testvox

> the consumer has no choice but to give consent.

The law makes that illegal as well

> the proposed Maine law also would prohibit any internet service provider from making the sale of customer data part of its mandatory terms of service. It also could not charge higher fees to customers who refuse to opt in, or penalize them in any way.

https://www.pressherald.com/2019/05/29/maine-on-track-to-pas...

Currently it doesn't look like holding US-citizen data on EU servers will be a problem anytime soon. But if the EU decides that the protections for their citizens provided by the "privacy-shield" agreement are not good enough then it would mean US companies could not hold or control EU-resident's data.

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/privacy-and-...

Even when contacts are found to be void or voidable due to things like unfair bargaining conditions (such as the inebriation of one party) that doesn't allow that party to escape all consequences of the contract if the sober party was acting in good faith (they were unaware of the condition).

> After all, if that party had no way to know that the drunk or impaired person was not sober, it may have suffered a harm by entering into the contract and performing in good faith despite the other party’s impairment. Thus, it may bring claims sounding in equity (i.e., fairness under the law) called “quasi-contractual claims.” Quasi-contractual claims include things like unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, and others. In essence, they are claims that allow a party to recover when it has, in good faith, performed as though a contract existed, even if it did not or if the contract was void or voidable.

https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/is-a-contract-valid-if-i-s...

Yeah I don't care much about what Amazon does with it, at least compared to the police. Amazon doesn't have the ability to kill me or lock me in a cage for 50 years.

Yeah I had to disable gpu acceleration on Firefox in parallels. Otherwise it rendered black boxes for elements with certain styles.

It allows spoofing for any apps the user gives the spoofing permission to.

Same, still one of my favorite phones.

Most of the libertarians I know are fine with the FDA doing research and providing information, maybe even requiring specific and true labeling for certain publicly sold goods. What they do not like is the FDA banning the sale of drugs or foods that they do not approve of, even with proper and true labeling. Because that is is just another attempt to take decisions away from people.

But did they make it for an unlawful purpose? Most countries have legal provisions to allow police or foreign intelligence to hack into phones. Could they have been selling these tools for those purposes and someone misused them?

This is also what I have seen. The push for "full stack" devs and teams came from product because they don't like to have to coordinate multiple people or teams in order to get a project done.

We can go deeper :

"Then there’s Munder (2013), which is a meta-meta-analysis on whether meta-analyses of confounding by researcher allegiance effect were themselves meta-confounded by meta-researcher allegiance effect. He found that indeed, meta-researchers who believed in researcher allegiance effect were more likely to turn up positive results in their studies of researcher allegiance effect (p < .002)."

This is already supported in dotnet core 2.2 so I would assume it will continue to be supported. https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/core/deploying/#fram...

> Starting with .NET Core 2.2, you can deploy your app as an FDE, along with any required third-party dependencies. Your app will use the version of .NET Core that's installed on the target system.

> Your app can be run by calling the published executable without invoking the dotnet utility directly.

This is already supported https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/core/deploying/#fram...

> Starting with .NET Core 2.2, you can deploy your app as an FDE, along with any required third-party dependencies. Your app will use the version of .NET Core that's installed on the target system.

> Your app can be run by calling the published executable without invoking the dotnet utility directly.

It can using the compatibility shim depending on what framework capabilities it requires.

You will have the option to do either. Require a runtime be provided by the system or package one together with your application.

> Everything you love about .NET Core will continue to exist: Open source and community-oriented on GitHub.

Microsoft knows how to play that game. They will just lobby the government to specify that they require some feature that only Microsoft happens to offer.

That isn't true, corporations can be charged with crimes and they can have their corporate charter revoked. Human individuals working for a criminal corporation do not have to directly break the law to face criminal prosecution.

> The responsible corporate officer (RCO) doctrine holds that a corporate officer is indirectly liable for a subordinate's criminal conduct when the officer is in a position of responsibility. The officer can be prosecuted if he has the authority and the ability to stop the offense and yet fails to act.

The RCO doctrine does not require proof that the officer either participated in or authorized the crime.

No it's the standard solution for quickly establishing some reputation, prove that you have something to lose.

That isn't really how it works. The search warrant must be narrowly scoped to only what is required to investigate the crime for which they have probable cause. However if they find evidence of other crimes while staying within the scope of the original warrant they can generally use that evidence at trial.

So for instance if the police have probable cause that a wanted criminal is at your house they can get a search warrant to search it for him. If while searching they see illegal drugs on your coffee table they can use that evidence under the plain view exception. However if they open up your schoolbag and find drugs they would not be able to use that as evidence because there is no way a person can fit inside your bag so searching it couldn't have been part of the search authorized by the warrant.

Judges in many parts of the United States are elected, so there is no particular guarantee they have studied anything.

But the NYT itself still makes legal decisions, like which articles to run. Lets say they decide to run a particular article which is later claimed by the government to be libelous. Since the NYT has no rights under your ideal the government could simply find them guilty of a felony without giving them due process of law and end their corporate existence.

I would argue that so long as corporations continue to exist they require a minimum amount of rights, such as a right to due process, or else they just become tools for the state to act without any of the restraints our current system has developed.

Seems like there should be other ways to boost your reputation. Maybe putting a deposit down which you can lose if your acceptance ratio gets too bad.

Because corporations are just groups of people operating as one legal entity as is required for many ventures which would be too expensive or risky for one person to take on by themselves. Do you think corporations like the New York Times should not have freedom of speech? Do you think the government should be able to arbitrary power against corporations like Planned Parenthood? Should governments have arbitrary power to limit what information corporations like your local internet service provider can transmit? Should whatever political party who is currently in power be able to steal all the money from the opposing parties corporate entity?

Its good to keep in mind corporations include a large class of entities like public colleges, newspapers, internet providers, charities, political parties, organized religions, public interest groups, and of course for profit businesses. Saying all these entities should have no rights is advocating for the state to have unchecked and arbitrary power over all of them.

Sure you can, that is what this post is about, it's just not legal to do so. But just because something is against the law doesn't make it theft anymore then it makes it murder.

Accessing a paid service by taking the API key out of another app without the consent of the service provider would be theft of services. In most US states theft of services falls under the same law as theft of personal property.

'Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.'

And from that linked SSC article,

> ...But rather than speculate, I prefer to take it as a brute fact. Studies are going to be confounded by the allegiance of the researcher. When researchers who don’t believe something discover it, that’s when it’s worth looking into.

Yes but only for damages.

Its pretty urban (houses here don't have yards, Three-deckers are the norm) and usually considered part of the Boston metropolitan area, not a suburb of Boston.