518 karma · joined March 21, 2020
It would probably be exceptionally helpful for a lot of YC founders I imagine, but in addition to the liability, the optics are kind of creepy in that certain SV culture kind of way they likely want to avoid.
That’s a straw man...the CEO fired people who didn’t break the law at his direction. He didn’t give a damn if the employees felt the law was just or not. Forcing employees to break the law or fire them is absolutely wrong.
Ok but did they cut advertising across the board or just Facebook?
You can’t have you’re cake and eat it too, either Facebook advertising was effective and they are harming their own business by cutting Facebook advertising (Suggesting there is more than money involved in the decision), or Facebook advertising is a waste of money in which case they won’t just quietly turn it back on as you claim.
It is a little unusual to criticize someone who donated to the needy, just to say the donor was showing off and to point out what they could have donated instead to make a much bigger impact.
Let’s say you donated 100 Thinkpads (you should), but then you were criticized for showing off when you could have donated 5,000 meals to children who lost access to free school breakfast/lunches due to covid school closures. It’s a real issue, but you should pick and choose your battles (probably just like I should).
“We’re pausing our advertising until Facebook can create an acceptable solution that makes us comfortable,”
Doesn’t sound like it has anything to do with Covid-19 to me but rather advertisers don’t want to spend money advertising on a platform promoting hate speech.
But let’s say this was a conspiracy by all these companies to save their ad dollars because they are being wasted on FB, why would they be afraid of the “implications of their reduced ad spend”? Certainly there is nothing wrong with these companies coming out and saying we are not going to spend money advertising on FB because it’s a waste of money. What else is the implication?
And then look for file recovery software they seems to work well with said hard drives?
https://www.tesla.com/autopilot
You’re right Tesla is guilty of marketing features that don’t exist today but will “in the future”.
But hey they disclose the truth in the fine print (Autopilot is not autonomous), so nothing to see and god forbid we accurately call it what it is “driver assist“ instead of autopilot or even the as of yet non-existent “full self driving”:
“Current Autopilot features require active driver supervision and do not make the vehicle autonomous.”
And it’s not about musk breaking the law...it’s about him telling his employees to break the law and firing those that didn’t...did musks lawyers advise them as well?
And either way I’m not advocating rioting/looting and certainly not arson, just saying maybe it will happen and it would be ironic if Musk’s “not a flamethrower” was used.
I’d be the first person to advocate for the people who got fired for refusing to break the law at the direction of their CEO, but not violence or blood.
Not to mention the CEO was actually breaking the law by reopening, in practice this worked out to violate the law by coming to work or get fired...
Like Tesla calling their driving assistance “auto-pilot”.
Take “Poletown” where GM got the government to seize 1,500 homes, 144 businesses and 16 churches and bulldoze them to the ground to build a GM plant.
Ultimately GM provided half the number of promised jobs and ultimately closed the plant.
I fear what we are seeing now is 20-40M Americans lost their jobs, nearly that many will become homeless in the near future, and ultimately they will be swept under the rug (just removed from employment numbers And every other program like they don’t even exist). Watch unemployment Numbers go back to 5% or so and the politicians go back to bragging about the economy. Once you have 40M+ homeless there is no possibility for them to organize and have a voice...they won’t even have the literal energy to survive let alone effect change, they will be steamrolled just like poletown was and no one will ever even know not unlike poletown.
Very similar factually...someone bought a aquaslide, slide was delivered and installed (but what was delivered wasn’t an aquaslide, but unlike the case I reference the aquaslide and actually delivered slide had no markings/branding. IIRC in that case multiple insurers examined the slide and as you say admitted the slide was an aquaslide, but after being examined by an aquaslide employee they reversed course.
The details are slim, but I have a feeling the slide actually wasn’t theirs as confirmed by testing the plastic (but this I really don’t know).
It would strongly support homeownership.
If “owners” couldn’t buy up multiple properties and become landlords but could only own 1 homestead...then property values would drop and renters would be capable of affording to own in mass.
Unfortunately, we are about to see in short order what happens when renters stop paying rent in mass and landlords stop paying mortgage in mass.
Hint: the renters and owners (collectively “taxpayers“) will both be robbed by their representatives again, and congress will bail out banks (again) so the banks can foreclose (on owners) and evict (renters).
Sometimes yes, other times no they should be void or unenforceable. Quick example: an employee non-compete clause in California (which are illegal in California but employers include them regularly)
>Should we live in a world where people can take other people’s property with no recourse?
Like the colonist (and later Americans) took the property and land of native Americans?
Or like squatting where one party acquires legal title to property from the own after x years? This is generally legal.
Or like eminent domain where rich people get the local government to take private property on their behalf?
One of the great ironies the great capitalist Trump has quite the history of supporting The taking of lands /property to be given to developers, and the scary socialist Bernie sanders has fought against these acts to uphold Private property rights.
I’m guessing maybe you register mymark.com, I get the Whois record and it’s not your legit business info but some made up business name and fake contact info.
Well if that’s the case, either icann will have some rule prohibiting registrations with fake info and maybe I could get the domain transferred once they confirm your info is fake or I could still file suit against the made up business and get my default/court order and then get icann to turn it over on that basis. But it’s all about that step 1, uncovering the domain owner (real or fake). Possibly I could subpoena the registrar and get your real info and/or payment info. Then I’d have to amend my complaint to add you (the legit business) and still have to serve your RA.
As I understand it Amazon isn’t liable which to me makes no sense as it relates to defective products (everyone in the supply chain of a defective product should be jointly and severely liable).
I don’t care if it’s a 3rd party seller, Amazon should be liable as it hosts the product for sale, connects buyer/seller, processes payments, typically stores (and commingled) the products, and probably delivers the product.
The thing about punitive damages is they are a punishment, so eventually there will be a case where The jury hears how Amazon knowingly and willfully continued selling 3rd party items it knew were fake and dangerous (Fake DOT helmets; expired baby formula; fake baby car seats; exploding electronics; etc...)and the jury is going to drop the hammer. Even billions In punitive damages wouldn’t be a surprise, Amazon will appeal and it will come down to 10’s or 100’s of millions, but that’s when they will take real action to stop this. But it’s going to take time for this to happen.
I asked my colleague similar questions when hearing about the case.
In my opinion it’s even more odd they defended (in at least some jurisdictions a dissolved entity has no standing to bring or defend lawsuits), but even if you could defend, why, time, costs, no ability to pay/collect. Something I always wondered to myself but literally as I wrote the last sentence it hit me...I’m guessing they were insured At the time they were in business selling the slides, so if the plaintiff sued and got a default then they could in theory move to join the insurer and collect against the insurer, so likely it was the insurer behind the scenes paying to represent the dissolved company.
On the flip side I had another colleague work on the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill case at the time it finally ended, let’s just estimate the litigation being over 10 years. During the litigation many of the damaged businesses were dissolved while the litigation was pending and apparently many of those that were dissolved may not have been able to collect as a result.
But the company never sold them, so even they from the beginning reasonably believed they had in fact manufactured the slide. Had they sold the molds (which I don’t think a company would do bearing their mark without selling the actual mark as well) it would have actually helped their defense and helped them consider/discover they were not the manufacturer of this particular slide.
A water slide. The type that bolts down into concrete for use with pools. If the first thing in your mind is...isn’t that something from the 70’s/80’s...yes it is.
So the counterfeiter must have molded the entire slide (complete with the company logo that was embossed into the slide itself) thing is that company was dissolved back in the 80’s.
So purchaser’s kid cuts their leg open on the slide and they sue for defective product. Of course the investigation leads to suing this Dissolved manufacturer. As I recall the dissolved entity actually defended (sort of rare from a dissolved Corp that dissolved so long ago) and it was only during expensive phase of discovery they learned they didn’t manufacture the slide In question, and that it was completely counterfeited.
One day Amazon is going to get smacked with such a lawsuit resulting in billions in punitive damages, then and only then will you see real effort on their part to curb this behavior.
That is why there is a major effort to repeal those laws.
That’s not what I said, or the point.
Example: If I launch fortran77.com and am infringing on your registered trademark, step 1 is for you to find the registered owner of the domain. Once you have that then you can find the business owners RA.
You can’t skip the step of identifying the owner of the infringing website to get to the RA. Assuming you are right and the infringing business would waive service of process (they won’t of course) but if they did you still need to identify the owner of the site to get request waiver of process.
Eventually it will because businesses will never recover without consumers recovering. That said I don’t think it’s looming...again congress gave over $4T to the FED to stabilize the market. To put that runway in perspective consider how in 2008 we were on the brink of a total financial collapse, yet with only $1.6T used to stabilize the banks the financial collapse was turned into the longest bull market in history (over a decade) and record high markets. We are talking 2.5x that bailout this time around.
Unfortunately while taxpayers got their $1,200 Checks they were robbed blind of over $4T to the FED which went directly to stabilize the publicly traded companies. If it weren’t for that, we would have already seen bankruptcies on a massive scale from publicly traded companies...instead the markets are back where the were pre-covid. But at some point they will have to admit there can’t be a recovery when there are no consumers left.
I’m still sure I could be identified somehow.
Funny enough I was planning to do something along the lines of an ICO through this anonymous website/page and provide the ICO funds and transfer the domain itself to whoever identified me as the domain owner.
You have to serve them pursuant to the law, which generally for businesses means serving their registered agent. In order to find the registered agent you will need the legal name of the business running the infringing website (you will need the state of incorporation as well).
I’m the first to welcome enhanced penalties for officers committing crimes in their official capacity...but I find your words very disturbing.