otterley

17 ms·

421.
by otterley 3mo ago
People who do live here also have terrible ideas. Terrible ideas can come from anywhere!
422.
by otterley 3mo ago
Who does this, though? I'm truly curious.
423.
by otterley 3mo ago
That's missing the mark, though. Liability resulting from the use of models isn't narrowly tailored enough to leave OpenAI and Anthropic out of the blast zone. There's no carve-out for them.
424.
by otterley 3mo ago
Fake news! Communism! Literally!
425.
by otterley 3mo ago
AI slop. The content might be valuable but the framing makes it too painful to read. Please, folks, write with your own voice. It's good for you and it's good for your readers.
426.
by otterley 3mo ago
Source article: https://nypost.com/2026/07/26/us-news/netflix-exec-goes-ball... This is probably the first time I've ever said that a NY Post article was a useful source of information on a story.
427.
by otterley 3mo ago
> you have totally misunderstood article 30 if you claim it is about unjust contracts Fraudulent inducement is not about unjust terms in contracts. The elements of fraudulent inducement in the US are: 1. The other party falsely repr
428.
by otterley 3mo ago
I read it. The law expressed therein appears to be consistent with typical contract law in the West, including the UK (from which US law is derived) and other European countries. I don't see any major differences. (Also, I'm not s
429.
by otterley 3mo ago
Incorporations by reference are not unusual in contracts. A contract is unlikely to be voided merely because the contract has references and the counterparty didn't read them.
430.
by otterley 3mo ago
One possibility you failed to enumerate was that you are wrong. But anyway. What exactly do you mean by “buried or obscured”? As I said above, if the parties cannot be said to have an agreement because the terms of the agreement itself are
431.
by otterley 3mo ago
What precisely did I say that is condescending? HN is supposed to have higher than typical standards for participation than most internet fora and is largely self policing. It’s not condescending to tell people when they are misbehaving. No
432.
by otterley 3mo ago
Right. But those are substantively unconscionable terms (“unfair provisions”), not about the agreement process itself.
433.
by otterley 3mo ago
Right. But those are substantively unconscionable terms, not about the agreement process itself.
434.
by otterley 3mo ago
That doesn’t matter. If you authorize an agent—human or mechanical—to enter into agreements on your behalf (even by mistake), and the agent presents itself as operating on your behalf, the agent’s decisions will be treated as though they we
435.
by otterley 3mo ago
I don’t follow. Taking what public? Most utility companies operating in CA are already publicly traded. Do you mean “nationalizing” (or whatever the state equivalent is)? There are already some municipally owned utilities like DWP in LA and
436.
by otterley 3mo ago
See my sibling comment.
437.
by otterley 3mo ago
How did you arrive at that conclusion? Laws are the result of debate between sides and the prevailing opinion. The fact that laws aren’t identical in every jurisdiction worldwide reflects that there isn’t universal agreement on every questi
438.
by otterley 3mo ago
It just won’t fly in court. Full stop. There are perhaps other defenses to be raised, like unconscionable terms, but not that one.
439.
by otterley 3mo ago
I would personally be shocked if the EU voids click-wrap agreements for unconscionableness based on the process alone. I’m not super familiar with EU law; is that what it truly says? I rather doubt it because I do business in the EU and hav
440.
by otterley 3mo ago
Where has this ever been adjudicated?
441.
by otterley 3mo ago
That’s not an “I didn’t read it” defense. That’s a “term is this contract is unconscionable” defense. They’re not the same thing. I was speaking strictly of the former. Also, striking an unconscionable term typically does not void the whole
442.
by otterley 3mo ago
The point is still correct. People often disagree on what is good and what is bad. It’s a judgement, not an indisputable fact.
443.
by otterley 3mo ago
I am an attorney, and am aware of certain exceptions. But these are exceptions and not the general rule, which is what I am speaking of. > The law could theorerically (and does) invalidate “agreements” which no one is reasonably expected
444.
by otterley 3mo ago
By that same logic, do you believe ignorance of the law is a valid defense to a criminal charge? Laws are also written by lawyers.
445.
by otterley 3mo ago
If there’s no product or service to be consumed, there’s no value produced either. That’s the point: it’s harmful to eliminate the incentive to produce.
446.
by otterley 3mo ago
> From a factual perspective, I honestly think that shouldn’t be controversial: it’s well-understood that very few people actually read those things, they just want to get them out of the way There’s no way this would fly. “I didn’t read
447.
by otterley 3mo ago
The flip side of the incentive to spend more on capex is that rates are regulated by the PUC. So it’s not like the utilities get blank checks.
448.
by otterley 3mo ago
You keep getting downvoted because nearly everything you say is not only factually incorrect but contradicts common sense. If you want people to take you seriously, start linking to facts and analyses by credible sources or showing your mat
449.
by otterley 3mo ago
What exactly does their accounting say?
450.
by otterley 3mo ago
> consider how difficult it would be to find a nice way of writing an article Writing is often difficult. That's what makes good writing so distinctive and valuable. Just because something is hard doesn't mean it's not wor

More ›