15155

4 ms·

31.
by 15155 25d ago
So as a business owner, I'm not allowed to know where my $100,000 asset is? My insurance carrier requires me to track the vehicle as a condition of coverage, they also require a dashcam be operating at all times.
32.
by 15155 25d ago
Good luck with your theories. Think twice before punching people, tough guy.
33.
by 15155 26d ago
I have no opinion one way or the other on restrictions on government use - whether they be judicial or legislative. I only care that the rights of private individuals and companies be preserved. Carpenter didn't stop these companies fr
34.
by 15155 26d ago
There are two separate issues here: the government itself being restricted, and the right of the people to collect and disseminate information (in this case, information that is quite arguably in the public interest.) The government can cer
35.
by 15155 26d ago
This is basic law. Your "freedom from [unreasonable] searches" applies only to the government: the government can be barred by the Constitution from broadly using or obtaining data, Home Depot can't be barred from collecting
36.
by 15155 26d ago
> Depends on where you are. Defending against getting punched in the face by shooting them will get you thrown in prison a good portion of the time. Maybe in liberal California (where your 80 year old grandmother has a duty to retreat),
37.
by 15155 27d ago
> making it illegal to possess DIY guns is not enough. This would be an unconstitutional law, per Bruen.
38.
by 15155 28d ago
> They have a toy, they’re increasingly abusing it, then trying to dodge from it being taken away. This isn't uncommon - this is how NY deals with any compelling case involving their infringing gun control statutes. If a defendant h
39.
by 15155 28d ago
> the data processing Maybe? > restricted retention period Prior restraint. > no data sharing off the premises 1000% prior restraint. In what world is this not abridging the freedom of the press? Good luck.
40.
by 15155 28d ago
No, but my concealed pistol (that pesky second amendment) indeed does. "If you exercise your rights, you will be hurt" - what a world to live in.
41.
by 15155 28d ago
In public? I have an (actually-enumerated) First Amendment right to record you. End of argument.
42.
by 15155 28d ago
As an exercise, write the statute: how do you legally prevent Home Depot or Wal-Mart from videotaping their parking lots and adjacent streets as they've been doing for the past 3+ decades? I'm genuinely curious how whatever you pr
43.
by 15155 29d ago
I'm not going to opine on philosophy. These "arbitrary rules" are the supreme law of the land, backed by the application of violence and our economy. > Some other people may want to treat everyone fairly "Fair" i
44.
by 15155 1mo ago
> Do you have anything constructive to say about the merits of the leave to renew policy itself? I've discussed this thoroughly in sibling threads: forcing people to leave every once in a while is an extremely useful tool in ensurin
45.
by 15155 1mo ago
Which immigrant visas require renewal? None of the "leave to renew" conversation here applies to LPRs.
46.
by 15155 1mo ago
> They come with renewal expectations, assuming the situation hasn't changed What? Where is this expectation enumerated? An expiration date is in fact defined. I'm not sure where some legal expectation of guaranteed renewal c
47.
by 15155 1mo ago
> I meant that I agreed that visas are a right. I've explicitly stated that visas are not a right - which is the legally-consistent opinion and basic English interpretation of the concept. (If visas were a right, why would denial
48.
by 15155 1mo ago
Paying more will inherently mean that people cross-train to reap the financial rewards.
49.
by 15155 1mo ago
> Many can’t find locals. *for the price they want to pay.
50.
by 15155 1mo ago
> defending this administration "Leave to renew" has been policy for decades.
51.
by 15155 1mo ago
"Must leave to renew" certain visas has been policy for decades - through at least the Clinton, Obama, and Biden administrations. Most visas are for temporary guests : obtaining a visa doesn't normally give someone the right
52.
by 15155 1mo ago
> They know who you are and where you work Most visas don't permit their holder to work. > Wait, what’s getting enforced here, anyway? The visa holder is forced to expend nominal financial resources and time in their home country
53.
by 15155 1mo ago
Many job reqs are scams intended to satisfy the "doesn't exist locally requirement" (superficially) so that exploitable foreigners are importable. Nobody has 20 years of React experience, of course, but that doesn't stop
54.
by 15155 1mo ago
> I can’t think of any other rationale. For many visas, people are expected to maintain a home that they intend to return to in their country of origin. Forcing people to leave every once in a while makes this more likely (at least in th
55.
by 15155 1mo ago
Have you ever actually seen the inside of most Chinese manufacturing operations? The lack of PPE is astonishing. The lack of safety interlocks, protective features, etc. on their equipment is equally incredible. Safety simply isn't a c
56.
by 15155 1mo ago
Talk is cheap. Sam Bankman-Fried was a loudly vocal proponent of Effective Altruism.
57.
by 15155 1mo ago
The difference is that most people don't make "Look at how altruistic we are! We care™" a key component of their marketing pitch.
58.
by 15155 1mo ago
The issue is that Anthropic is just one company and China doesn't care in the slightest - so it's an entirely moot point and almost narcissistic (on Anthropic's part) to believe that they can have any impact whatsoever on thi
59.
by 15155 1mo ago
This reads to me like an "exploitability" metric more than anything.
60.
by 15155 1mo ago
This paternalistic "safety" "DNA" is ultimately just marketing and a market capture strategy. 1) Propagandize the "dangers" of AI, stage a few incidents, talk up the risks ("it bypassed our most stringent

More ›