ameister14

10 ms·

61.
by ameister14 2y ago
So the risk is that if intent is shown the spoliated evidence is assumed to be unfavorable for the party responsible, so the court will tell the jury to consider the facts in light of the missing evidence being negative for Google. It can a
62.
by ameister14 2y ago
>is a 5-second disappearing message still "recorded" Yes. What's the difference, functionally? Ignore the time limitation, what is the command being given, in the end?
63.
by ameister14 2y ago
>(Google didn't destroy chat logs, they just had history off for them) This is a weird argument I'm seeing a lot. Isn't this just a variable trigger for deletion? What is the functional difference in the code, I mean? Usin
64.
by ameister14 2y ago
So you've been destroying recorded information as a policy; that's fine, but the rule is essentially that if you know you are being sued and your chats are relevant, you need to take steps to stop the destruction.
65.
by ameister14 2y ago
It's only relevant records, not all records.
66.
by ameister14 2y ago
>These sorts of cases are often attempts to establish precedent that they can use to go after others under similar theories. There is already a lot of precedent around policies related to spoliation which is why it would be a surprise to
67.
by ameister14 2y ago
So this wasn't a natural monopoly because the high cost of entry isn't the sole or even arguably primary barrier to competition, and that's not the issue.
68.
by ameister14 2y ago
>Bottom line is that companies should assume that the government has a right to audit their practices at any time for any reason, and avoid intentionally destroying potentially valuable information. No. When a company reasonably anticipa
69.
by ameister14 2y ago
Because when using signal it was recorded, just deleted after two weeks.
70.
by ameister14 2y ago
It does, however, mean that your new documents related to the litigation must be preserved. Just because a machine destroys it for you as a service doesn't mean you don't have a duty to preserve. They control the disappearing time
71.
by ameister14 2y ago
>It's either: I hold him down and the medic gives him 5mg of midazolam or he's the cop's problem. That's unacceptably dangerous without knowing what drugs the bleeding person is on. Even alcohol makes the risks of giv
72.
by ameister14 2y ago
Does this actually remove anonymity on the internet? It seems to de-anonymize a set of IaaS customers, sure; but that's not nearly the same thing as removing anonymity completely. I've only just scanned this but it seems at first
73.
by ameister14 2y ago
Did that even keep pace with inflation? Looking at a generous measure of that in the form of ECI, I don't think it did.
74.
by ameister14 2y ago
I think people are doing it and I think it sucks. If you are making $10 an hour in the US you aren't really making ends meet.
75.
by ameister14 2y ago
The average hourly wage in the United States is $30, so 15 hours a week is $450 pre-tax. Live on that with a family.
76.
by ameister14 2y ago
They actually resulted in a decrease in overall skills required. It takes a lot of skill to use a loom and make a napkin, the same is not needed for factory work yet you can make 100 napkins at the same time. Similarly, we had the rise of t
77.
by ameister14 2y ago
>yes, a growing economy requires higher-skilled work, but that's good because that work comes with higher pay. The problem, of course, is that wages stagnated from '99 to 2014 and the job participation rate has been decreasing
78.
by ameister14 3y ago
I went to law school to do that, but without that you can start by focusing on an area of law called "business associations/corporations." There are resources online to assist law students studying for exams in that class so
79.
by ameister14 3y ago
Rewriting this to just say it could be simply to shift liability for your initial GP to the new one; not sure why you would choose this structure in that case but it's possible? It could also be that the initial GP had individual contr
80.
by ameister14 3y ago
who's museum? The British Museum?
81.
by ameister14 3y ago
These rules already exist, it's just enforcing them that is the issue.
82.
by ameister14 3y ago
average cost for an apartment in Berlin is apparently around 5.100/m2 and rent is around 11/m2, so back of the napkin math pretty much checks out
83.
by ameister14 3y ago
I really doubt that Google has the power to blacklist someone from the industry, or that they would take steps to do so in this instance even if they did have such power. I have yet to see an example of Google doing so or anything that make
84.
by ameister14 3y ago
>I would argue that Google has more power over us now than King George III had over his subjects in 1773 This is not the first time I have seen bizarre hyperbole like this - it's quite strange. Russia, China, and King George III all
85.
by ameister14 3y ago
>But it seems at least as plausible that he didn't I do not believe that is true. Possible, perhaps. Plausible, much less at least as plausible? No. You're kinda making an unjustified leap to support your position here. The alt
86.
by ameister14 3y ago
"We are a religious state and we are going to fight it to keep that filth out of the state of Oklahoma because we are a Christian state – we are a moral state" Seems to me that he did, in fact, call LGBTQ+ people filth. When later
87.
by ameister14 3y ago
" Senator calls LGBTQ+ people 'filth,' says most don't want them here " > https://www.tahlequahdailypress.com/news/senator-calls-lgbtq... So is this just bad because of a or b? Is it because
88.
by ameister14 3y ago
Are you saying that the civil rights and feminist movements in the US have not had visible measurable results in the last 50 years? If so, you are wrong.
89.
by ameister14 3y ago
So that's not true. They had to prohibit overlapping coverage in order to make sure that all private practice physicians accepted the medicare system, which has lower reimbursement rates than private insurance. You can pay for more cov
90.
by ameister14 3y ago
>every business is anti-competitive That's not actually true. Every business is competitive , but not every business engages in anti-competitive behavior.

More ›