That was exactly the early thought and why the commonly accepted image of an atom with a nucleous and orbiting electrons looks just like a solar system.
Of course that’s not at all what atoms look like or how they behave.
7,879 karma · joined December 3, 2012
Of course that’s not at all what atoms look like or how they behave.
If you are talking about the pill sure, but there are forms of birth control that date to ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, And China. Not to say these methods were effective and the book of Genesis did regress things a little with God slaying Onan for practicing the old pull out method, teaching that procreation is for reproduction only.
As we know from “flatland” as a sphere passes through the flatland plane, the sphere can be measured as a dot/circle at any given time.
https://demonstrations.wolfram.com/ASphereVisitsFlatland/
Wouldn’t that measurement of a higher dimensional object passing through the lower dimensional world sort of begin to appear and fit the definition of the uncertainty principle for particles in our own 3D world?
In other words as the 3D sphere is measured passing through the 2d flatland flatlanders can either know the position of the sphere or momentum, but as they measure one more accurately they can’t measure the other as accurately?
I guess what I’m trying to ask is it accurate to use the uncertainty principle as a flatlander describing a 3D sphere passing through flatland and if so, Would that give any credence to the bizarre possibility that particles in our world are actually 4D objects?
Extra points for also bringing up gut bacteria which also typically generates controversy, last HN article on the microbiome commenters were calling it peak gut bacteria. Whereas it’s also a science in its infancy.
>I guess you get what you pay for.
Then again, Kik, Cooley’s paying client also ended up in an SEC enforcement action (they claim they already spent $5M in legal fee prior to the SEC bringing the case).
I’m not so sure the issue is how much the clients paid for Cooley’s advice so much as the advice itself.
I believe it was Einstein who defined insanity as performing the same task over and over and expecting different results.
If you invested/bought Kik because you wanted a “position” to make money on it, then it fits the definition of a security, so by throwing more money to fight the SEC to claim it’s not a security is a losing battle by your own “position”.
The real irony is that the Kik token probably was structured as a non-security utility token, it’s only the CEO statements/marketing of the token as something that will become extremely valueable to investors that will come back and haunt them.
First your citing the Cooley attorney who advised the company...of course he is going to justify his own legal advice.
It’s not going to look good when the court determines Kik knew if could have sought clarification from the SEC but didnt Because the SEC no Action Letter process wasn’t practical.
Let’s also keep in mind Cooley is the Firm that developed the SAFT (security agreement for future tokens) released their SAFT whitepaper into the wild telling startups to use their SAFT legal framework to raise money with ICOs legally and these are some of the first companies the SEC targeted for enforcement actions.
No most people don’t raise a $100M in violation of securities law...or even “testing” security laws, especially when Kik could have obtained the SECs opinion through a No Action Letter request.
Why didn’t Kik avail themselves to the law and process before raising $100M from the public?
According to the SEC it was also an illegal offering of a security, and its receiving special treatment bc they considered it to have matured and no longer be considered a security, therefore grandfathered its grandfathered in unlike any other ICO.
No one else is going to have the good fortune of being able to offer an unregistered security then mature into a non-security with the SEC acting first.
What’s amazing is they raise nearly $100M selling the token, spent $5M in legal fees and then began raising additional legal fees (over $5M to date) from the public to continue to fight the SEC and anticipation of future litigation with the SEC.
They raised $100M and can’t be bothered to use that for their own legal fees...And the public is apparently happy giving them millions more, it’s insanity.
That’s not entirely accurate, see Henry Ford suspending shareholder dividends, raising employee wages and lowering price of cars for consumers to fulfill vision of every American family owning a (Ford) car.
Shareholders sued and won because Ford owed and violated his duty to shareholders.
Since that time the Law has evolved to extend director/officer protections - even allowing officers to raid corporate funds to ensure directors re-elect the officers - but The voting rights don’t relieve Zuck of his duties to other shareholders in his capacity as director and/or officer.
>in Knutson v. Sirius XM Radio, 771 F.3d 559 (9th Cir. 2014), the terms regarding an automobile’s trial subscription to a satellite radio service were sent to the owner a month after the purchase of the automobile in an envelope marked “Welcome Kit.” The Ninth Circuit refused to enforce the additional terms because there was no mutual assent to the terms. The Ninth Circuit found no evidence that the purchaser of the automobile knew that he had purchased anything from Sirius or was entering into a relationship with Sirius, let alone had agreed to the terms (which contained an arbitration clause). Therefore, continued use of the service by the purchaser did not manifest assent to the terms.
Not exactly on point, and there are other such cases cited in the article that support enforceability...but it’s all going to come down to nitty gritty facts (for example another case found the terms of the change in price were buried in page 4 of an invoice; therefore, unenforceable).
In other words FB saying we are going to now start providing you with X services and you are going to give us Y data.
Sure the user might benefit from X, obviously even that could be argued, but the idea is this isn’t a bargained for exchange/negotiation. This is unilateral modification without consideration, it’s not enough for FB to say they modified the data collection/rights which is justified because FB also changed the service.
That’s like saying you ordered a cheese pizza for $10, the company unilaterally charges you for $1,000 and justifies that because they bring you 100 pizzas...at no point was there consideration for the modification of the agreement even though you got 100 pizzas. Similarly can FB just start collecting more data/selling to third parties by unilaterally changing their terms and justify it by saying a unilateral change in service equals legal consideration?
Yes.
It could certainly be argued as you say that the services changed - still from a contract Law perspective these are unilateral changes by Facebook not negotiated bargained for exchanges - but assuming there is consideration, over the last 10 years do you really think FB materially changed the services to justify each and every agreement modification? All you need is one unenforceable modification along the way and the whole thing could unravel.
The following are excerpts from a good article from the American Bar Association:
>The existing case law on online modifications, however, is scant. The few existing opinions rely appropriately on off-line contract modification rules to determine whether the authors of the original contract terms succeeded in effectively modifying those terms. Unfortunately, the decisions to date do not yet provide us with predictability as to the enforceability of online contract modifications.
>in order for a modification to be enforceable, it must be supported by consideration, or, in the case of contracts governed by Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code, it must be entered into in good faith. See U.C.C. § 2-209 cmt. 2.
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/business_law/publications...
Yes, they can be renegotiated, they can not be unilaterally changed without additional consideration (except limited circumstances: UCC, sale of goods, etc...).
Continuation of use or even agreement to the unilateral change doesn’t matter if their is no additional consideration, the new agreement is deemed void/unenforceable.
That’s actually a very interesting potential legal issue.
User/FB enter into agreement (user gets access to platform/FB gets access to data), FB unilaterally changes terms of agreement (FB gets greater access to user data, but User doesn’t get anything they didn’t already have)...seemingly these modifications of the agreement should be void/unenforceable for lack of consideration. Yes, the user may have agreed/consented to the changes of the terms (by clicking accept, continuing to use the FB platform) but that doesn’t mean the new agreement is enforceable without additional consideration from FB.
Maybe you vote for a politician who will terminate federally guaranteed student loans. Maybe support one that will provide UBI, which will be adjusted based on student loan obligations. Maybe elect one that will reform the existing IBR/repayment options so 1M students are going into default every year.
But as we all know what your saying is a strawman when you have people like warran buffet paying less in taxes than his secretary. Obviously that’s not by accident and rich taxpayers have successfully organized/lobbied/passed multiple laws over the last 40 years providing tax breaks for the themselves and corporations.
However, going back to 7th grade civics our government is split into 3 branches to distribute power and provide checks and balances. In this very instance the judicial system (government) is the forum where these facts and bad acts of the government were uncovered and a judge (government employee) reinstated the discharge in 3 of the 4 cases cited.
> Judge Timothy J Kelly of the DC Circuit Court found that the original determination letters had language in them that seemed final, in contrast to the Department of Ed’s claim that it was provisional.
I agree it’s an astonishing number, and once you begin looking past the data and at the individual stories/anecdotes it’s heartbreaking. After all look at this article people are literally leaving the country.
I have 4 brothers all of us have a bachelors and advanced degree (1 MD, 2JDs and 2 Masters). I had a brother move to Korea to teach English, because he couldnt get a job. He had an undergraduate degree in information science and an MBA, graduated in 08’. People in this thread want to blame student choices and say it’s an issue of majors/skills...that’s not the problem.
https://www.studentloanplanner.com/pslf-lawsuit/
Edit: I think In all 4 of these cases the Dept. Of Ed. Already approved these discharges, sent approval letters, then changed their rules and revoked the discharges. Again the rule changes were in violation of law and done because the costs of the program were so large.
Again that’s right in theory and what the banks report, however, individual law suits uncovered intentional efforts by the banks internally to force deferments and resetting the clock on IBR loan payers. Literally bank communications turned over in discovery on a number of lawsuits show instruction not to process annual financials, place the students in forebearance for a month, then process the documents so the clock reset.
Case in point the banks at no point inform loan holders when the IBR discharge clocks reset (sure student knew they were in forbearance for a month every year, but in these cases the students timely submitted the documents and students have no control over the bank processing times), it’s only when the students went for the discharge and were the students informed there clocks reset annually. Further bank communications showed this was also intentionally done so over the years the banks counted on the student losing their records and proof they timely submitted their annual financials.
And I’d argue that 98% (it’s actually 99.5%) of loan holders being denied discharge in IBR programs is proof the program is broken, but again the individual lawsuits against the banks/loan services broke this wide open. Then again we don’t need to look at the individual lawsuits either multiple state attorney generals have brought charges against the largest loan servicer for these acts and worse (continuing to collect on loans that were actually discharged), still it doesn’t seem that will help these students (like billion dollar fines against the banks didn’t help homeowners post 2008).
So by your logic, yes taxpayers are responsible to the extent they are guaranteeing loans in the first place which is what allows the schools to charge artificial prices which the data shows can’t be repaid in millions of cases because the jobs and wages aren’t there. The article maybe just a few anecdotes but when the data amounts to 1M defaults a year, at what point are you going to stop complaing about the taxpayers having to make up for the bad decisions of 18 year old kids trying to better their future and question taxpayer funded loans allowing the runaway school costs in the first place?
Until you come to find out one of the college grads couldn’t get any employment and the one that did (with $100,000k+ in loans) got 3 part time jobs including Starbucks barista and mail delivery. That’s the reality for millions of America grads, not 6 figure SV jobs with stock options and health insurance.
The numbers and realities are devistating, 1 million grads are defaulting on their loans every year.
And your take on the income based repayment programs sounds like marketing and PR. These income based programs have been in play for over 10 years so the first groups of students (in government/non profit work) were in theory eligible to discharge their loans, yet something like 90% of the first batch were denied the discharge because the banks played games along the way (put students into deferment for a month while the banks reviewed student financials on annual renewals breaking the consecutive payment rule and restarting their 10 year clock every time). For the rest of the loan holders (the first batch who isn’t eligible for discharge until after 25 years) will be in a similar boat/rude awakening when their time comes - of the programs aren’t gutted first which has basically been threatened since the program began. Sure these programs exist but so does discharge of student loans in bankruptcy (but there is a reason why almost everyone thinks student loans aren’t dischargable in bankruptcy).
If they were living in a good economy then there wouldn’t be 1,000,000 student loans going into default every year.
Sure corporations are making record profits, but wages have been stagnant for 30-40 years, workers have never seen a higher wage gap, and the economy has the lowest social mobility of any 1st world country.
Since when is a degree about “chasing a dream”? We aren’t talking about starving artists or people pursing acting or becoming a professional athlete.
These are 18 year old kids who are pursuing an education and wind up in a mountain of debt they will service for the rest of their lives (at least 30-40 years).
In a world where the system is set up so these 18 year olds have to take on debt to obtain an education. These kids shouldn’t be blamed for the shit economy that doesn’t have jobs and the jobs that are available won’t be sufficient to repay their loans.
1million student loans are defaulted on every year, these are not dreamchasers its an entire generation that is finding there is no more middle class in this country rather a new unemployed/underemployed/indebted class.
Best advice for anyone, especially a foreigner without SSN/ITIN, is to get a lawyer. Note for all foreigners, IRS changed their rules to get an EIN 5/10/19 and this is significantly delaying new foreign owned/controlled businesses.