will_brown

>This is precisely how civil law works.

How many trademark cases have you litigated?

How many cases have you won/lost on summary judgment? SJ is taking all facts in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party they still lose as a matter of law...a jury wasn’t even needed to make a finding of fact, because the prevailing parties were entitled to judgement as a matter of law. It’s pretty damn persuasive.

Who is Mario being confused for? Again not how the law works at all...no one is confusing Mario, the infringing Mario is being confused for a legit Mario, that would be a part of the infringement claim. Again if I start making Mario T-shirt’s the public would be confused about the origin and think it’s legit product...why wouldn’t they? But it’s not it’s an infringing product trading off the good will of the mark, you bet any infringers would defend a trademark claim by showing the Mario trademark owner has abondoned the mark, and present evidence of the owners knowing people copied the Mario games/marks and they didn’t take any action to enforce it.

>The dynamics of open markets with open trade data

Well the mortgage data was available, but no one looked into it until they did, and even then the smart money bet against the market...yet everything remained AAA rated for years despite the known toxicity, turns out the ratings were rigged also.

It’s pump and dump schemes all the way down, public markets/crypto markets it make no difference. There isn’t an economist alive who doesn’t say the stock market is significantly overvalued at this time and yet...historic highs remain, until they don’t.

How was I reaching? I have two examples of companies who had trademarks, their marks were knowinglying infringed, they lost their otherwise legal right to enforce the mark for failure to do so timely.

>yeah, I"m going to find in favor of the would-be infringer here because Nintendo didn't go after that C64 port that one time in 2019."

That’s not how Law works. Your mixing confusion in the market place and laches...the jury doesn’t pick and decide what laws apply.

If I saw a T-shirt with Mario on it for example, or a Mario game...I would surely think the owners of the Mario marked either created or licensed the work...that’s the definition of confusion anyway, but that’s not the issue being discussed.

Because it’s a rigged market and easily manipulated because it’s unregulated.

The same reasons it’s run in the past...essentially the same reason for boom and bust cycles in normal markets.

Fitbit was sued by Fitbug and while likely would have had a strong claim of infringement the court found Fitbug lost its rights to enforce the mark against Fitbit because the delay in eneforcement.

Similarly Eat Right Foods lost a similar case for their mark “Eat Right” to Whole Foods for their delay in enforcing the mark.

The mark holder doesn’t have to take action in every infringement as you say, of course...but if it can be proven the mark holder knew or should have known that’s kind of the threshold legal issue.

>And I'll wager the journalist chose that quote about "selling joy" to emphasize how ridiculous it sounds... you have to understand how to read between the lines.

The qoute is from their financial sponsor...the “journalist” is not picking quotes, and they are not mocking their sponsors “ridiculous” quotes, they are being paid ...and they are pushing their sponsors brand new rental business.

1) tragic photo? It’s a promotional photo complete with positive quote from the person how great the life style is.

2) the entire article highlights how this is a lifestyle choice...and you cherry-picked the sole comparative quote acknowledging not all homeless are affluent and homeless by choice.

From the NPR financial sponsors:

>"We're selling joy," he says. "We're selling inspiration when you get out on a trail or go for a bike ride. We're selling the adrenaline buzz at the end of a run, and we're just trying to enable that in any way we possibly can."

3). Right...”you can’t do it forever” we shouldn’t be speaking about homelessness in these terms. Nothing is going to change to make these homeless people not broke and magically be able to go out and buy a home.

Yes, after all the article is promoting rental services WeWork (you to can pretend to be an employed tech worker while homeless) and REI rentals (for the millennial homeless who no longer own their own tents but rent them)...both of which are financial sponsors of the publisher.

And just in case you weren’t convinced how great the life is, they throw in a PhD quote promoting these “choices”, odds are the PhD will be homeless soon too and hoping their qoute will get them a job.

Curious how you read anything but promotion into this article?

>It always baffles me how the proponents of the share economy do not see its downside:

They do, that’s why they are behind all these PR/fluff pieces like this one that promotes the “affluent homeless” life style.

You to can live the homeless dream and own two pairs of clothes...working when you want and where you want. Best part is you won’t get any benefits, like health insurance.

It used to be any riff-raff could achieve the homeless lifestyle without even a job, but big tech is classing up the streets. Now everyone thank big tech making homelessness great again...just don’t shit on the sidewalks.

>What do people mean by this exactly?

Historically, “race” was a term invented to group/categorize people by language. From there it evolved into a reference of nationality. Most recently it has become a word to define an attempt to group people by physical characteristics.

So for example you associate race with ethnicity...the question is why? Ethnicity after all is a word to group people through nationality and culture, having nothing to do with physical characteristics...for example Irish is an ethnicity (in addition to just a nationality), but there are both black and white irish.

>But to invest in what?

Maybe now that they changed OpenAI from a non-profit, to what they dub a new type of legal entity: a non-profit that pays out “profits” to investors - and they further claim this will be the most valuable company in history by orders of magnitude - maybe they want to milk google users which they can write off by investing in the non-profit they control effectively own (even though legally non profits don’t have owners).

The FTC complaint lists a number of instances in which Facebook allegedly made promises that it did not keep:

In December 2009, Facebook changed its website so certain information that users may have designated as private – such as their Friends List – was made public.

They didn't warn users that this change was coming, or get their approval in advance.

Facebook represented that third-party apps that users' installed would have access only to user information that they needed to operate. In fact, the apps could access nearly all of users' personal data – data the apps didn't need.

Facebook told users they could restrict sharing of data to limited audiences – for example with "Friends Only." In fact, selecting "Friends Only" did not prevent their information from being shared with third-party applications their friends used.

Facebook had a "Verified Apps" program & claimed it certified the security of participating apps. It didn't.

Facebook promised users that it would not share their personal information with advertisers. It did.

Facebook claimed that when users deactivated or deleted their accounts, their photos and videos would be inaccessible. But Facebook allowed access to the content, even after users had deactivated or deleted their accounts.

Facebook claimed that it complied with the U.S.- EU Safe Harbor Framework that governs data transfer between the U.S. and the European Union. It didn't.

Also Let’s see a list of the various FTC settlements with FB. And a list of FTC employees who worked on those settlements now working for big tech.

I know one FTC employee who worked on the 2011 FTC/FB settlement (which required FB to obtain independent 3rd party audits certifying their privacy program for 20 years...never mind the subsequent violations and settlements) is now “head of privacy” for a certain social networking company.

>Is the argument that switching insurance plans is stressful?

I think it’s clear the article is promoting universal coverage, and simply highlight how ridiculous it is that healthcare is a benefit of employment by highlighting nearly 1/3 of employment based plans are discontinued within 12 months.

I’m not sure how you can conclude switching private insurance plans is hardly comparable to a transition to Medicare-for-all, when millions of people make the jump from private insurance to Medicare every year and you don’t hear much complaining from that group. Not to mention a 1 time transition compared to nearly 33% of the workforce going through this annually.

>She is treatment resistant and homeless by choice

I think it’s significantly more complex. It would appear she became homeless through financial/employment issues but elects to not accept what she sees as special treatment which would secure her housing. It reminds me of John McCain electing to stay a Prisoner of War despite being given the opportunity to be returned because of his status as the son of an admiral. Yet It’s odd to say McCain was a POW by choice, he wanted his presence/story to bring to light the story of all POWs, he wanted to be treated the same, just as this woman clearly wants light shed on all homeless not just special treatment/help/housing because her status.

She suffered from homelessness as a child and yet began college at 14, became a world champion/Olympian, even appears to have returned to school successfully after she stopped competing. I mean come on with an experience like that people are here calling her lazy and mentally ill? No doubt mental health issues will follow any homeless child for life, but the track record is clear the woman isn’t lazy and certainly capable, To return to homelessness in her 50’s is tragic, and I’ll double down and say for society to blame her because she is being offered charity and she refuses to accept on principal and then calling her situation a choice is a double tragedy and again more a reflection on society than her.

There was nothing to suggest this woman doesn’t care about being homeless.

This thread is wild, from people calling this woman mentally ill, to lazy, to simply not caring about being homeless. It’s certainly more a reflection on the people making these comments and our society than any reflection on her.

You aren’t wrong. But I doubt the multi time world champion and multi time Olympic medalist is lazy.

admit, deny, allege, stipulate are legalese now?

Well in fairness these words have a basis in the legal system.

Think of an insurance claim and/or civil claim. In response to a civil complaint initiating a civil lawsuit, the defendant must answer the complaint by “admitting” or “denying” each allegation.

And “allege” is the entire basis of US criminal law...as in innocent until proven guilty. As in the defendant allegedly committed the crime until and unless convicted.

These are all legal terms of art.

>It takes tremendous capital expenditure to build that network

What I don’t understand with the gig economy is why the gig workers organize and cut out the platforms.

Do the drivers need uber/Lyft? Do renters need Airbnb? Let these companies take on VC build the tech platform, launch, verify the market...then fuck them, leave them holding their own bag while the workers ride off in the sunset.

Besides the Founders and VCs, who wouldn’t love to wake up tomorrow morning and read about all the uber drivers organizing, launching their own platform and getting equity?

>If a student with an ISA doesn't get a good job after graduation, the school gets nothing (or not much).

The school isn’t the one making these deals (at least from the example in the article), private investors are entering into these agreements with students.

If the student doesn’t get a job the private investors don’t get paid, whereas the school has already been paid.

Fine how does tax funded vs loan funded vs private capital funded education align the interests of the school with the students?

The students interest is getting an education, converting that education into employment, and not being indebted. The schools interest is revenue.

The student would be best off with a free tax funded education and no debt, the school is best off with guaranteed federal loans allowing them to charge imaginary tuition rates no one can normally afford but for guaranteed student loans.

Where is the alignment of interests come from with private capital in exchange for future earnings? Students are left indebted (maybe not in debt but indebted) and schools face the reality the private market isn’t willing to pay runaway tuition costs like guaranteed federal loans because private market knows it’s a bad investment (as evidenced by the current amount of outstanding student loans and default rates, nearly 1million defaults a year). Next thing we know the private investors will begin negotiating tuitions on behalf their investments and leaving non- capital backed students footing the bill for the difference (kind of like our messed up healthcare system).

>the former closely aligns the incentives of the educator with the educated

Do you think the school cares if you pay them using a federal student loan vs a group of private investors making payments on your behalf?

How does one align the incentives of the school with students any more than the other?

The only alignment of interests the school has with the students is when the student has a rich parent who could be a donor or the student is a super athlete that can measurably impact the school revenue as an unpaid student athlete.

>The author is a billionaire who is is proposing for the wealthy to be taxed more, how is he insulated by paying more taxes?

Maybe it’s in his proposal but I didn’t see any mention of bringing back the estate (death) tax on the rich or increasing capital gains.

Wasn’t that AOL. Email, instant messenger, profiles, chat rooms all in one place where everyone spent countless hours?

You could say it was a starting point/portal...but where else was anyone going back then to spend significant time?

>genuinely don't understand the argument that tech companies are hurting society by providing lower paying gig-economy jobs.

For starters these multi billion dollar gig economy tech platforms aren’t providing jobs (at least to the gig workers). Gig workers are independent contractors and by their very nature independent contractors are self-employed.

It’s all a massive fraud that harms society. How many non tech companies go public with $1B/year losses? None. The very same company who on one hand doesn’t give 40+hour workers employee benefits and on the other claim they are job creators.

>"would you give up your account name"

Sure will you give up all my data, metadata and shadow profile? Oh and don’t forget to forward me all funds you have made selling my data and or serving me Ads to date.

I’d really like ICANN to take away the Instagram domain and reassign it to some royals at their request while we are at it.

I was recently reading this article along with electron shell/sub shell articles specifically for the purpose of learning about alternative representations.

My real interest is in alternative representations of the 4 cube/hyper cube/Tesseract.

All I can really find are the commonly accepted representation as seen here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesseract

And Hinton’s colored cubes: https://higherspace.wordpress.com/tag/hintons-cubes/

If anyone can link any other alternatives.

No more sleazy than a beverage company taking free public tap water in mass and reselling it to the public...and serving threatening cease and desist letters for anyone who attempts to drink the public tap water for free alleging they don’t have such rights because the public tap water is owned by said company.

>Even the value based programs that CMS has implemented are really fee for service with a look back and adjustments to payments made based on savings that were encountered.

And let’s not forget one of the more troubling aspects of EHRs and Medicare patients is that physicians are now required to turn over all patient EHR data to the government (CMS) every year for a reimbursement bonus and failure to turn over patient records results in a penalty.

Government collecting patient digital health records...what could possibly go wrong?