jkaplowitz

The invitation to treat is the store inviting potential customers to treat (engage in commerce) with the store by submitting an offer to buy the displayed items at the listed price, which they usually do by bringing the items to the register or (for more specialized purchases) telling a store employee that they want to buy the item. When the buyer makes the offer, the cashier accepts the offer on behalf of the store by ringing up the purchase, and the buyer performs their end of the contract by paying the price, thereby contractually gaining ownership of their purchase.

One reason it works this way is that treating displayed items as an offer to sell would leave it unclear to whom the offer to sell would be made. Clearly each item on display can only be sold to one of the many shoppers who sees it, so they can't all be offered the sale. There are several other reasons too, like different customers being offered different terms of sale based on loyalty program membership, promotions, student or senior discounts, etc.

Here is the Wikipedia summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invitation_to_treat

As the article says, the term in various US jurisdictions may be slightly different, like invitation to bargain, but the basic concept is the same. (I'm ignoring Louisiana entirely, which has a completely different legal tradition not derived from English common law.)

Theoretically there is a third option, stay in the store near the cash register and call the police to come deal with it on the spot before the purchase. The problem is that they probably won't bother coming, and if they do, they won't come quickly enough to make it worth waiting for them given the amount of money at stake.

Edit: Yeah, I did say before the purchase, but I should have said after the purchase when they pay the legally correct price but the store accuses them of shoplifting and tries to detain them. And I know it's often infeasibly hard to pay the legally correct price from a logistical perspective without the cashier's cooperator, especially if you want to pay with a card. It is clearly possible to put at least the right amount of cash on the counter, ask for the change, and attempt to leave if they refuse, but that doesn't guarantee ever getting the change. Anyway, I did list this option as (purely) theoretical and not as actually practical.

Being opt-in for the WhatsApp user reduces the severity of that problem a lot, though certainly not to zero for those who do opt in.

I don't think they were challenging you, just expanding the acronym for HN readers who didn't know what it meant.

The statements motivating this lawsuit included a lot more than just calling him an asshole. They called him a habitual cocaine user and accused him of orchestrating a harassment campaign. Those are claims of fact, and false accusations of that kind widely read in the victim’s professional and academic communities could certainly cause more than £70k plus court fees in eventual damages through reduced lifetime earnings.

Disclaimer: Being a (currently quite inactive) member of the Debian project myself, I’ve met Matthew Garrett in the past on a relatively small number of occasions, but I have no inside information on the allegations mentioned in this court judgment and have not discussed them with him or with anyone else involved. I do, however, believe his side of the story based on what context I have about him.

That one is easy without regulatory changes: just round the SNAP transactions. The SNAP equal treatment rule only requires charging SNAP customers the same price as cash purchases, not the same price as credit or debit card purchases.

The SNAP rules don't require equal treatment with people who pay with credit cards, debit cards, or checks, only with people who pay cash. Setting aside the politicized USDA public communications during the shutdown, here's the legally binding regulatory text:

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-7/subtitle-B/chapter-II/s...

"Coupons shall be accepted for eligible foods at the same prices and on the same terms and conditions applicable to cash purchases of the same foods at the same store except that tax shall not be charged on eligible foods purchased with coupons."

So, that sounds like a yes, they could round up or down SNAP purchases just like cash purchases.

Immigration permission to work legally and tax compliance for the earnings are two completely different topics in probably all countries.

Even mostly law-abiding citizens with full work permission often dodge taxes in certain sectors of the economy - a common US example is restaurant workers underreporting cash tips on their tax returns. Plus, in addition to digital nomads, many freelancers (certainly not all) play as fast and loose with the tax rules even in their home countries as they think they can get away with. And much cross-border employment is disguised as independent contracting in ways that dodge employers’ tax burdens even when the employee has full work permission.

Conversely, there are already cases where even income earned illegally by visiting foreigners can legally be exempt from a country’s taxes. Example: Income earned in Canada by a US resident can qualify for Canada-US tax treaty’s exemption from Canadian taxation if the criteria listed in the treaty are met, regardless of whether the work was legal for immigration purposes. (Canada is actually one of the few countries from which foreign tourists can often legally work remotely for employers or clients abroad, but that depends on a lot of factors, and it can also be illegal like in most countries.)

Subscriptions often don’t allow continuing use of even existing versions of the product after you stop paying - it’s not just about access to future updates.

The main exceptions are subscriptions that are explicitly for support and maintenance contracts on top of a perpetual license. There are also a few unusual business models, like JetBrains offer for subscriptions that last at least 12 months which grants a perpetual fallback license of the major versions (including future minor versions) that were current during any part of the subscription up through 12 months before cancellation.

> No 18 times. 27 total amendments with 1-10 all passing on December 15, 1791.

Fair correction.

> Those recent amendments are a minimum different laws.

Only in the sense that any new enactment is a new law, but in that sense no law can be updated in a way that preserves its identity as the same law. Which is not useful for the discussion of whether an old law has or hasn’t been updated, since by that definition updates to any law are impossible.

Lawyers and judges don’t exclusively use that sense any more than programmers view a software patch as changing the basic identity (beyond something like a version number) of the patched software program.

They do use that sense when they are referring to individual enactments by Congress, just like programmers refer to patches and patch releases as well as to the things which exist across many patch( release)s over time. Which sense is useful depends on context, and which sense is meant depends on a mixture of context and exact phrasing.

> If you want to call it one law then there’s either 2 federal laws in the US.

There are far more than 2 federal laws in the US, but far fewer than one per enactment except when using the sense of “a federal law” that specifically refers to each enactment.

For example, most federal tax legislation explicitly amends the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, which is still the official name of our federal tax code. Similarly, most immigration legislation amends the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1954 (I could have the year wrong), even more than 70 years later. The many “patch” laws enacted in the meantime all have their own identities via Public Law numbers and often a name, but they do update a specific identifiable underlying law without replacing it.

Other federal laws, like most annual appropriation and authorization bills, stand alone and are not routinely updated but have a finite duration of relevance. Common provisions are often carried forward from one iteration to the next, but they are re-enacted as part of each separate iteration.

And then there are the many parts of the federal legal landscape where the US Code is the official authoritative version instead of a mere convenience version as it is for things like the tax code and immigration law. Amendments to the directly authoritative parts of the US Code explicitly amend the US Code instead of a separately named law, so those directly authoritative parts of the US Code are themselves (whether each or collectively) a single federal law in the sense I’m discussing.

Yes, this stuff is complicated and messy in both the law and the software worlds.

> One needs to be ratified by the states and the others don’t.

Yes, constitutional amendments are laws (in one sense) that amend a law (in the other sense) and which states need to ratify, and regular Acts of Congress are laws (in the first sense) that may or may not amend one or more pre-existing laws (in the second sense) and which states do not need to ratify.

My point is that merely referencing the centuries-old original age of a document is misleading when it’s been updated dozens of times ending just a few decades ago. (And many of the updates, including the one in 1971, have been far more impactful than the Twenty-Seventh Amendment which you quoted.)

It’s certainly true that the constitution is old and crusty overall and desperately needs an overhaul, but the discussion was about when old laws which haven’t been updated in a while are ignored or enforced.

The constitution is indeed one law, not several different laws, and it’s been updated far more recently than its original year of promulgation or ratification. And it’s still mostly enforced (with increasing exceptions but that’s another discussion entirely).

> The US constitution is still in force after 236 years

True, but it's been updated a lot more recently than that.

The last update was still much longer ago than 10 years, of course. The most recently ratified amendment to the Constitution - the Twenty-Seventh Amendment, ratified 1992 - was, incredibly enough, proposed in 1789 along with the ten we know as the Bill of Rights and another one which was never ratified. And of the twenty-seven amendments ratified so far, the one most recently proposed by Congress, the Twenty-Sixth Amendment, was both proposed and ratified in 1971.

They didn't say that these are actually for internal use only. They said that they are generated either from maintainers applying labels (as a manual human decision) or from internal PR branches, but they could easily be publicly facing code reviews of internally developed versions, or manually internally approved deployments of externally developed but internally reviewed code.

None of these are the kind of automatic user-generated content that the warning is attempting to detect, I think. And requiring basic auth for everything is quite awkward, especially if the deployment includes API server functionality with bearer token auth combined with unauthenticated endpoints for things like built-in documentation.

In another comment in this thread, it was confirmed that these PR host names are only generated from branches internal to Immich or labels applied by maintainers, and that this does not automatically happen for arbitrary PRs submitted by external parties. So this isn’t the use case for the public suffix list - it is in no way public or externally user-generated.

What would you recommend for this actual use case? Even splitting it off to a separate domain name as they’re planning merely reduces the blast radius of Google’s false positive, but does not eliminate it.

Or at least you have to automatically destroy and recreate all nodes / VMs / similar every N days, so that nobody can pretend that any truly unavoidable hand-edits during emergency situations will persist. Possibly also control access to the ability to do hand edits behind a break-glass feature that also notifies executives or schedules a postmortem meeting about why it was necessary to do that.

> Oddly I liked new coke better.

Fun fact: so did most focus groups and (I think?) blind taste tests when it was just presented as a new drink, but they tended to be horrified by the idea of it actually replacing classic Coke. The problem with that switch was mostly psychological / cultural, not chemical.

Also, Diet Coke, which remains quite popular, is still based on the New Coke formula except with the sweetener swapped out. The no-calorie version of classic Coke is Coke Zero. The Coca-Cola Company has been working to increase Coke Zero's popularity, and it is now much more popular than it used to be, but I think Diet Coke continues to be more popular than Coke Zero even now.

But that frees up Israel to do other stuff with the money they would otherwise have spent on the types of military equipment they buy from the US, since the US money doesn't replace Israel's other sources of funding. It does increase Israel's total spending power, even if it also forces some of that spending to go to US vendors.

PAGA can be, and sometimes is, explicitly waived by name and/or by description in arbitration agreements which purport to compel arbitration of even those claims. The Supreme Court recently upheld such a waiver with respect to the individual plaintiffs' claims, but it left open the possibility of a representative PAGA claim; the California courts are still working out whether PAGA still allows such a "headless" claim, with disagreement among different California couts and no ruling yet from the California Supreme Court.

The problem with PAGA in this context is that the citizen is also a party to the arbitration agreement and therefore can be bound by the arbitration agreement, making the Supreme Court's jurisprudence on the Federal Arbitration Act applicable. My proposal avoids this problem since the FAA doesn't prevent citizens from notifying government agencies and doesn't prevent government agencies from suing (except in the rare context of any arbitration agreement to which the government agency is itself a party).

But if you want citizens to have a financial incentive with my proposal, then sure, legislatively give the first person to notify CPPA / CA AG a cut of the eventual proceeds (to be split with anyone else who is the first person to successfully sue for or enforce a corresponding writ of mandamus), and create a way to track who that first notifier is.

Widespread pre-dispute binding arbitration agreements with class-action waivers and bans on mass arbitration kind of put a damper on that, and the Supreme Court has upheld those nationwide in ways California can't easily override.

But sure, there are still other legislative tricks they could do, like making it mandatory by default for CPPA / CA AG to do the enforcement when they're made aware of a qualifying situation, overriding any NDAs which prohibit any California resident from informing CPPA / CA AG about such a situation, and allowing California residents to sue CPPA / CA AG for a writ of mandamus ordering them to proceed with the enforcement if they're stonewalling - with an award of attorneys fees if the writ is issued, so as to make such lawsuits financially affordable to ordinary plaintiffs. (I say "mandatory by default" to allow for exceptions which the legislature thinks appropriate, but at least those would be subject to democratic disclosure and debate.)

On topics such as this one, I think the CA legislature and governor are more interested in ineffectually making it seem like they're solving the problem than in effectively solving the problem.

As I said, not every jurisdiction follows the rule you describe for all types of property and all types of illicit transfers. After all, innocent purchaser victims are just as non-culpable as innocent theft victims, and society doesn't always decide to prioritize the original owner's ease of having the maximum number of people to sue for recovery over the reliability of that jurisdiction as a place to innocently buy things without fear of unexpectedly being sued by a third party.

To be clear, I'm not expressing any kind of personal opinion here - I'm saying how the world actually works. Sometimes that matches what you are advocating, but sometimes not.

Of course, in both the mindset you advocate and in the other mindset, you have a claim against the person who stole your car, for sure, as well as anyone else who knowingly trafficked in the stolen goods.

Sometimes the relevant rules are different for real property vs personal property, and sometimes it matters whether the property's ownership has been registered in some register which the purchaser can verify before purchase. I don't think US car title records are generally publicly verifiable.

It's also usually relevant how the property was stolen - theft in the sense of actual larceny often has harsher consequences for the eventual bona fide purchaser (and more protections for the original owner) than if the property was stolen by fraudulently inducing the original owner to sign a deed of sale.

I'm avoiding giving specifics here because, again, the details vary by jurisdiction and by the particular facts and circumstances.

Could help for some cases, but at least two of the three examples in the article were engineering directors, who are generally excluded from unionization rights in the US at least. (Other countries vary in how low-level line managers are treated by their employment laws, but the closer a manager gets to the senior executive ranks, the less those employment laws allow them to do anything akin to unionizing.)

> If you benefit from receiving stolen property, does the law force you to return it?

The general answer to that is: it depends on a lot of factors, but sometimes yes and sometimes no. The specific answer varies between jurisdictions, I think even between different US states and certainly between countries. It's often relevant whether you knew or should reasonably have known at the time of purchase that the property was stolen.

Sometimes I take a legally prescribed stimulant / controlled substance for ADHD. Those medicines can be perfectly safe to drive with once you know how the particular dosage affects you, and driving with them is often even safer at the appropriate therapeutic dosage than driving without them. Further, as a person with ADHD and a tic disorder, I would have a fair chance of failing a field sobriety test even if I'm sober. I'm also not thrilled with the idea of lying to cops, since I know that can be a crime separately from the question of DUI.

So, putting all that together, imagine this sequence: cop at a DUI checkpoint asks me to perform a field sobriety test. I refuse, either without giving a reason or citing my ADHD and tic disorder. They ask me if I'm taking any medicine for ADHD. I don't lie and either confirm that fact or plead the fifth, or even if I do lie they still might not believe me. I probably don't have the pills or the bottle with me since I wouldn't usually be taking it in the car anyway. They then insist on a blood test, either with consent or with a quickly obtained warrant. I then have to accept a long detour going for the blood test, and then spend a lot of time and money proving in court both that I had a legal prescription and that I was not legally impaired by the medicine. (Even if I do have the correctly labeled pill bottle with me in the car, the cop still might incorrectly assume the medicine impairs me.)

Avoiding this hassle is a perfectly legal and legitimate reason to want to know where DUI checkpoints are.

Nothing I'm saying is condoning driving drunk - I certainly don't do that. When I drink, I pay attention to the advice of blood alcohol content calculators to figure out when I'm safe to drive and when it's fully out of my system. And when I take medicines that interact with alcohol, I'm even more cautious with drinking than when I don't.

It’s true. English and the main Spain version of Spanish are two of the few languages in the world which have the sound. Even most Latin American versions of Spanish (maybe all?) do not have it.

Greg K-H's explanation (as paraphrased by the journalist) confirms that, for example, receiving payment for an article which is accompanied by a software example would not trigger the requirements that come with monetization. Here's the exact quote - look at the "even when" part:

"There is no legal risk for individual contributors simply sharing code online or in publications, even when they receive payment for writing an article, as long as the software itself is not monetized or organized."

So, maybe EU developers would have to learn the safe wording through which to solicit and accept donations, but at the very least, donations supporting their software activities in general (and not tied to a specific software program) will likely not increase CRA requirements - and maybe even voluntary donations to support development of a specific software program but which are not in any way mandatory.

With some exceptions, including not only the obvious one of US citizens but also most Canadian visitors too.

.gov is available to nonfederal US governmental entities as well. Those .gov sites run by states and cities which still believe in science are still worth paying attention to. Also even federal .gov sites remain reliable for certain topics like giving current statutory or regulatory text.

The Windows desktop version of Microsoft's suite is probably bigger, more widely used, and just as local-first than Apple's suite, with the exception of the new version of Outlook that's still very far from replacing the traditional and local-first version. (They haven't tried to do any such replacement of the rest of their suite.)

Isn’t Disney a party to the declaratory judgment action which Morgan and Morgan filed, but without Disney having chosen to include itself in the action? That counts as the firm taking Disney to court.