Just because someone is entering a seemingly frivolous lawsuit, is it fair that the HOAs sidewalks are inaccessible in general? I feel like it feels wrong because someone is profiting on it but society is more equitable as a result and I don't feel that is an abuse of the legislation.
I believe this happened at UC Berkeley as well. For what it's worth, neither institution was 'forced' to remove the content. They were obligated to offer the content equally to all users and they chose to not do so because it cost money to create accessible content. While I feel it's unfortunate access to information was lost, I respect and still stand behind the sentiment of the law. Just because you're doing something 'good' doesn't mean you can ignore access needs of protected classes. Especially considering these are institutions with billions of dollars of endowment, funding, and tuition, I'm certainly on the side of the those with disability.
This doesn't contribute to conversation at all and seems to be implying something that's incorrect. Verbal agreement (e.g. even telling someone out loud "I agree to do this for you for $10") is a form of legal contract. Enforceability/provability is a different story but legally that's a contract.
I found it on the whole endearing. Through the author's religion we saw his valuation of his friends and family as well as his whole life. I think it's certainly within reason that people can believe contradictory 'truths' and I'm sure you do as well.
I believe OP is referring to how Indian nations are governed and the laws that apply to them. They're outside the scope of US law (so they're alien). The word choice is ironic historically but it's not incorrect and it further isn't as though OP was implying natives are not legitimately native.
The cynic in me thinks this is purely a factor of smart kids in tech realizing Facebook is old news and provides little path for differentiation (or rapid promotion). They better than anyone know the exciting startups their friends and friends of friends are starting especially compared to the tedium of a (cushy but) relatively non-challenging job at Facebook, Google, MS, etc. Plus, there's more chance for a moonshot 10/100/1000x at a company that's not already a behemoth. The smartest people I know are itching to work at startups. They could care less about FAANG.
I believe that the SF Bay losing many larger ocean mammals was related to World War 2 anti-submarine nets that closed off the bay from their migration for years. At least, that's what I recall from a marine mammal course a few years back.
I'm not convinced that's the proper reading of that law. FWIW, I'm not a lower just a person with an appreciation of legal questions. I was under the impression that the word 'imminent' implied you had to reasonably be aware those people were going to commit a crime immediately. For example if you're at the front of a mob of angry people and tell them to go loot a shop. I think it would be hard to convincingly say that on a website where 99% of users are joking that posters were inciting crime directly.
Just look into the FIRE community. Many people are opting out of blatant consumerist attitudes because they realize compulsive frugality is a means of prioritizing what you want.
The article discusses violating TOS, not a billing issue. I don't think it's unreasonable to disable an account in that circumstance but I agree that deleting images/resources without allowing customers to defend themselves and backup the systems would be unfair.
I think that's a nearsighted appraisal of people in these industries. Advertising is effective and so is the myth that money gives you actualization, to me it makes perfect sense that smart kids are going into a high paying industry while missing it's harmful effect.
I want to believe... But Occam's razors makes me think it's birds, meteorological phenomena, and other things you can misconstrue for more in a high stress situation (or through IR cameras).
I really don't think that this is a fair appraisal of this. It's a really novel look into how our habits identify us and the creation of it, in itself, doesn't reflect any mal-intent. If you're really so disheartened by the potential use-cases of typing ID like this, you are now aware of it in the first place! You could set out to build a simple tool that randomly adds noise to your keyboard IO and effectively stops this from working. Past that, this is something that others have almost certainly already figured out (be it big tech or government entities) but, even if they hadn't, creation like this is cannot be considered a wrongful act because it's impossible to know the long-term effects of anything before it exists.
So far as I can tell, that number is speaking directly to methane emitted from livestock which is not where the majority of livestock emissions come from. It’s more related to the fossil fuel usage and transportation costs.
Clinton has said that she won't be running for president. Would be interesting if someone picked her as a VP but honestly seems like a political third rail, at least in this cycle. I think running for president puts you in a different news spectrum; everyone's going to be gunning for you if they can because it'll rocket a journalist's career if they take down a candidate.
Rationally, shouldn’t we feel safer if it’s patched twice? Seems like it’s irrational to prefer a state where it was patched once over one where it was patched twice. It would seem to indicate that they dedicated time and resources to resolve it once then did proper follow up to catch missed cases. It certainly points to it being a pernicious issue but I’m can’t see why you’d presume it’s worse that it’s been patched more.
FWIW, there are far more businesses on social media than that. There’s an entire culture of chefs, makeup artists, and the like that advertises solely on twitter/instagram/etc. Social media is actually a really effective tool to reach your target audience in these cases.
I mean N = 12 is incredibly small to make such a sweeping statement about all of humanity but further it implicitly accepts that 1. free will is demonstrable via the experiment, 2. the reaction wasn’t preempted by free thought leading to the decision, and otherwise, 3. you’re a bad philosophy teacher if you’re trying to prove philosophy with statistics, imo.
I think the fact these attacks are happening regularly all over the world normalizes this already. The odds of you being the victim of a terror attack are low but honestly you don’t need a 15 minute course on tips. Make news distributors run a 2 minute clip on how to effectively maximize your odds of survival during every broadcast coverage of a mass shooting. I think it also changes the narrative in a would be perpetrators mind: if this is about power over others, to some extent others are now prepared to either flee or effectively attack a terrorist en masse.