Yup. Government has businesses by the balls.
But corruption exists.
Therefore the goverment only ever really pulls small businesses and normal people by the balls, while the big businesses and uber rich (money heavyweights) get to pull the government by the tongue. Sometimes even the balls as well.
Just as Supply Side Jesus intended.
the total wackjob who thinks you need a midnight or 5 am meeting to watch a 10 minute video recording
I’m usually all for rehabilitation, but this behaviour deserves Gitmo-level torture.
AFAIK “congressman” isn’t a protected class. And he’d most likely like to get rid of the others.
I can remember my own coversations myself, thanks.
And what I feel I might both need and forget I’ll write down Either on the phone or using pen and paper.
We can’t have that. Netanyahu may be worse than Hitler (he is in my eyes since I’ve ever had to deal with Hitler through history books book but I have to share the same air as this evil degenerate high on power), so he deserves a bigger bunker.
Hitler also had enough morality left to off himself and spare others the trouble. I doubt Netanyahu has the same courage.
Sorry if you felt it as criticism, I just meant to say “yup, I already know”.
I also wanted to point out that it’s a necessary evil and that I’m personally fine with it (so yeah, I guess it’s a counterargument of sorts, but I also feel we’re agreeing on pretty much all of it as well)
Edit: Thank you for answering my question about the German court hierarchy in the first place, I forgot my manners there for a bit!
I think the issue you described is present in most all legal systems.
Also, certain aspects are a necessary evil (right to appeal is sacred, as is serious consideration). Money and pingpinging however are valid complaints.
Also, I’d rather have my justice slow (when there’s no immidiate harm) and done by humans than by AI. If nothing else, humans can be held accountable. Alternatives cannot. And luckily, the enlightened were on the right track with the model legal system they built.
But how high does the court hierarchy go?
City court, county court, state (Bundesland) court, national (supreme?) court? ECHR seems like it’s off the table.
AFAIK in every place parties to a suit can escalate appeals through all levels. Google (ab)using this power isn’t all that nice for plaintiffs, but it is a cornerstone of an impartial justice system.
The saying goes that JD Vance already toppled Orban and killed the Pope.
If I were Netanyahu, I’d hide in my Hitler bunker to avoid him. Perhaps lure him into a Palestinian zone and send a few drones his way.
You’re right.
Calling ICE is an insult to ice, the form of water.
And calling ICE pigs is an insult to both pigs as animals and everyone else who was called a pig before them.
It’s not a just “you’ve made it” though.
It’s a “You push and shove it HARD down people’s throat to the point it’s almost the only thing they see now apart from ads”.
I remember accidentally searching through google once. The AI summary took half the page and there were a whopping 6 ads. Which is almost two pages of scrolling.
So I don’t blame users for taking the easy way out and just using the summary. Especially if they haven’t heard of uBO + Firefox on mobile. Rawdogging the modern internet is terrible UX. Popups, autoplay, consent forms with a bajillion data “partners”. And ads, ads and even more ads.
Not his money, OUR money.
Is US tax money really ours, or is it basically Trump’s near-infinite gift fund?
Well…
A data center is… A data center. So a central plave for data.
It isn’t called Data Warehouse, Data Industrual Plant or Data Mega Shop.
So - if the place is… a central place for the town people’s data (as in OC’s cases)…
Wouldn’t “Data Center” be a fitting name?
So what?
As if the US government or US compabies don’t play the same “underhanded” tactics to harm competition.
Selling at a loss to earn market share is a perfectly valid strategy for US corpos. Why is China supposedly doing the exact same thing suddenly not as nice?
So… a “Make sure all votes are for the only true candidate” army?
And… They didn’t communicate this with you beforehand?
When the company’s immune to accountability […] backlash changes nothing.
Not really. Backlash is important because it shows there’s an alternative. And not to the company - the company won’t change. But its users, customers and consumers just might.
It creates publicity, which triggers people to talk and think about the issue.
Which is a good thing as well as a driver of change.
Boycotts are also effective. The only problem is, huge companies have their fingers in multiple jars (industries, brands, etc.) and their main customers are other companies.
This gives them a great dose of stability. But if people were to suddenly boycott all of say Nestle’s brands, stores wouldn’t order new Nestle stock.
There’s also no need for extreme backlash in some cases. Just look at Walmart or Microsoft.
Microsoft is bleeding users at a record rate. Sure, the year of the Linux desktop is still not here, but Linux market share has been rising dramatically lately. Why?
Because Microsoft keeps shooting itself in the foot.
Walmart is a similar story.
There’s something about huge consumer-facing companies that makes them extremely vulnerable to losing focus and falling out with consumers.
If some more Boeings fell out of the sky and not just one or two a few years ago, airlines would be looking to clear thenselves of all Boeing stock. This wouldn’t even need backlash.
Backlash is a source of bad PR. And bad PR causes customer loss. That’s profit loss. That’s a bad credit score. Hell, even the government might take a look and find some issues they’d like to check out!
As you can see, this can all spiral out of proportion.
And backlash is the first step in this story.
The “doppelganger problem” is really why this is not an easy issue to answer
I wouldn’t agree. Sure, Taylor Swift would own her likeness. But so would her doppleganger.
This could be done on a nonsensical basis such as first-dibs or whose ever is the most well-known, but the only logical option is that both are protected.
So if our Taylor doppleganger goes around just looking and existing with an appearance closely matching Taylor’s, she’s protected under her own likeness.
If she goes on to claim of being Taylor Swift and swindles people, that’s a seperate issue dealt with impersonation statutes.
Even cosplaying as they did with Dolly Parton would be protected under free speech/expression.
Since these protections already exist, a right to likeness only really stops the deepfakes, which is exactly the point.
It also used to be that if one part of such a contract was found to be illegal, the entire thing would be thrown out, not any more.
Not necessarily.
A contract is supposed to be a mutually-beneficial arrangement. I sell you a car for its market value. I work for you for a market price on my time for the position and my expertise.
If there’s a small mistake both sides are willing to amend - there probably won’t even be a suit.
Even if there is a suit, most places’ laws prefer nudging toe contract to the side “less off” in such cases.
Only when there are unreasonable demands by one side, or the contract is so one-sided it can’t be amended is when it gets thrown out completely.
Which is supposed to be almost never.
Therefore, I don’t think the rules themselves changed as much as the goalposts and the reasonableness window have. Quality of life and purchase power is decreasing steadily basically since Reagan.
Contemporary EULAs are taken as acceptable and a fact of life when even 10 years ago T&Cs were laughed at which were much less unreasonable in comparison.
Other types of contracts follow the same general direction, with employment ones being among the absolute worst.
It most definitely is discrimination. Because discrimination is “treating two things differently according to a discriminator”. Such as living alone or with a registered partner.
Now, the purpose of this is obvious (having a child is expensive and a good thing in the state’s eyes). Such cases where the discrimination “makes sense” (as it evens the playing field isntead of skewing it further) is usually termed as “positive” discrimination.
But as it technically fits the core requirement of discrimination, it is discrimination.