ameister14

7 ms·

31.
by ameister14 2y ago
I don't think reasonable prices are based on what the potential maximum profit per user is. Normally it's based on the expense per user plus a percentage for profit.
32.
by ameister14 2y ago
I knew you did not use the word conflict, I did so in an analogy to another philosophical thought experiment called the state of nature. I was trying (and clearly failing, my fault) to illustrate a logic issue you were having; just because
33.
by ameister14 2y ago
Not at all. Despite the "state of nature" being theoretical, you wouldn't say that the reason people harm eachother is because of government regulations, would you? Of course you wouldn't, because you can think of a lot
34.
by ameister14 2y ago
Companies as we currently know them mostly did not exist in the 1700's. Where they did many of the biggest were monopolies granted by the government. The free market has never existed on a wide scale, so no company currently has to sur
35.
by ameister14 2y ago
That's not going to happen, unfortunately, because a lot of the surveillance powers are explicitly authorized or otherwise not ambiguous, and did not rely on Chevron deference.
36.
by ameister14 2y ago
>This cannot be challenged because Chevron was in place. That's just not correct.
37.
by ameister14 2y ago
Chevron is from a decision in 1984, so how did it apply in 1976?
38.
by ameister14 2y ago
well that's insane
39.
by ameister14 2y ago
They essentially decided that with executives years ago with McDonnell v US
40.
by ameister14 2y ago
Yes, I agree - the President is immune for the official act they undertake, the existence of which allows for a the charge of bribery. They are not immune for the non-official act of soliciting or accepting bribes in exchange for an officia
41.
by ameister14 2y ago
Well, to be fair, the first two examples she uses are very likely official acts and the third requires an official act to be bribery in the first place.
42.
by ameister14 2y ago
No, the act undertaken in exchange for the bribe would be under the immunity umbrella but the act of taking the bribe would not.
43.
by ameister14 2y ago
I said this in another comment but I get a lot out of Bloomberg's financial and legal news. FT can be good and Foreign Affairs is usually pretty solid.
44.
by ameister14 2y ago
I think there are some specialized places I'm willing to pay for deeper analysis. Some parts of Bloomberg are good for that; for example Matt Levine writes on financial and legal issues there and is excellent.
45.
by ameister14 2y ago
There are some issues you're ignoring, legally speaking, regarding liability and ownership when you have a conflict of interest, but that's ok.
46.
by ameister14 2y ago
I feel like you're being deliberately pedantic in a general sense and ignoring the terms of art here. Direct owner is a term that basically means someone who has ownership, beneficial ownership, voting rights, or rights to sell. Sam Al
47.
by ameister14 2y ago
That's a bit rude, especially since you're wrong. Prior to Ian Hathaway's takeover a few months ago Sam Altman owned over 75% of the fund, according to their Form ADV filings with the SEC. I get why you're confused, thou
48.
by ameister14 2y ago
There is a huge difference between 'I have private investments' and 'I own a controlling interest in a fund I have been telling you is independent'
49.
by ameister14 2y ago
No. A single entity setting prices is not collusion, collusion requires multiple parties.
50.
by ameister14 2y ago
There are a lot of reasons for this, but for me, a big thing is how absurdly long movies are now. I look at movies and at this point will reject some that just feel like they will take too much time. I saw Furiosa, it was fine, but it was a
51.
by ameister14 2y ago
Chinese municipal governments are funded through the tax assessed on the sale of the home and not through a continuous property tax - or at least that used to be the case, haven't checked in a while. That resulted in municipalities enc
52.
by ameister14 2y ago
The problem I can see is the extension of the period of damages. There is an argument to be made that there should probably be a statutory cap on years for damages accrual rather than just 'as long as you infringed,' but that&#x27
53.
by ameister14 2y ago
It isn't exempt from anything; the majority opinion says "The Act’s statute of limitations establishes a three year period for filing suit, which begins to run when a claim accrues." The question is when the claim accrues. As
54.
by ameister14 2y ago
The title is not accurate. The Court clarified that the time limit is 3 years from discovering the infringement, not 3 years from when the infringement took place.
55.
by ameister14 2y ago
Why would emails be ephemeral? I see the argument he and presumably you are making in terms of chats, though I disagree with it both in terms of what the law currently is and in what it should be, but email? Mail isn't ephemeral. When
56.
by ameister14 2y ago
haha ok thanks, I was really scratching my head to think about how that would possibly work. I was going back to idea of writing to a file that overwrote itself in sections but it's good to hear that was a joke.
57.
by ameister14 2y ago
>I work remotely, meaning face-to-face conversations are out of the question. Zoom? Phone calls? You choose to use a recorded form of communication, but there are options. That said, if your goal is to intentionally hide information from
58.
by ameister14 2y ago
>To me, a slack message or chat message is the digital equivalent to me going to your desk or talking to you at lunch in person. To some people, posting on a public facebook wall is likewise the digital equivalent of talking to someone a
59.
by ameister14 2y ago
So you're saying it works as a reverse system where the default is not to save the chat? That's interesting, I would have assumed adding a database and writing to that database for storage would by necessity involve sending a comm
60.
by ameister14 2y ago
I've seen a few in district courts related to Rule 37(e)(2) and signal in particular.

More ›