510 karma · joined August 8, 2016
So most sports stuff is probably still shot with DSLRs, but that will likely change in the coming years, as (a) mirrorless cameras can ostensibly shoot more quickly (b) photographers replacing their gear won't have much of a choice.
Audit Sight is a funded, early stage startup, currently concentrated in Atlanta and Chicago, with the stated goal of bringing transparency, trust, and truth to the world’s economies and capital markets.
Founded by a pair of Big Four veterans, we're building a product that will empower auditors to be vastly more efficient, while providing a greater level of assurance around their results.
We're looking for someone to own the technical direction of our UI, currently written in React/Typescript. Additionally, you would play a key role in making design/UX decisions.
For more info see: https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/view/2714535404/
For most US jurisdictions, intent is required on the part of the obstructing party, but in a minority of jurisdictions, negligence is enough.
I suspect this is why there's a clause in most employment agreements that I've signed, where the employee has to represent that they are free to enter into the agreement.
I've never used linux as a dev machine, but in general apt seems much more reasonable in this regard. My frustration with Brew is pushing me to seriously consider a linux machine, so if anybody has counterpoints here I'm definitely interested in hearing about your experiences.
I don't care that Brew "breaks with norms" I just care that it breaks my shit.
Granting app store approval to an app encourages the company to build around the app and around the brand. And Apple gave that approval for many years. And then, after all that time, decided that the brand is projecting an ethos that they don't approve of?
Apple's process doesn't just involve tacit approval. It's very active. They had so many opportunities to not give approval, to not hit the button, but they did and for quite a long time.
The way the math works out is that I would be able to pay for three nights per month in that hotel for the difference between a 1br and a 2br in my building.
I don't think everyone reading this article needs to shoehorn their own situation into the analysis, but for me it makes a ton of sense. I kind of want a 2br, but I really wouldn't use the space that often and I have excellent alternatives.
But I guess the broader point remains, even if only 20% of potential authors are, like me, so evil that they wouldn't devote a year of their lives to writing a book that they couldn't monetize in some way, well that's still represents a 20% decrease in innovation on some level.
I cannot imagine wanting to write a book if I didn't have some recourse against people distributing my book freely.
The policy concerns around IP protection for both patent and copyright are clear: the minimum amount of protection that doesn't discourage innovation.
Lawmakers know or should know that we all benefit from a rich public domain, which is why there are limitations on both copyright and patents in terms of both duration and general application, and I am happy to argue that copyright is too strong, particularly in terms of duration (thanks Disney), but I simply can't agree that we "would be better off without any kind of copyright or IP".
We are told multiple times that the Constitution was intended to be socially normative, yet no historical evidence for this is provided.
then we are told that Munroe’s comic has been hugely damaging because it doesn’t acknowledge the premise, which again, is unsubstantiated.
But what we aren’t told is what damage is done or how discourse has been affected.
Nice theories. No evidence.
And for a more global perspective see Anupam Chander's How Law Made Silicon Valley [2].
[1]: https://www.nyulawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/NYUL...
[2]: https://law.emory.edu/elj/content/volume-63/issue-3/articles...
I, for one, am grateful that you took the time to write it.