eadler

"Right to work" is an anti union provision and has nothing to with being fired for cause or not.

All ABET accredited programs are required to include ethics and have been required to do so for over 15 years.

We explicitly learned about voht IEEE and ACM code of ethics for example (though this was not the only thing we discussed) . We were even tested on the difference. I'm always confused when people don't even get the baseline ethics training.

this is a fun paper

Rotton, J., & Kelly, I. W. (1985). Much ado about the full moon: A meta-analysis of lunar-lunacy research. Psychological Bulletin, 97(2), 286–306. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.97.2.286

Although this meta-analysis uncovered a few statistically significant relations between phases of the moon and behavior, it cannot be concluded that people behave any more (or less) strangely during one phase of the moon than another.

Unfortunately, the lunar hypothesis is so general that it can handle any result. It is not enough to show that lunacy is more likely to occur during full phases of the moon than other phases, as folklore and superstition suggest.

Adopting a more limited but common view of lunar influences, one must conclude that evidence for the lunar hypothesis fails to pass three crucial tests. The first and most important is replicability. For every study that has recorded more lunacy when the moon is full, another has recorded less. A second test, which should be regarded as a substitute for replicability, is statistical significance. Even when a large number of results are combined, one cannot reject the null hypothesis of no relation between phases of the moon and behavior at conventional levels of significance. A third and closely related test is predictability. Given the task of predicting people's behavior, knowingthe moon's phase reduces our uncertainty by less than 1%.

Taking a cue from this review's title, some may conclude that all we have written is "much ado about nothing." Because the topic borders on the paranormal, it is easy to dismiss lunar-lunacy research as ridiculous (Levy, 1975) and unworthy of serious consideration. However, psychologists need to take the topic seriously because, if for no other reason, so many people believe that their behavior is influenced by the moon. For example, Angus (1973) found that 74% of the nurses working in one psychiatric setting believed that the moon affects mental illness.

By "the new X community notes system" do you mean the same one that existed and was entirely developed before Elon bought Twitter?

ha! makes sense.

I know who Ian Goldberg is, but didn't associate them with n@ai.

Reminds me of n@ai ﹣ Goes to someone named Ian.

    ∴dig ai MX
    
    ; <<>> DiG 9.10.6 <<>> ai MX
    ;; global options: +cmd
    ;; Got answer:
    ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 40166
    ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 1
    
    ;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION:
    ; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 1232
    ;; QUESTION SECTION:
    ;ai.    IN MX
    
    ;; ANSWER SECTION:
    ai.   3600 IN MX 10 mail.offshore.ai.
    
    ;; Query time: 5 msec
    ;; SERVER: 192.168.1.1#53(192.168.1.1)
    ;; WHEN: Sun Jul 07 17:19:47 PDT 2024
    ;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 63

pre-dispute arbitration agreements is still worse for consumers in almost every possible way: https://arbitrationinformation.org/docs/problems/

The standard is "manifest disregard of the law" - which, roughly speaking, means the arbitrator “understood and correctly stated the law but proceeded to ignore it.”

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Bobker, 636 F. Supp. 444 (S.D.N.Y. 1986)

There is no regulation of arbitration services.

> As I recall, most arbitration has immediate costs to even begin a claim.

The cost to begin arbitration is roughly the same as it is to begin a court case. Some states require the employer to cover costs. In addition some agreements offer to cover them as cover for the unfairness.

Some additional information and sources:

* https://arbitrationinformation.org/docs/problems/#cost

* https://arbitrationinformation.org/docs/problems/#fees--cost...

This post gives some history and context: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39474629

I don't think it's ever been on House.

Don't recall it from memory or find it on a quick Google search.

Posisble I'm wrong though.

https://arbitrationinformation.org/docs/problems/#mass-arbit... has some details.

I also need to some detail about how companies are trying to enforce MDL-like bellwether and mass-arbitration rules in order to further reduce costs and chance of success.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly and willfully ignored the plain meaning of the statutes, congressional intent in writing the FAA, as well the standard rules of statutory interpretation effectively rewriting Title 9 into something it was never intended.

At this point fixing it requires congressional action.

See https://arbitrationinformation.org/docs/problems/ and https://arbitrationinformation.org/docs/solutions/ for my complete writeup.

I wrote this to explain the problem

https://arbitrationinformation.org/docs/problems/

Amusingly bluesky has the same style of (abusive) forced arbitration clause.

It is utterly bullshit.

It is generally best to assume that anything the The U.S. Chamber of Commerce supports is harmful to employees. If it isn't, it would be supported by other more reputable organisations too.

The problem is never arbitration. The problem is mandatory pre-dispute arbitration agreements which have, after considerable research, shown to be a negative for consumers. If it were really better you could always select arbitration as a part of the ADR process during during a standard Civil suit.

This is also an area I care deeply about. And have read north of 2000 pages of cases, analysis, and position papers on the topic.

I also have a list of about 90 more documents to read. Slow but steady progress.

I wrote that page after reading every one of those sources. In full. Including all cited supreme court cases. I actually initially felt that mandatory arbitration was fine and somewhat pro consumer. I changed my mind as a direct result of the research.

To the extent possible id like to strongman arbitration but need to find sources.

Do you have a source for that?

I'd like to read it and add it to this list: https://arbitrationinformation.org/docs/references/

Time delay is covered in the "How do PID controllers work?" section right after "A simple controller"

What would be the cause of action?

Which statute authorizes fee shifting for attorneys fees?

It can happen any time there is a mix shift in the underlying quantity of the subgroups. It's just that random changes in quantities are not likely to be studied or reported. It's easy to generate manually though.

What makes you believe that to be the case?

I can't find anything here [0][1] which implies that embassies are foreign soil. I believe, for example, that if, hypothetically, a woman were to give birth in a US embassy they would not become a US citizen.

[0] https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventio...

[1] https://fam.state.gov/FAM/08FAM/08FAM030101.html#M301_1_3

I want to reiterate that I'm only against mandatory arbitration agreements. I'm not opposed to fairly negotiated arbitration agreements or a post-dispute decision to use arbitration. One thing I can do on the website is to make it more clear the scope of the problem.

> I'll restrict my arguments to commercial and consumer mandatory arbitration agreements. Those are the ones I'm familiar with.

This is definitely the area that has the strongest arguments in favour of arbitration (even mandatory pre-dispute). I'll have more to say later

> Every major arbitration venue has strict rules on who is qualified to arbitrate.

For example AAA and JAMS (which are the better known and more respected ones) do have standards. However, in virtually every study conducted they demonstrate both theoretical (arbiters saying that they are aware of who pays them) and actual bias (looking at the outcomes themselves).

> And the cost, speed and access is definitely better than litigation. (Delaying a case and bleeding out your opponent are separate. The capacity for both is much higher in litigation.)

This is only partly true. For example a company can spend similar resources to avoid arbitration in the first place. Also don't forget the mandatory "pre-dispute" negotiations that require you to appear or deep limitations on what's allowed (see https://gopro.com/en/us/legal/terms#dispute for one of the more egregious ones).

If the companies act in good faith and come to the table, and the disputed amounts are low enough that a lawyer doesn't need to be involved, this is probably cheaper and better.

> That said, I'm massively in favour of arbitration reform. For consumer--and commercial agreements where there is a material disparity in size between the parties--there should be a standard set of terms, written in plain English, which drafters may use. Step outside those, and the standard for judicial review (and state regulation) is lowered. If a sufficient number of arbitration claims are similar, they should be allowed to petition to form a class.

I don't yet have a fully developed thought for what the world should look like but here are some of my "early thoughts" to post on HN (as opposed to the website which I try and keep well-sourced).

1) Southland Corp. v. Keating should be overturned entirely. It, frankly, is unjustifiable based on the plain meaning of the law, the rules of statutory interpretation, and the historical context of the time. Fixing this would also return power to the states to decide their own contract law.

2) I'd love to see some system similar to Canada's civil resolution tribunal. This is effectively a "small claims" court that allows consumers to meaningfully get resolution without the need for lawyers or detailed procedure.

3) Consumer arbitration should be a revocable until arbitration begins. Recall that the CFPB found that when signing these agreements only 7% of those that understood that they permanently gave up their right to sue. I'm not opposed to arbitration as a litigation strategy (which may be positive for both sides) but it must be a meaningful choice.

4) Perhaps give better access to "limited jurisdiction" courts to consumers. This allows for a proper lawsuit but without the complexity of "general jurisdiction" courts. Most of the delaying tactics are more restricted in such a court.

5) Recall that arbiters are not required to (a) know the law, (b) apply the law correctly, or even (c) explain themselves. This is broken. I don't know of a good solution that would retain the speed and "finality" of arbitration but allow for meaningful oversight.

Class action waivers are insane and should be disallowed on the basis of public policy. I can't find any argument against disallowing them.

I'd also love to see terms of service as a whole be standardised. Similar to your suggestion about arb agreements - but for terms as a whole. You should be required to use some kind of "standard paper" or be subject to severe judicial oversight that predisposes against the drafter.

FWIW I did actually have the "cost, speed and access" arguments listed on the "problems" page -- though I could probably spend some time to expand them to make them stronger.

I suspect that the OP meant overturning Gilmer v. Interstate which permitted arbitors to decide statuatory claims as opposed to just contract disputes.

People often use the word criminal when they mean something more general.

Fairly negotiated arbitration in a B2B context is entirely different. This is what the FAA was designed for.

I've been involved with both litigation and arbitration. I've also extensively researched the topic: see every article, footnote, and final opinion of every cited case in the website [0]. I'm actually in middle of multiple such cases now.

This is misguided. You are correct that a fairly negotiated arbitration agreement can be cheaper for both sides. Corporate mandatory arbitration agreements like the ones found in terms of service are not these. Companies will continue to use a mixture of court and arbitration procedures to raise your costs and delay cases when they can.

I actually started with an opinion similar to yours but ended up changing my mind as I read more. This is the brief summary. [1]

I tried to cover counter arguments too. If you know of any others I'd love to hear more. I seriously want to steelman support for mandatory arbitration agreements where possible.

[0] https://arbitrationinformation.org/docs/references/

[1] https://arbitrationinformation.org/docs/problems/

The courts view arbitration as a _forum_ change. The idea is that you're waiving some procedural rights while retaining all substantive rights. This is independent of a jury waiver (although arbitration necessarily requires a jury waiver).

There are some severe problems both in theory and in practice, but that's the rough justification.

At the risk of spamming (I think I've pasted this link several times recently) I've been compiling as much information as possible here. https://arbitrationinformation.org/docs/problems/