4 ms·

Huh. Actually, it looks like they cleaned up a bit recently. As of a few weeks ago, there were far more skeletons in place (as literally scoured from robots.tx

• matt4077 9y ago
  To nitpick on your example No 3: The question is "what amount of money would make the injured party whole again", to which the answer was "One million". To that one million, another million was added in punitive damages, summing to the total of two million. Punitive damages are added to "regular" damages. The idea is that, for example, you may have only lost $30 when your bank fudged the numbers in their favour. But only awarding you $30 would be too low to discourage such behaviour by the bank, and it would also be too low to make it worth your time and money to sue.
  • pp19dd 9y ago
    That was my point exactly- annotations that require annotations. Think of it from the reader's perspective: they see $2 million highlighted in an article, they mouseover, click, tap or otherwise interact with it. But then a bubble comes up and gives them a different number that can't possibly be immediately interpreted without further reading and maybe analysis. It's confusing to be presented by conflicting information at a glance. Annotations are meant to take a reader to primary evidence or otherwise supplement an understanding. However, primary evidence isn't always so precisely straight-forward to be able to do that sensibly- that was my point.