digitalPhonix

>> The license does not bind the original copyright owner, who can do anything with the code

> whether or not it's legal according to the license

The original author is not bound by any licence. Only the licensees are. The licence they chose to use by definition cannot bind them; they are issuing the licence.

(They are obviously bound by the licences of anything that they use, but that’s not what the person you’re replying to is talking about)

That's not double jeopardy then

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_jeopardy

The clause in the US constitution specifically has no time limits and it looks like it's the same for all the countries listed on wiki.

In many countries, it took multiple attempts to get gay marriage legalised. Having a double jeopardy type block for repeated attempts at passing laws would prevent social changes being captured in law.

Also it would be easy to weaponised by proposing something that doesn’t have enough support now so that it can never be passed in the future.

> This is more of an iPhone / iOS feature which uses the airpods as the microphone and audio output.

Right, so why can’t I connect my non-apple Bluetooth mic + audio output and get the same functionality?

Either it’s an airpods thing and it should work airpods + any host device; or it’s an iPhone thing and should work with any iphone + audio device

Well yes, that’s what laws are?

> By any objective measure

Number of sites using google analytics on my browsing session with my consent has gone down

Have you seen the 300 individual checkboxes you need to disable? Or the hoops that the advertising industry went through to claim that “Do-Not-Track” didn’t count for:

> In the context of the use of information society services, and notwithstanding Directive 2002/58/EC, the data subject may exercise his or her right to object by automated means using technical specifications.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02...

Article 4, Section 21.5

> It has done literally nothing to improve anything whatsoever, in any country

That’s because of malicious compliance from all the websites/advertisers. I guess that is partly the lawmakers’ fault for not pre-empting that; but much larger blame lies on the industry that refuses to grant user privacy.

As an example for a site that followed the intent of the law instead: https://github.blog/news-insights/company-news/updates-to-ou...

Github removed excess tracking so they didn’t need to show a cookie banner and that’s what GDPR’s intent was.

> Louisiana's secretary of state announced last week that officials identified 79 likely noncitizens who had voted in at least one election since the 1980s, after running nearly all of the state's 2.9 million registered voters through SAVE.

For scale: extrapolating (badly) to the whole US registered voting population (~175 million) = ~5,000 "likely noncitizens" who voted at least once since 1980.

I'm curious what the numbers are after they've confirmed the accuracy of the results (not just "likely noncitizens).

> subsonic-Mach 4

How is it subsonic and mach 4?

Because the battery -> mechanical energy process is basically lossless while the petrol -> mechanical energy process is lossy in a way that is largely insensitive to the power output.

ie. an EV that needs to produce 1kW might use 1.1kW from the battery and when it needs to produce 2kW it might draw 2.2kW (~2x) from the battery. So 10% increase in weight might result in a 10% reduction in range.

An ICE that needs 1kW mechanical energy will probably burn 10kW worth of petrol; when it needs 2kW of mechanical energy it’ll burn 11kW (<2x) of petrol. So a 10% increase in weight would result in a <10% reduction in range.

It makes a difference in aviation, but the petrol -> mechanical energy conversion of an ICE is so lossy that it makes barely any difference in a car.

My car's fuel efficiency barely changes when I go from just me in the car to 5 people in the car, but a EV's range will change substantially (I presume).

> I don't think I've seen a single example of socialized medicine that doesn't end up with long wait times for major surgeries or the government making health decisions for you

Your own dad just had one?

> My dad is on Medicare … [and had a good + cheap health outcome]

At this age, the “youngest to do X” competition feels really weird to me. It’s mostly a reflection of how much parents can get their kids to grind.

Even then, DB side aggregation and joins would be beneficial.

I’m asking specifically about “all data” unfiltered, un-aggregated, un-joined as the parent’s analysis was on.

This is the same developer working on the same project for the comparison so I don’t think it needs to be measured?

What sort of application is regularly doing a query for “all data”?

This was in response to

> So you basically become an indentured servant, always afraid Da Bossman will fire you [...]

So it’s kind of hard to get a job before getting fired if the firing is a perpetual threat.

> this visa designed for workers in high demand

No, it’s designed for people with “theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge”. Nothing about demand. If there was one person in the world who could frombulate widgets and only one employer in the US who needed to frombulate widgets, that person would be suitable for an H1B (subject to all it’s other restrictions).

That person would not be able to find another job quickly.

Makes sense! Companies sell data and their valuations are based on their ability to collect data so it feels like a pretty small leap to treating data as a financial asset.

> Even if there are MEPs and parties in the EP that support what I want, there is no such entity in my country so I can vote for someone else who is against my opinions, or just not vote (and help the biggest party).

Does that mean there’s the potential to form a party around your views?

(Not saying it’s a practical solution for you, but that the system probably would expect a new view to voice itself)

> We don’t believe in work-life balance—building the future of software engineering is a mission we all care so deeply about that we couldn’t possibly separate the two

What did I just read? How can you think/say/write that in a public email?

> Don't forget the USPS bans competitors from being cheaper than itself

That’s a disingenuous take. USPS legally cannot be undercut on certain types of postal services but in exchange they must serve EVERY permanent address without price discrimination.

No private company has to do that, nor would any sane profit maximising company want to.

> This isn’t going to stop it, but perfect shouldn’t be the enemy of better.

There are less "causes" that have the ability to fund a $300k bribe so even with that argument, we're still better off. (And it costs those causes more, bigger paper trails etc.)

If you pay them 170k salary, then a 50k donation/bribe/dinner is very lucrative.

If you pay them $1M salary, then a 50k donation/bribe/dinner is less convincing.

This isn’t going to stop it, but perfect shouldn’t be the enemy of better.

Summary judgement and dismissal are two different things.

Motion for summary judgement will only be entertained if both sides agree that there are no material facts in dispute (not true in this case). Also won’t be entertained if either side requests a jury trial (not sure about this case).

Motion to dismiss will only be entertained only for very specific reasons. They are basically all procedural or they require the judge to assume the worst case for all arguments put forward from the moving party (an extremely high bar to clear).

In both cases, a denied motion doesn’t mean much about the likelihood of success of either party.

That’s the point. They’re making money from side channels.

The idea is that if you pay them $1M, they won’t do their side channel earnings (and therefore reduce their potential conflicts of interest)

The settlement happened before trial; the court didn’t feel any way.

> A universal counterargument that works on any data

How? My statement could not be correct if the data was instead: BME jurors vote guilty 73% of the time against White defendants, but only 24% of the time against BME defendants; and White jurors vote guilty 39% of the time against White defendants and 52% (instead of the cited 32%) against BME defendants.

Anything that is statistically visible?

I’m not making a value judgement; I was just pointing out other explanations of the statistics.

The sentence isn’t relevant to the jury bias discussion (unless the jury is involved in sentencing in the UK?)

> We also have to ask - if the biases in that study were flipped, if White jurors were far more likely to convict BME defendants, and pardon White defendants, and BME jurors were the more even-handed ones, would this not be trumpeted as conclusive evidence of racism?

Yes, but why is this relevant? That’s not the case in the statistics you cited.

My comment was pointing out that there are multiple possible (probably simultaneous) causes for the jury statistics.