catreadingabook

This has been a thing in the US for a while unfortunately. We acknowledge that food, shelter, clean water, and reasonable healthcare are basic human rights for prisoners, but when it comes to regular poor people? Suddenly we're a nanny state and they're abusing the system by... being alive, I guess.

Umm the actual court order the article refers to is super generous to the plaintiffs lol. Whoever's representing them made such basic mistakes that I'm not even sure how they passed the bar exam:

The Plaintiffs' first cause of action lists--in a single paragraph that spans four pages--fifty
different state (and DC) consumer-protection statutes.

(This is a no-no in every federal court in every state.)

In either event, the Plaintiffs concede that they've failed to meet the requirements of Mississippi and Ohio law--even as they ask us not to dismiss those claims.

(Wtf? lol)

we agree with Burger King that a reasonable person wouldn't have interpreted Burger King's TV and online ads as binding offers.

(This is well-settled law and taught to most first-year law students.)

Most people in first world countries will probably understand 'L' and 'R' anyway. But hypothetically, the problem could probably be solved by adding another letter, the same way we know that 'T' is for 'Tuesday' and 'Th' is for 'Thursday.'

I'm not a lawyer (yet) as I haven't taken the bar exam, but I remember learning this in law school.

I can't find the original court filing that all these news articles are reporting, but presumably, this is a special kind of suit seeking a "declaratory judgment" - a suit asking the court to prevent a harm before it happens.

Cornell Law School discusses it in a somewhat lengthy read but put "simply", for standing in this kind of case, the court would want to see:

a concrete controversy (as opposed to a hypothetical one, e.g. you can't seek a declaratory judgment "in case my neighbor decides to hit me"),

between adverse parties (some random citizen can't sue you for breaking a promise you made to your grandma),

that is ripe (where enough has already happened that a decision right now wouldn't require much speculation),

not moot (has to be able to affect the current case, for example, declaratory judgment isn't appropriate to determine "should he have done that?"), and

the court's decision is needed to prevent imminent harm (has to be relatively certain that a party would be adversely affected if the court doesn't prevent it from happening).

Here there could be issues of ripeness: the court might not want to act on the mere possibility that Trump will be found guilty of insurrection etc. Courts don't like to tell people what they can and can't do unless a real situation makes it necessary, otherwise the court would risk encroaching on powers that belong to the other branches of government.

Sorry, Zoning Violation is my brother. I'm xXG4M3R_G0D_420Xx. Easy mistake to make though.

Galaxy brain idea: Just encrypt your messages manually. Agree on an algorithm and trade keys in-person, then send each other encrypted files that you decrypt with a separate program (and for added privacy, on a separate device that doesn't have network access). It's not convenient at all but the idea is hilarious.

There's an urban myth at my university that two students did this to test rumors that the school emails were being monitored, and after a few weeks later IT emailed them asking them to stop.

I get this in theory but it gave me the hilarious mental image of someone gathering their phone, keys, wallet, going to their local polling station, showing their ID, walking to the voting machine, then thinking, "Oh no, I'm allowed to vote for TWO people?" and immediately bolting out the door.

The "high-tech solutions" were sustainable energy, banning mass animal farms, and regulating industrial pollution.

And even if we did come up with a big tech solution that works for now, literally every business would then think, "Nice, now we don't have to care about our carbon footprint," until even our tech can't keep up anymore and we're back at square one.

I'd imagine it's the things that still kinda make it as headlines today, but don't get much coverage anymore because everyone is used to it by now.

"By the way, this weekend's mass shootings led to 10 deaths and 29 injuries total, a little more than last week. Parents, remember to bundle up your kids this fall semester with the latest BulletBlocker Youth Jacket, 10% off if you order today! Now back to the news you actually wanted to hear about: the former U.S. President allegedly commits even more crimes..."

I feel like at this point, accurately reporting the state of the world counts as 'Democratic scaremongering.' Climate change is making the world less habitable. The coronavirus is capable of killing you. Some people will die as a direct result of the current forced-birth laws. It's possible to have a functioning society without racism and sexism. For some reason, these facts are all "political" and it's not the Democrats who are contesting them.

Yeah I was scratching my head at this one. Cop had better have a really good reason here because otherwise, have fun getting Section 1983'd. I am not sure qualified immunity would apply against the right to peacefully assemble, unless either there was reasonably a threat of danger, or some legal authority made the assembly or its actions illegal (e.g. no one allowed on school campuses after 9pm, a citywide noise ordinance on weekdays, etc).

• am not a licensed lawyer and this is neither advice nor guaranteed correct analysis... just in case.

Advice against phishing emails can be reduced to, "1: Never click on a link, call a phone number, download an attachment, or follow instructions you found in an email unless you were already expecting this exact email from this exact sender. 2: If you really want to do those things, search up the organization's website directly and use the contact info they provide there instead."

imo it's the ad-hungry articles stretching everything into 10+ pages that's making advice so inaccessible to people. Super annoying because it dilutes the real, simple message that's already there, it's just locked behind an adwall.

Before I left, I remember it being really bad. People were abusing therapyspeak without any regard for what the terms actually mean. Like, "my bf keeps violating my boundaries by not buying me gifts," "NTA your mom is parentifying you by asking you to clean the dishes," "divorce your wife of 7 years because she neglects you by asking for an hour alone every day."

Without taking a stance myself - I doubt anyone disagrees with the principle, but rather on the implementation. How do we know who's responsible enough; can we write a law that accounts for:

• A 50-year-old woman who committed robbery in a moment of desperation as a 16-year-old and has since shown remorse, attended therapy, and held a stable job,

• A 40-year-old businessman who's never been convicted of anything, seemed okay when he saw a therapist once last year, but privately he gets into vicious screaming matches with his wife and has really inappropriate temper tantrums when he's drunk, and

• A 21-year-old college graduate who seems smart and stable enough, but their social media page is full of harsh criticisms of the government, projections of what would happen if various officials were theoretically assassinated, and more than a few references to "hoping for another civil war"?

While balancing that with the idea that the government isn't supposed to protect something as a "right" while also preemptively taking that right away from people they think might be dangerous, if they can't point to highly credible evidence. (Otherwise, it becomes possible to arrest people for 'thought crimes.')

Idk the solution personally. Seems impossible to balance unless gun access legally becomes a privilege to qualify for, rather than a right to be restricted from. But that would put the power into states' hands, and then states would have the power to decide that no one can have guns except the police.

Completely speculating, because I don't know many courts that have been willing to decide either way, but maybe:

If it causes harm in a way that was reasonably foreseeable, the person who turned it on and/or the person "operating" it might be generally liable on a theory of negligence (but not always).

If the harm was unpredictable, it might be on the manufacturer and the retailer under a theory of products liability (but not always).

Or it could be treated as "ferae naturae," where owners are liable for their 'dangerous animal' pets because they knew the pets were dangerous and still decided to keep them (but not always).

If it's an AI not associated with a physical device, maybe the programmer who "authored" the lines of code could be criminally liable for criminal "speech" (writing an AI) that incites and enables crime, even as a conspirator -- that's reeeaaally doubtful on Due Process grounds, but it would definitely light a fire under every developer's chair to make sure their algorithms are explicitly trained against criminal behavior. (but still not always.)

🎶 oh, I can so just sit here and cry 🎶

but fr what worked well for me was blocking, deleting, getting rid of (or stuffing into a rarely used closet) anything that reminded me of them, then distracting myself 24/7 long enough to later process my emotions with a little bit of distance from the event itself - not to block out the feelings but to just avoid ruminating on them.

Mostly the point was buying time to provide my monkey brain with hard proof that I can survive without that person, that way it stops shooting me up with the Bad Chemicals every time I think of them.

Completely speculating btw:

Separate complaints are generally addressed separately, even within the same suit. It's unlikely one could have "tanked" the other.

I briefly looked over the original federal complaint vs desantis and the original state law countersuit vs the oversight district. The complaints in the other suit do point to different laws.

Since we all know these cases are going to get appealed no matter what, it's entirely possible Disney could be trying to entice the Supreme Court into taking on the federal case down the line by whittling it down to just one issue (free speech).

Single issue cases revolving around constitutional arguments are like crack to the Supreme Court, they love to take these so that they can announce new rules or reasoning before applying it to the case, which they get to do when """interpreting""" the Constitution.

Disney might suspect that the current Justices are drooling at the possibility of ruling expansively in favor of free speech.

De-worming animals is probably still for the best. Even hookworms can be fatal to dogs, for example. And there are other worm parasites way worse than hookworms, like roundworms that can burrow through the intestines and up into the host's heart and brain. I wouldn't take the risk.

(TW)

Yeah typically I'm not on board with the "guns don't kill people" argument but in this particular case, the adult in charge was already (allegedly, potentially) criminally abusive. If not a gun, it would have been 'teaching her to chop vegetables with a knife,' or 'teaching her to hold her breath underwater,' or so on.

Dreams are at least somewhat influenced by your recent thoughts and experiences. For example, many studies found that people dreamed more about disease and confinement during the pandemic (here's a medical journal article about it). You probably have a higher chance of influencing the subject of your dreams if you focus on the desired subject enough during the day.

Interesting, so what happens when an AI creates art that would infringe on a human's copyright? Would AI art of Mickey Mouse be public domain, meaning AI could be the end of Disney's insane licensing fee?

Edit: Nevermind, turns out this article is just editorialized. It isn't public domain, it just isn't eligible for the AI's creator to copyright it if it's fully autonomous.

Agreeing with priapus, no idea what OP is on about but the one here is in really poor taste. Saying generalized statements and trying to describe an entire community as if your experiences are universal, especially trying to paint the entire community in a negative light, is uneducated and weird.

It would be like saying, "I feel like men are dangerous and creepy. They seem to go out of their way to get offended when we tell them we don't want to talk to them. Like, I'm sorry some people in the country have made them feel like they need female attention, but they're hurting their own cause by insisting that they deserve sex all the time."

Maybe it's true about a subset of the group, and that's probably the subset you will see if you are exclusively browsing hateful content all the time. But a few real life conversations with real life people will show that those statements are barely accurate at all for the majority of them.

A more appropriate way to express themselves would have been centered on their own experiences - "I feel like I have to be careful expressing my views on trans people because I see people getting offended over innocuous questions," etc etc. Very very different tone.

Judge Albright is kind of a (controversial) celebrity among intellectual property lawyers. Until the district started randomizing case assignments, everyone used to try to file in Albright's court because he's so plaintiff-friendly. The plaintiffs here got lucky with this judge assignment, too bad the Circuit Court is not amused lol.

Lmao imagine getting referred to a doctor for surgery, you look them up, and their professional webpage is like. "i wen't 2 harverd"

I would really really recommend not underestimating the importance of medical treatment. It took me 4 tries to find the right medication (turns out an NDRI, not an SSRI, did the trick) to discover that actually, "normal" people are basically happy by default?? Like instead of it being this elusive reward that I had to work hard for, it's like I can consciously hold on to my positive emotions and let go of the negative ones. Also, basic tasks that were endless nightmares before (laundry, cooking, phone calls) are now stress-free and even kind of satisfying?

I had the right tools before, like supportive friends, enough education about radical acceptance and coping skills, and a physically healthy routine, but it didn't seem to help. And that makes sense now because it turns out, it barely matters how much happy chemicals your brain makes if it's going to immediately throw them away. Not trying to tell you what to do (am neither a doctor nor a therapist) but I'm wondering if that's what's going on with you too.

In the academic sense of the term, negative rights include the right to not have things done to you (e.g., to not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law).

Positive rights include the right for you to do something, generally as against others (e.g., the right to have food, healthcare, or education be provided to you by other people).

I'm not sure it is useful to try to categorize abortion rights, for similar reasons why it would be difficult to categorize the right to try and grab the only parachute on a crashing plane. Even if it causes injury or death to others, our general tendency is to treat positive acts of genuine self-preservation as a negative right, if only in the sense that we would never enforce a rule that prohibits the person from trying.

A funky brain teaser on the topic might be whose right of life prevails when a perfectly healthy person turns out to be the only match for 5 patients with failing organs, one needing a new heart, another needing a new intact liver, etc., who are each about to die if we don't kill the healthy person and harvest their organs for transplant. And would the answer change if this wouldn't kill the healthy person, but severely decrease their quality of life - such as involuntarily taking one of their lungs and one of their kidneys?

Almost certainly, or else the suit could be dismissed on Double Jeopardy grounds. Even then, he would probably just appeal to the Supreme Court and get them to make up some reason to rule in his favor.

Wait, why? Not to complain, but it's essentially law that when federal courts have jurisdiction, a civil case may be 'removed' from state court and into federal (district) court upon the defendant's request -- and it seems pretty clear that federal courts have jurisdiction over civil cases arising under the Constitution. I guess the court technically has discretion in some cases, but that's pretty surprising.

No way they don't force you to agree to some "terms and conditions" along the lines of, "You accept full responsibility of all risk and if we get sued, you agree to pay on our behalf. And because we know you won't read this, here's all the risks so we can say you gave informed consent: ..."

I was somewhat active on Reddit but now I just lurk here. None of the subreddits I was active in have an analogous community here, and I'm not willing to start and moderate one. ¯_(ツ)_/¯

It isn't commercial labor when an adult does their own chores (I think), as it's more related to the people in a household maintaining their own home. It likely wouldn't be labor for a child for the same reasons, though I'm not sure.

But it could start to look like labor when it's something that produces commercial value, for example, it's more like a 'chore' to water the vegetable garden in the backyard, but it's more like 'labor' to tend to 20 acres of farmland.

Excessive chores, though, could be prevented under child abuse law rather than child labor law, depending on how it's enforced. Doing all the household work voluntarily for no reason other than it's fun? Almost certainly legal. No video games until you clean the dishes? Probably legal. No food until you sweep, mop, dust, and shine every surface in the house? Probably abuse.

Granted. Unfortunately, it only works when you send yourself hate mail.

I think it has to be somewhere in between. This 'real deal' theory doesn't explain the popularity of hentai, but at the same time, OnlyFans shows that some people reaaallly care about the personal element. I would bet niche kinks (especially those 'illegal to make but legal to watch'?) will lean heavily on AI for content, but the rest will probably change based on our culture's attitude toward AI in general.

That's actually hilarious. The legal consequence of not thinking about anyone other than himself.

I hate to talk like a law student but that's sort of the system we already have. When a person certifies that they have read a contract (such as terms and conditions), it does actually mean something. No one would want to do business if anyone could be released from a contract just because they were lying about whether they agreed to be bound by it.

You might be able to think of it like the safety presentation that happens before takeoff on every commercial flight in the US. If you look around at that time, very few people are ever paying attention to the video or flight attendant. Why is that, if everyone is supposed to be concerned about their own safety? Maybe they think this presentation will be the same as all the others, so they can safely ignore it. Does that make it the airline's fault if a person doesn't know where the emergency exits are when something does happen? No, the typical intuition - and a relatively necessary assumption on the airline's part - is that each person is responsible for knowing the information given to them in that presentation.

Similarly, it does not necessarily change much if a person has to check off multiple boxes instead of just one, or if they have to wait a few minutes before they can sign off, etc. People will tune out whatever they want to tune out, but we can't have a workable system if that's what absolves them of responsibility.

--That being said, US contract law does take this to some extremes that should be carved out as unacceptable exceptions to the rule. The case of Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute comes to mind where passengers were bound by terms printed on the back of a cruise ticket that they only received after they already paid for it.

It's a clever take, but if true, then it may be inevitable. Politically, even if one party tries to pass the regulations proposed here, the other will 100% use the catch-all "we need to regulate AI!!!!!" scare tactics as an excuse to accept corporate bri-- I mean, to permit lobbying against any rights to free information.

afaik Amazon tries to offload the work of vetting its vendors by requiring them to have a registered trademark. This led to all the sketchy sellers making tons of fake companies with random strings of letters as names, knowing the USPTO is going to approve "AEGIJDU Clothing" because nobody is ever going to contest that name.

That's why you see a ton of identical products listed with supposedly different, super random brand names, in case Amazon tries to take down one of the "vendors" (aka, one of the real vendor's many fronts).

It could still theoretically be that our reality is some kind of entertainment. For example, people enjoy playing The Sims. There are still active communities for the older versions even though there are newer, more engaging games out there. And more generally, some people prefer old games even though their computers have like 1000x the processing power needed to run it.

If the reality we experience is a simulation, it could be for similar motivations, the hardware would be sophisticated but still a user will run whatever they prefer on it.

?? We don't disagree on this.

I'm against forced birth, but have to point out that there is the argument, whether realistic or not, that the parent can always give the baby to the foster care system once it's born, so their obligation would be limited to 9 months total.

Personally what I take issue with is the inconsistency of forced-birth laws in the absence of comparable forced-labor laws. In a world of ideal policy, maybe we as a society might agree that a person should be obligated to sacrifice their time and health for the sake of preserving or creating human life. But then it shouldn't be applied only to adult women who had consensual sex. Why shouldn't non-pregnant people be forced to tend a farm for 9 months to produce food for those who are starving, or to spend 9 months working 80-hour weeks at an emergency call center with no pay?

I suspect the answer is that the rights themselves are not the issue here, but rather the motivation to punish women who have consensual sex.