4 ms·

Laws are strewn with the "reasonable" standard because there are unreasonable people that will sue over stupid things. It's not sad that "some judge" will have

Laws are strewn with the "reasonable" standard because there are unreasonable people that will sue over stupid things. It's not sad that "some judge" will have to figure out what is reasonable, that's their job. Do you think it is reasonable to make a trade based on a headline without reading the article? What happens if a company accidentally screws up the headline, are you going to sue them? Any reasonable investor that read the article knew it was a joke, especially if you saw the picture.

krick 12y ago
You should have added "I think it's not sad", because it's your opinion. Your opinion isn't that important. I disagree with your opinion. And you see, that's exactly why it is a problem: we are both humans, both might be not completely stupid, both have opinions and our opinions don't match. So if we are both judges it would cost somebody (some human exactly like us, I would add) something important — it would matter dearly to him if you or me is a judge this time. And it would be "just our job". Huh. As if we (they) were gods and not some mortal humans just like himself. A guy he sees first time in his life: not even a king or a village elder (who at least did earn his respect somehow). So that's why I argue it is a shame that some judge can decide what is "reasonable" and what's not, especially when the whole "guilty/not guilty" thing depends on that single word. P.S. Ah, and let me comment on that last sentence of yours. I can be blind investor. From Asia. Maybe too literal or not very bad-humor-sensitive. Just smart enough to make money by trading — as these algorithms are. So I didn't see a picture, don't pay much attention to that "April 1'st" thing, and don't see why Tesla couldn't release a watch. I guess I'm in trouble! And even if there's no single person like this imaginary me: you have no rights to decide if he deserves to be protected by "securities fraud law" like everyone else or not.
- mejari 12y ago
  >You should have added "I think it's not sad", because it's your opinion Then why didn't you add that when you said >it is a shame that some judge can decide what is reasonable and what isn't when that is your opinion? And whether or not it's an opinion is irrelevant, because it is exactly the way the system is intended to work. And there are checks and balances against your hypothetical situation, namely appeals. Hyperbole about duly appointed judges being 'gods' notwithstanding. (Also, a king by definition earned respect? Do you know how monarchies work?)
- sgift 12y ago
  As an investor you are expected to do "due diligence" before making an investment decision. If you fall for a very simple April 1st statement (nope, I don't like that tradition either, but that's not the point) you failed at due diligence. No one forced you to buy the moment you read the headline and after reading the post its intention was obvious. That it was a joke is not even important, anyway. If you misread a post that Teslas R&D researched a new battery with hundreds of hours capacity, loading in 5 seconds into "all new Teslas will include a battery that .." and start buying Tesla stock then it is your problem, too. The information was there. Whether you use it or not is your own problem.
  - krick 12y ago
    It's true: it's investors fault they make bad decision and yes they failed at due diligence. But it's not the point either: Tesla presented them false information during the trading time and it resulted in them gaining (and somebody losing) money. They didn't tell us "it is a bogus post, don't believe information in it". No, it was official announcement of them making new product: a watch, that will show us time in any point of the world!
    - sgift 12y ago
      > Tesla presented them false information during the trading time That's where we disagree, so we probably won't come to an concensus: The whole post (i.e. headline + context) was not false information, because it was clear to any reasonable reader what was going on. If they had only put out the headline, then waited till the market closed and then added the post I would agree with your position. But that didn't happen. All information needed to understand the topic were presented. You just had to use them.
    - npizzolato 12y ago
      Sorry, no. Tesla made a press release with information so hilariously and obviously false that no reasonable person could possibly mistake it for true information. Unfortunately (for the investors) machines aren't reasonable people, which is a risk you take if you base all your investments on what a machine tells you to do.
- krschultz 12y ago
  I don't pepper my writing with "I think" because I think it's a crappy writing style. Though I think reasonable people can understand when something is an opinion as opposed to fact. I think you probably disagree and want disclaimers separating opinion from fact. I think that's stupid. Maybe we should have a law requiring companies to make it clear what is fact and what is their opinion in all documents? I think it would make the world just a touch less fun though. I've read hundreds of pages of engineering specs for my day job. No humor. All facts. It's pretty soulless. That would certainly avoid incidents like these. But I think if we don't have some fun with life, it get's pretty boring.
sophacles 12y ago
Not even screws up a headline, but uses an ambiguous word based on definition entry #2, rather than #1, and NLP gets a bit confused, even though the first paragraph clearly disambiguates?

krick 12y ago

You should have added "I think it's not sad", because it's your opinion. Your opinion isn't that important. I disagree with your opinion. And you see, that's exactly why it is a problem: we are both humans, both might be not completely stupid, both have opinions and our opinions don't match. So if we are both judges it would cost somebody (some human exactly like us, I would add) something important — it would matter dearly to him if you or me is a judge this time. And it would be "just our job". Huh. As if we (they) were gods and not some mortal humans just like himself. A guy he sees first time in his life: not even a king or a village elder (who at least did earn his respect somehow). So that's why I argue it is a shame that some judge can decide what is "reasonable" and what's not, especially when the whole "guilty/not guilty" thing depends on that single word. P.S. Ah, and let me comment on that last sentence of yours. I can be blind investor. From Asia. Maybe too literal or not very bad-humor-sensitive. Just smart enough to make money by trading — as these algorithms are. So I didn't see a picture, don't pay much attention to that "April 1'st" thing, and don't see why Tesla couldn't release a watch. I guess I'm in trouble! And even if there's no single person like this imaginary me: you have no rights to decide if he deserves to be protected by "securities fraud law" like everyone else or not.

mejari 12y ago
>You should have added "I think it's not sad", because it's your opinion Then why didn't you add that when you said >it is a shame that some judge can decide what is reasonable and what isn't when that is your opinion? And whether or not it's an opinion is irrelevant, because it is exactly the way the system is intended to work. And there are checks and balances against your hypothetical situation, namely appeals. Hyperbole about duly appointed judges being 'gods' notwithstanding. (Also, a king by definition earned respect? Do you know how monarchies work?)
sgift 12y ago
As an investor you are expected to do "due diligence" before making an investment decision. If you fall for a very simple April 1st statement (nope, I don't like that tradition either, but that's not the point) you failed at due diligence. No one forced you to buy the moment you read the headline and after reading the post its intention was obvious. That it was a joke is not even important, anyway. If you misread a post that Teslas R&D researched a new battery with hundreds of hours capacity, loading in 5 seconds into "all new Teslas will include a battery that .." and start buying Tesla stock then it is your problem, too. The information was there. Whether you use it or not is your own problem.
- krick 12y ago
  It's true: it's investors fault they make bad decision and yes they failed at due diligence. But it's not the point either: Tesla presented them false information during the trading time and it resulted in them gaining (and somebody losing) money. They didn't tell us "it is a bogus post, don't believe information in it". No, it was official announcement of them making new product: a watch, that will show us time in any point of the world!
  - sgift 12y ago
    > Tesla presented them false information during the trading time That's where we disagree, so we probably won't come to an concensus: The whole post (i.e. headline + context) was not false information, because it was clear to any reasonable reader what was going on. If they had only put out the headline, then waited till the market closed and then added the post I would agree with your position. But that didn't happen. All information needed to understand the topic were presented. You just had to use them.
  - npizzolato 12y ago
    Sorry, no. Tesla made a press release with information so hilariously and obviously false that no reasonable person could possibly mistake it for true information. Unfortunately (for the investors) machines aren't reasonable people, which is a risk you take if you base all your investments on what a machine tells you to do.
krschultz 12y ago
I don't pepper my writing with "I think" because I think it's a crappy writing style. Though I think reasonable people can understand when something is an opinion as opposed to fact. I think you probably disagree and want disclaimers separating opinion from fact. I think that's stupid. Maybe we should have a law requiring companies to make it clear what is fact and what is their opinion in all documents? I think it would make the world just a touch less fun though. I've read hundreds of pages of engineering specs for my day job. No humor. All facts. It's pretty soulless. That would certainly avoid incidents like these. But I think if we don't have some fun with life, it get's pretty boring.

sophacles 12y ago

Not even screws up a headline, but uses an ambiguous word based on definition entry #2, rather than #1, and NLP gets a bit confused, even though the first paragraph clearly disambiguates?