between an unaffiliated 3rd party club and direct corporate involvement in personnel management where the more Reddit tries to manage its free labor, the more it runs the risk of running afoul of FLSA. Under labor law there is a difference in working for free for a non-profit, government, etc versus a for-profit entity where they are not the same when it comes to providing free labor and FLSA rights cannot be waived away.

>Saying "there is a decision by Reddit that I don't agree with, so I am going to take my entire community hostage in my fight against it" is definitely a sign that the mod needs to be replaced by someone more suitable for the role.

Yet I'm not hearing Reddit talk about hiring professional moderators

>Mods should be servant to their community

Why? They're not working for a charity. If Reddit expects free servants, there's regulations on things like internships, which Reddit doesn't appear to be remotely in compliance with. Servants generally get paid when working at for-profit companies or are otherwise subject to specific labor laws for things like internships. How many IPO shares are Reddit's servants getting?

>But taking a subreddit private decease of this is basically saying: "I'd rather have no community, rather than have a vibrant community with someone else in charge". It's a clear sign you should be removed from power ASAP.

Yet there is a long history of labor strikes. Reddit could find itself facing a class action lawsuit by ex-moderators over unpaid wages. The more Reddit gets itself involved in managing free labor, the more it exposes itself to liability.

It's not that simple, like to get the content you want so that it's just Q&A in a congenial fashion that takes moderation, like there's extensive rules here and elsewhere rather than it just being some unmoderated free-for-all. Moderators keep things on topic and civil, like certainly you want Reddit moderators to remove comments that are insulting others, threadjacking, etc?

Yes, in fact the most successful social media companies do just that. Reddit doesn't seem to be aligning its interests with the interest of power users unlike other social media companies. Reddit is really putting itself in a position of getting what it pays for, which it doesn't pay for moderators while at the same time is taking their tools away and also seems to be insulting them too. Treating major contributors as slaves hasn't exactly been shown to be the key to social media riches but the alternative has. Different solutions work for different companies, but one way or the other you have to align your interests with your users - especially power users - or else you'll just limp along, which this would seem especially true for social media companies.