Rylinks

this is like saying you don't own a lock because it won't open if you've lost the key

it's the most non-renewable resource, but it also goes away whether we use it or not.

I'm not an expert in this, but i think the first-sale doctrine only applies if the phone is in similar condition as the new ones you get from apple (or if it's used, you say that it's used, etc). The seller of the wiretapped phone would probably not be protected.

I do not think it is fraud to print the Apple iPhone X US-version 64GB Black code on a box that does in fact contain an Apple iPhone X US-version 64GB Black

Trademarking your UPC would not work, as someone reselling your product is protected by the first-sale doctrine. If I buy a bottle of Pepsi(tm), I can use Pepsi's trademarks when selling that bottle to someone else.

if you have tons of proof about a murder, it's almost certain to fall under one of the exceptions to the doctrine. e.g, if law enforcement would have discovered the evidence anyway, it is not excluded.

there's plenty of people who think defending a criminal at all is ethically dubious. Depriving criminal defendants of the most effective defense by applying social pressure to their attorneys is not a good road to walk down.

why? I do think there is a historical case, but what about freedom of expression makes it harder to build bridges, and is there a way to build bridges anyway?

How is making prisoners pay for the prison any different than a court fining someone convicted of a crime?

Will banks accept a faxed photograph to rebut a claim that the membership was cancelled?

Much of professors' salaries are paid from grants. The professor who barely does any teaching is (hopefully) pulling in research money.

I don't know whether this is feasible at the temperature gradients created by data centers, but it's not prohibited by physics. If there are chemical species in the water that are stable at 24 C and not 19 C, the fish can harvest these for chemical energy after they have traveled the ten meters.

This is probably more relevant at temperature gradients greater than 5C, but it's thermodynamically possible.

I agree, and if I were forced to answer I would say that even the CA constitution probably doesn't apply to Facebook et. al.

I think the point I have in mind is that there are less restrictions on speech as the venue becomes more private, and this is for good reasons, large websites as a platform for mass conversation are relatively new, and come with their own benefits and drawbacks when they choose to restrict speech. And because these trade-offs are new, the debate should be about these pros and cons, rather than flat statements that censorship is bad, or that private companies can do whatever they want, no matter how severe.

It should be a policy debate. The CA constitution probably doesn't apply, but the legislature can intervene anyway, and I don't think an argument that says "these platforms are important enough to modern-day communication that they should do so in some manner" is completely insane.

This is wrong, even in the United States. There are rare circumstances where a company's property is open to the public to such an extent that they become subject to first amendment restrictions (e.g. Marsh v. Alabama). Some states, such as California, have even greater restrictions on private parties in their state constitution. CA's constitutional speech protections prevent shopping malls from expelling petitioners from their premises, even if the mall disagrees with the speech.

Extending this body of law to, say, Facebook would have problems, of course. But I don't think it's so clear that all sensible adults know that censorship is only something the government does, and are happy letting any corporate behavior, no matter how extreme, pass without scrutiny.

Prices are not set to guarantee profits for landlords. If it's a cold rental market, the owner of the property still would prefer to lose only a small amount, rather than having the unit sit empty and losing all of the fixed costs.

It seems like a high-variance strategy. Most of the time it would be a demerit, but that doesn't matter if most of the time you will not get past the HR screens regardless.

Generally speaking, a company communicating information to you does not bar you from trading unless you explicitly agree to refrain from making trades.

Chemical engineering: If you don't know what you're doing, your reactor will blow up and kill people. Here are some cases where people didn't know what they were doing. Don't be like them.

China has clearly shown a capability to govern reluctant populations. I'm not sure why occupied NK would be different.

People have been competing against solar and wind for years

We learned about hereditary traits long before gene sequencing even existed. You do not need to know how something works on a genetic level to make strong conclusions about heritability.

That being said, this specific case looks like bad reporting about a tepid study, so I wouldn't be surprised if it were totally wrong.

As long as you're doing the standard things that help you retain talent (like paying market rate, providing good opportunities, etc.), there should be no reason to worry, right?

Right, that's the point: sports teams benefit from being able to pay below-market rates to players they have developed. If you're doing the standard things to retain talent either way, why not just hire someone skilled?

I'm not arguing about the moral case here. It would be great if companies invested in people out of a sense of responsibility. But I don't think "As you sow, so shall you reap" translates from professional basketball.

Most companies cannot have their employees sign multi-year contracts. Outside of sports, there is a much bigger risk of your competitors poaching people after they've developed.

The loss of Queensland’s Great Barrier Reef alone costing that region 1 million visitors a year, imperilling 10,000 jobs and draining $1 billion from the economy

This is terrible for Queensland, but it doesn't support the $1T global cost. Most of these tourism dollars will go to other attractions that are slightly worse on the margin--they won't just disappear.

Generally if a loan is collateralized, you are not liable for it beyond the collateral.

Berkeley will caption any video for their students on request.

While it's not possible for Uber to have an apolitical stance on collective bargaining rights for independent contractors, it is totally possible for Uber to have an apolitical stance on the composition of the Micronesian parliament. In fact, most SV companies are probably apolitical in this respect.

It's impossible to be completely apolitical, but it is possible for a company to be involved in politics to a greater or lesser degree.

Just to remind the hydroelectric fans here: the cost of Banqiao Reservoir Dam is 170,000 people dead and resettlement of 11 million.

That is ONE dam gone wrong. Why anyone would build another one is beyond me.

This is only one side of the tradeoff. Both tiredness and shift hand-offs cause bad judgement, and both can kill people. An analysis that only looks at one is incomplete.

In the coming days there will be reams written on these laureates in the scientific press, much of which will be more enlightening, informative and contextually relevant than the dedicated encyclopaedia article.

In my experience, the scientific press usually does not know what they are talking about, and relying on them for enlightenment or information is dangerous.

They don't want to do that because that takes money away from them.

It takes money away from the enrolled students that UCB is currently spending money on.