ThrustVectoring

Friend, you were the one who assumed "common law or similar". This is ancient common law precedent from England.

Did that for pens while employed as a pizza delivery driver nearly two decades ago. Customers would regularly sign for a credit card receipt with my pen, hand back the signed receipt, receive pizza, and somewhere in the object-management process wind up still holding the pen. The cheapest pens were like 8 cents each at Costco, so it literally wasn't worth my time to try to make sure my pen made it back to me.

Under the law, the rightful owner of stolen property can demand its return. If it's currently installed in your phone, that's your problem, even if you bought it "fair and square" - that just gives you a claim on the merchant who sold you stolen goods.

The exception to this is currency: if you're fairly paid with stolen money, you get to keep the money, regardless of whether the rightful owner is able to proof that it was originally theirs and stolen.

People have a strong and well-founded attachment to nominal values in the economy. You pay your rent or mortgage with a fixed quantity of dollars, so as a salaried employee certain pay cuts are intolerable, so employers balance their falling nominal revenues with layoffs instead of pay cuts.

These nominal agreements are significantly less flexible than real-valued ones; people are much more able to buy fewer steak dinners when they're $20 instead of $15, and much less able to stay in their house when their paycheck is $1500 instead of $2000.

Every nominal asset that can be sold to take advantage of lower prices on goods and services is someone else's nominal liability that they have to cover with weakened earning power. Deflation is straight up bad compared to mild and predictable inflation, it's easy to fight off sure but it's definitely something to avoid.

Highway driving is currently at 1.5 deaths per 100 million miles driven, so "~3 * 10^-6" is roughly equal to driving 200 miles on the freeway.

You don't even need to run it as a tunnel the entire way through - Chesapeake Bay has vehicular traffic routed through a combination bridge/tunnel, using tunnels to span the two major shipping channels crossed by the complex.

Nuclear fission is relatively straightforward so long as you either don't know or don't care about the health risks of radiation. It's just a pile of spicy rocks at the end of the day.

Fusion, on the other hand, requires you to get center-of-sun temperatures and pressures going on to work properly. That usually requires either extremely difficult engineering processes or a fission bomb (and more precise engineering calculations but they're actually reasonably solvable).

> But I do have the impression that copyright is kept as long as it is not signed over.

The US has the "work for hire" concept - if an employee creates work as part of their regular duties, their employer is considered both the author and the copyright owner.

For example, if you have employees take photographs of finished products, using company devices, on company time, and as part of their assigned duties, there is essentially zero question that the copyright owner of those photographs is the employer, regardless of whether this is explicitly lined out in an employment agreement.

The employment agreement definitely helps in that it preempts most disputes over what the employer's expectations are, but it is by no means necessary.

https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ30.pdf

Unlikely to be legal - you aren't authorized to delete software in use on company computers (regardless of whether management currently knows it is in use), and the software you wrote is likely a "work for hire" done during work hours in the course of your duties (again, regardless of whether management currently knows about the software and how it gets used by front-line workers).

The correct way to handle this is to get ahold of the CTO or a relevant subordinate in their department, and inform them of the shadow-IT situation going on at the warehouse. Most risk-adverse IT executives would have a conniption at the idea that work policies are enacted by business logic code that zero employees understand and can modify.

The applicant pool is not randomly selected, though. The 6-10 randomly selected geniuses are likely all happily and productively employed elsewhere, there's a competitive filter against high-level talent that you have to also get through.

Yeah, there's two separate ways of thinking about law in general - mechanically about what the rules say, and politically about how the system ought to be influencing behavior. When the FTC or other prosecutorial/regulatory talks about charging people and alleging wrongdoing, they're making mechanical statements about how what they did violates the law. When they make decisions about who to investigate, charge, and/or fine, they're making political decisions about what constitutes wrongdoing.

You're over-emphasizing the methods by which these people are price-fixing, rather than the result. The result is a price higher than the market-clearing price that is low enough to find tenancy for all housing. Any scheme to generate excess profit by raising rent above this price is (or ought to be) illegal, whether it's colluding to do price fixing, using some algorithm to price-fix, or monopolizing the market.

The human visual system regularly fills in what it expects to see in between saccades and outside of focus points. Confabulating missing details is a feature, not a bug.

In economic terms, bond-buying and tax-paying are the exact same thing, real consumption forgone by current workers. IMO, the profligate deficit spending of the baby boomer generation's prime working years is a symptom of massive demand for government bonds rather than the cause of some moral failure by leadership.

Like, it is true that oversupplying government bonds creates some really nasty economic effects, but so does undersupply. The government budget is not a household budget, and it's simply not true that their debts can or should be paid back.

Each non-disabled token is also pure profit, they're not cashing them out in appreciable quantities to anyone.

why is this necessary when youtube channels have RSS feeds?

I haven't set it up yet, but youtube channels have RSS feeds so programmatically feeding a list of channels into a watch-later folder should be straightforward.

Randomness alone isn't creative. Creativity is the marriage of the improbable and the valuable. Without novel insight into the valuable outer reaches of concept-space, you're not going to generate creative outputs.

They're asking why nobody switch-hits every ball as a one-handed forehand, like baseball players have learned to do to mitigate sidedness issues.

This, uhhh, this seems like a good argument against using an absolute ranking system. Suppose you want to eat and have money. If you rank eating first, you'd be willing to pay a million dollars for a can of tuna. If you rank money first, you'd be willing to starve to death so long as someone offered you a single dollar.

How do you resolve a choice between poorly fulfilling a higher-ranked want and perfectly fulfilling a lower-ranked one?

Not talking about the physical book, that's old news. LLMs drive the price and time requirements of "writing" the book down below what one consumer would require. So you could theoretically generate a listing, wait until someone hits it, and then ask the LLM to write a book that hopefully vaguely resembles what you promised.

You don't even have to generate the book until after it's sold.

Part of the issue is print-on-demand and drop shipping. In the old days, you had to stock and distribute inventory as well as do large-batch printing runs in order to get books out at a price and delay acceptable to consumers. This is in short why publishers exist - to identify potential quality products and take on the financial risk of generating an inventory to sell.

The modern structure pioneered by Amazon removes all that. The actual cost for a seller to make a listing is apparently half a cent per month. After the first 100,000 listings, that is, and only on SKUs without a sale in the last year.

Of course the government is going to enforce only a fraction of the offenses it creates. This is nearly always the case, and is mostly irrelevant to a law's actual effectiveness. That is derived from a combination of targeting the highest-profile offenders and the law acting as a press release as to the government's enforcement priorities.

Like, imagine you're running a team developing an end-to-end encrypted application in Britain, and you're seeking funding. The potential investors are going to ask what your plan is to not get owned by this bill, you won't have a good answer outside of "hope they don't notice us", and they won't invest. This happens merely because the British government publicized the Online Safety Bill, and exactly zero enforcement effort was required to stifle the funding, development, and subsequent use of this hypothetical application.

Anyhow, the short of my point is that government laws have a ton of power to shape behavior outside of prosecuting people, and sensible risk-management shapes the behavior of non-government bureaucrats and decisionmakers.

It's installed by default on OSX, Ubuntu, and most non-windows operating systems.

This is a textbook use case for a Vim macro.

The country also had to pay the $1t in your example. The actual proper analysis is to measure the difference in consumer surplus between the different points on the supply-and-demand curve hit with versus without the additional production.

"Not enforceable at trial" isn't the same thing as "they aren't going to send your new employer a nastygram that leads to getting fired after legal does a risk/reward analysis and decides to fill your role with the next available candidate"