No child left behind passed in 2001. Scott McQuarrie would have had to graduate HS after 2001 to have a chance of being impacted by no child left behind policies. A quick search reveals he graduated college in 98.
I might have been willing to let you try to dunk on a minor typographical error I had not even noticed (and hence don't think is really that notable), until you decided to randomly blame it on no child left behind making toddlers of students? Its a bad policy, I grant you. But its a wild red herring as to why simple typographical errors happen, or why this congressman is supposedly stuck with the mental development as a toddler.
And since I'm here, neither spelling or grammar will measure intelligence. Spelling (or typing) just isn't his strong point. Infantilizing people over spelling mistakes is a great way to dehumanize them, which was a significant portion of the purpose of imposing formality on spelling and grammer by acadamia in the late 1800s. (Guess why).
You've dismissed the actual discussion at hand by seizing on Mr. Bode's use of an outdated industry average. I wanted to say you were implementing the fallacy fallacy, that you picked up a minor error that actually underplayed Karl's point, and made like that renders the article meaningless.
But you didn't even try to make that silly argument, instead just making an ad-hom attack. Makes it easier to choose not to explain how both those errors came about, since you clearly don't care.
Could I get a time stamp on the high-rise discussion? I don't have 47 minutes to go back over the boeing 737 max debacle for a tangentally related 4 minute segment on LA high-rises.
We used to have super rigid car frames, like tesla. Eventually we realized having flex and crumple built in reduced injuries. Societally we choose to inflict more severe damage to a car over injuries to passengers. The move to a super durable frame might radically shift us back to physical injuries as the norm.
The length of a yellow light affects the rate of crashes in city driving. Longer yellow lights reduces reds being run, and reduces sideswipes but comes with an increased risk of rear-endings. Car accidents go up...seriousness of the accidents goes down. We can trade fewer deadly accidents for more accidents with minor injuries and damages.
This is to say focusing on the number and frequency of accidents might be a bad measure. Autopilot's tendancy to hit parked emergency vehicles obstructing the road for instance might be a much more serious error than the error the human makes merging to avoid the vehicle.
Relying on a self reported black box accident report might not highlight the whole picture. For instance, Autopilot would I expect be most used on freeways were traffic conditions are more stable, and distance is most common. But the most time spent driving was on city streets, where all autonomous driving tech is struggling to go beyond a non-scalable system of heavily-mapped isolated regions. Most accidents happen on city streets. So the sample of all crashes from automobiles might not map well to the sample of Autopilot drivers. Indeed, given that without autopilot tesla drivers commit fewer accidents than the national average likely means a higher attention to the road by drivers in general, and a strong possibility that drivers have been over-riding Autopilot to avoid accidents. Absent data on overrides, I can take Tesla's data and build a much less glowing perspective on safety.
Without active safety features, Tesla drivers encounter accidents a third less often than the average driver who may or may not have active safety features. This suggests that Tesla drivers are in general more attentive to the road. Given that many Autopilot errors are not ones an attentive human would have made, this suggests that the accidents we see likely have less attentive drivers. That suggests Tesla's active safety features only have the benefit they do when an attentive driver is available to over-ride Autopilot.
Right now, most people dont have and can't afford a Tesla w/ Autopilot. Once that changes, the drivership of Tesla cars will likely become less attentive, not more, as the drivership approaches the societal mean reflected in the national average. That means as it stands right now, we might actaully be seeing a less safe technology whose safety is being artificially boosted by current drivership.
Its important to note clearly that a number of creators have stopped disputing content ID claims. I have seen reports that because there is no penalty for just claiming revenue via content ID, those on content ID have no incentive to do anything other than deny the dispute. That entirely ends the process. And when the content ID account lets it go, it is mostly (in my limited sample size) because they refused to respond to the dispute raised by the copyright ID match.
There aren't many disputes because dispuing the claim is worthless. Go back a decade and this report would look very different.
I think the entity that filed the records request should sue, treat the governor as truthful, and see what shakes out when the governor faces penalties for lying.
Perhaps Surprisingly, immunity to criminal charges is a consequence of the circling the wagons mentality that are a danger of almost any close-knit "clique" community, rather than explicit deferance by the judiciary
It’s another name for obstruction, but it seems much more clearly defined. Intention to obstruct is required, and it appears it needs to actually impede the investigation.
So, why does twitter even allow a block function for accounts that are used for official government business?
That's a fucking wild ask.
Twitter hasn't developed custom software to eliminate the button on "official" accounts of public employees and I don't think that is unreasonable? It doesn't improve the financials to dedicate people to scanning the various accounts of public officials and making moderation decisions on whether the account is the 'official' account of the office at the same time those officials are looking for an excuse to punish twitter.
All they have to do is click mute instead of block.
All they have to do is click mute instead of block.
All they have to do is click mute instead of block.
All they have to do is click mute instead of block.
All they have to do is click mute instead of block.
The FCC has legal power to issue and renew broadcast licenses, specifically any carrier, like Sinclair, that uses public spectrum to broadcast OTA Television. There would be valid reasons the FCC might not renew a license.
Therefore, the question must be asked why gigi sohn made this comment. I notice you didn't cite a date, so we can not know how old this comment is or look up context. Responses to events from 10 years ago may not reflect current views, or that comment may be made in response to real world events that provide reasonable context. Therefore, I will assume your omission of the critical date and context data is intended to hide the reason Gigi is making this comment. (An 'Adverse inference')
In 2018, Trump-nominated FCC chair Ajit Pai referred the Sinclair-Tribute merger to an Administrative Law judge after it was revealed that Sinclair might be seeking to use a dummy shell corporation to skirt ownership limitations in violation of the law. Tribune later sued Sinclair over their clandestine behavior.
Gigi Sohn at the time gave an interview to The Hill and provided this qutoe:
"I think Sinclair has been disingenuous about divestitures for months now," Gigi Sohn, who served as an adviser to Democratic former FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, told The Hill in an interview. "I think the last filing didn't satisfy anybody that Sinclair wasn't going to still have some control over these stations."
Her tweet was completely in line with that conclusion. When renewing broadcast licenses, the FCC should consider if Sinclair was being disingenuous, make a finding considering if Sinclair was intentionally lying about its intentions or if Sinclair was merely forging ahead unaware of the consequences of its proposed restructuring. And if that investigation finds intentional malfeasance, Sinclair should be at risk of losing its broadcast privileges.
None of this has to do with censorship of on-air content. It has to do with the content of filings made to the government, and potential lies made therein.
please cite where the distinction between publisher and platform is made. The court does not make that distinction, because neither the statute nor the common law make that distinction.
Re: Take two abandoned the application, not Hazlelight
Actually, it makes more sense to say its unclear which trademark application they refer to in your quote, as they just finished describing a trademark application from Hazelight that Take-Two was opposing. If you read the first 3 paragraphs, and try to incorporate your read of paragraph 4, most of the rest of the
"An abandoned trademark dispute from Take-Two Interactive has come to light that saw the publisher file against Hazelight Studios over its co-op title It Takes Two.
The owner of Rockstar Games has filed hundreds of trademark disputes to the United States Patent and Trademark Office over words and phrases like “2K”, “Rockstar” and “Take-Two”.
This included the publisher attempting to file a trademark dispute over It Takes Two with Hazelight Studios. After being published in May of last year, the trademark was abandoned on March 20 this year.
According to the filing: “The owner of the trademark application [Take-Two] withdrew (e.g. abandoned) the application and the application is no longer active.”
The first three paragraphs read that hazelight is the trademark applicant, and Take-two is in opposition. The fourth paragraph is an outlier, and it appears obvious from the mark ups that the guy doing the copy had to change a lot of pronouns to proper names for it to make sense. He clearly changed a pronoun to take-two (that is why take-two is in brackets), and he should have changed it to hazelight.
This is kind of interesting, this case highlights exactly why the statute of limitations exists, something that often gets complained about and might get complained about by those wishing to punish rights holders for their abuses or Miramax in particular for the NFT lawsuit.
Finding a paper contract from 40 years ago is often not easy for the best recordkeeper. Indeed, more broadly, for lots of cases documentation of innocence is hard to find even months later. Think of the man whose alibi was that he was renting a car elsewhere, but no longer had his paperwork within the statute of limitations. Even more broadly, the reason statutes of limitation exist is because exonerating evidence might easily be destroyed by any manner of normal processes, including the destructive effects of time on memory, particularly when an innocent individual will not know what evidence would need to be retained.
We may not agree with Miramax getting off, that perhaps the photographer was shortchanged (I assume he was), but this is one of those cases that highlights why these laws exist, and with a little thought highlights why those laws exist for good reason.
Washington Post failed to note its financial interest in the actions recommended by the editorial board, in that they were arguing to restrict competition to their benefit, but have wrapped it in concern over disinformation to hide an important piece of context.
They literally are violating the principles of transparency they call for in this Editorial. I highlight this because WP will likely claim in their defense that as journalists they are already held to higher standards by various publishing and journalism trade guilds. But this piece is evidence they are not.
ISPs have long managed to classify workers as independent contractors, and this has not changed. The difference is that how they get paid is based on what type of job they do. An install is worth significant money. An Install which is classified as a repair of a self-install is not worth as much. You've put the blame on the contractor not understanding what it means to be a contractor, when the article is about changes to the financials of being a contractor and how that has rendered a once decent job into a shit one.
He has skills as a cable technician, but monopolies mean he doesn't have a lot of other options for employers. Knowing people who used to be these techs, this job used to pay well. It was a single-income family job in the bay area in the 90s and early 2000s. If he makes enough as a single individual to make rent, hes doing better than fast food in just about every area.
between the confusion of policy experts, and the conspiracy theorists in our comments, theres a lot of "why could they possibly be doing this?"
The FAA banned cell phones being on while the plane is in motion for decades on the very same "it interfere with da radios" premise. A decade after anecdotal evidence from widespread failure to turn them off and academic studies pointed out this wasn't likely, it still took congress repeatedly dragging them through the mud and repeated high-profile spats with passengers for them to allow "Airplane mode". The FAA doesn't like anything other than planes communicating wirelessly. Regardless of the evidence, this is what the FAA has done.
Its the same here. Lots of FUD to justify their jobs and hidebound efforts to keep plane travel in the 50s while the airport lives in 1984. I'm more confused why a "policy expert" would find themselves confused over this action. What part of the FAA's history suggests they are forward looking when it comes to communications tech?
On the post: Report Showcases How Elon Musk Undermined His Own Engineers And Endangered Public Safety
Re: Re: Re: An A.C. is right about everything
oh! good to know! it happens.
On the post: Surveillance Company CEO Threatens To Sue Reporter For Writing About His Company
Re: "refence"?
No child left behind passed in 2001. Scott McQuarrie would have had to graduate HS after 2001 to have a chance of being impacted by no child left behind policies. A quick search reveals he graduated college in 98.
I might have been willing to let you try to dunk on a minor typographical error I had not even noticed (and hence don't think is really that notable), until you decided to randomly blame it on no child left behind making toddlers of students? Its a bad policy, I grant you. But its a wild red herring as to why simple typographical errors happen, or why this congressman is supposedly stuck with the mental development as a toddler.
And since I'm here, neither spelling or grammar will measure intelligence. Spelling (or typing) just isn't his strong point. Infantilizing people over spelling mistakes is a great way to dehumanize them, which was a significant portion of the purpose of imposing formality on spelling and grammer by acadamia in the late 1800s. (Guess why).
On the post: Report Showcases How Elon Musk Undermined His Own Engineers And Endangered Public Safety
Re: Lack of research from Mr Bode showing through again.
Your fallacy is....Ad-hominem
You've dismissed the actual discussion at hand by seizing on Mr. Bode's use of an outdated industry average. I wanted to say you were implementing the fallacy fallacy, that you picked up a minor error that actually underplayed Karl's point, and made like that renders the article meaningless.
But you didn't even try to make that silly argument, instead just making an ad-hom attack. Makes it easier to choose not to explain how both those errors came about, since you clearly don't care.
On the post: Report Showcases How Elon Musk Undermined His Own Engineers And Endangered Public Safety
Re: An A.C. is right about everything
Could I get a time stamp on the high-rise discussion? I don't have 47 minutes to go back over the boeing 737 max debacle for a tangentally related 4 minute segment on LA high-rises.
On the post: Report Showcases How Elon Musk Undermined His Own Engineers And Endangered Public Safety
Re: Re: Re: Elon is right about everything
Crashes are kinda fun, data-wise.
We used to have super rigid car frames, like tesla. Eventually we realized having flex and crumple built in reduced injuries. Societally we choose to inflict more severe damage to a car over injuries to passengers. The move to a super durable frame might radically shift us back to physical injuries as the norm.
The length of a yellow light affects the rate of crashes in city driving. Longer yellow lights reduces reds being run, and reduces sideswipes but comes with an increased risk of rear-endings. Car accidents go up...seriousness of the accidents goes down. We can trade fewer deadly accidents for more accidents with minor injuries and damages.
This is to say focusing on the number and frequency of accidents might be a bad measure. Autopilot's tendancy to hit parked emergency vehicles obstructing the road for instance might be a much more serious error than the error the human makes merging to avoid the vehicle.
Relying on a self reported black box accident report might not highlight the whole picture. For instance, Autopilot would I expect be most used on freeways were traffic conditions are more stable, and distance is most common. But the most time spent driving was on city streets, where all autonomous driving tech is struggling to go beyond a non-scalable system of heavily-mapped isolated regions. Most accidents happen on city streets. So the sample of all crashes from automobiles might not map well to the sample of Autopilot drivers. Indeed, given that without autopilot tesla drivers commit fewer accidents than the national average likely means a higher attention to the road by drivers in general, and a strong possibility that drivers have been over-riding Autopilot to avoid accidents. Absent data on overrides, I can take Tesla's data and build a much less glowing perspective on safety.
Without active safety features, Tesla drivers encounter accidents a third less often than the average driver who may or may not have active safety features. This suggests that Tesla drivers are in general more attentive to the road. Given that many Autopilot errors are not ones an attentive human would have made, this suggests that the accidents we see likely have less attentive drivers. That suggests Tesla's active safety features only have the benefit they do when an attentive driver is available to over-ride Autopilot.
Right now, most people dont have and can't afford a Tesla w/ Autopilot. Once that changes, the drivership of Tesla cars will likely become less attentive, not more, as the drivership approaches the societal mean reflected in the national average. That means as it stands right now, we might actaully be seeing a less safe technology whose safety is being artificially boosted by current drivership.
On the post: Rep. Thomas Massie Seems To Have Skipped Over The 1st Amendment In His Rush To 'Defend' The 2nd
Re: Re: Re: Re: Free speech under attack everywhere
I continue to struggle to apply your “this usenet group is at a perfect level of censorship” rants to the article you responded to.
On the post: YouTube Copyright Transparency Report Shows The Absurd Volume Of Copyright Claims It Gets
Its important to note clearly that a number of creators have stopped disputing content ID claims. I have seen reports that because there is no penalty for just claiming revenue via content ID, those on content ID have no incentive to do anything other than deny the dispute. That entirely ends the process. And when the content ID account lets it go, it is mostly (in my limited sample size) because they refused to respond to the dispute raised by the copyright ID match.
There aren't many disputes because dispuing the claim is worthless. Go back a decade and this report would look very different.
On the post: Missouri Governor Still Lying About Reporters Who Uncovered Ridiculous Bad State Computer Security; Still Insists They Were Hackers
I think the entity that filed the records request should sue, treat the governor as truthful, and see what shakes out when the governor faces penalties for lying.
On the post: New Jersey Cop Facing Charges After Hitting A Man With His Car And Driving His Body To His Mom's House
Re: Re: Shouldn't Qualified Immunity apply here?
Perhaps Surprisingly, immunity to criminal charges is a consequence of the circling the wagons mentality that are a danger of almost any close-knit "clique" community, rather than explicit deferance by the judiciary
On the post: New Jersey Cop Facing Charges After Hitting A Man With His Car And Driving His Body To His Mom's House
Re: Re: Hindeing your own apprehension
Forgot to drop the link.
https://www.villanideluca.com/nj-lawyers-practice-areas/nj-criminal-defense-lawyers/nj-crimina l-statutes/nj-resisting-arrest-laws/2c_29-3/
On the post: New Jersey Cop Facing Charges After Hitting A Man With His Car And Driving His Body To His Mom's House
Re: Hindeing your own apprehension
I looked up the statute.
It’s another name for obstruction, but it seems much more clearly defined. Intention to obstruct is required, and it appears it needs to actually impede the investigation.
On the post: Rep. Thomas Massie Seems To Have Skipped Over The 1st Amendment In His Rush To 'Defend' The 2nd
Re:
That's a fucking wild ask.
Twitter hasn't developed custom software to eliminate the button on "official" accounts of public employees and I don't think that is unreasonable? It doesn't improve the financials to dedicate people to scanning the various accounts of public officials and making moderation decisions on whether the account is the 'official' account of the office at the same time those officials are looking for an excuse to punish twitter.
On the post: Rep. Thomas Massie Seems To Have Skipped Over The 1st Amendment In His Rush To 'Defend' The 2nd
What gets me is....
All they have to do is click mute instead of block.
All they have to do is click mute instead of block.
All they have to do is click mute instead of block.
All they have to do is click mute instead of block.
All they have to do is click mute instead of block.
Its not that complicated.
On the post: GOP Claim That Biden FCC Nom Gigi Sohn Wants To 'Censor Conservatives' Is AT&T & Rupert Murdoch Backed Gibberish
Re: Sounds Like A Censor
The FCC has legal power to issue and renew broadcast licenses, specifically any carrier, like Sinclair, that uses public spectrum to broadcast OTA Television. There would be valid reasons the FCC might not renew a license.
Therefore, the question must be asked why gigi sohn made this comment. I notice you didn't cite a date, so we can not know how old this comment is or look up context. Responses to events from 10 years ago may not reflect current views, or that comment may be made in response to real world events that provide reasonable context. Therefore, I will assume your omission of the critical date and context data is intended to hide the reason Gigi is making this comment. (An 'Adverse inference')
In 2018, Trump-nominated FCC chair Ajit Pai referred the Sinclair-Tribute merger to an Administrative Law judge after it was revealed that Sinclair might be seeking to use a dummy shell corporation to skirt ownership limitations in violation of the law. Tribune later sued Sinclair over their clandestine behavior.
Gigi Sohn at the time gave an interview to The Hill and provided this qutoe:
Her tweet was completely in line with that conclusion. When renewing broadcast licenses, the FCC should consider if Sinclair was being disingenuous, make a finding considering if Sinclair was intentionally lying about its intentions or if Sinclair was merely forging ahead unaware of the consequences of its proposed restructuring. And if that investigation finds intentional malfeasance, Sinclair should be at risk of losing its broadcast privileges.
None of this has to do with censorship of on-air content. It has to do with the content of filings made to the government, and potential lies made therein.
On the post: Texas Court Gets It Right: Dumps Texas's Social Media Moderation Law As Clearly Unconstitutional
Re: Officially They're A Publisher
please cite where the distinction between publisher and platform is made. The court does not make that distinction, because neither the statute nor the common law make that distinction.
On the post: Take-Two Interactive Appears To Be Morphing From Game Publisher Into IP Troll
Re: Take two abandoned the application, not Hazlelight
Actually, it makes more sense to say its unclear which trademark application they refer to in your quote, as they just finished describing a trademark application from Hazelight that Take-Two was opposing. If you read the first 3 paragraphs, and try to incorporate your read of paragraph 4, most of the rest of the
The first three paragraphs read that hazelight is the trademark applicant, and Take-two is in opposition. The fourth paragraph is an outlier, and it appears obvious from the mark ups that the guy doing the copy had to change a lot of pronouns to proper names for it to make sense. He clearly changed a pronoun to take-two (that is why take-two is in brackets), and he should have changed it to hazelight.
On the post: Miramax Survives Copyright Dispute Over 'Pulp Fiction' Poster Initiated By Opportunistic Photographer
This is kind of interesting, this case highlights exactly why the statute of limitations exists, something that often gets complained about and might get complained about by those wishing to punish rights holders for their abuses or Miramax in particular for the NFT lawsuit.
Finding a paper contract from 40 years ago is often not easy for the best recordkeeper. Indeed, more broadly, for lots of cases documentation of innocence is hard to find even months later. Think of the man whose alibi was that he was renting a car elsewhere, but no longer had his paperwork within the statute of limitations. Even more broadly, the reason statutes of limitation exist is because exonerating evidence might easily be destroyed by any manner of normal processes, including the destructive effects of time on memory, particularly when an innocent individual will not know what evidence would need to be retained.
We may not agree with Miramax getting off, that perhaps the photographer was shortchanged (I assume he was), but this is one of those cases that highlights why these laws exist, and with a little thought highlights why those laws exist for good reason.
On the post: Washington Post Forgets It Fought (And Won) Legal Battle Against Mandatory Transparency; Now Demands Internet Co's Face The Same
Washington Post failed to note its financial interest in the actions recommended by the editorial board, in that they were arguing to restrict competition to their benefit, but have wrapped it in concern over disinformation to hide an important piece of context.
They literally are violating the principles of transparency they call for in this Editorial. I highlight this because WP will likely claim in their defense that as journalists they are already held to higher standards by various publishing and journalism trade guilds. But this piece is evidence they are not.
On the post: Cable Giant Spectrum Endangered Its Employees And Screwed Its Technicians During COVID
Re:
ISPs have long managed to classify workers as independent contractors, and this has not changed. The difference is that how they get paid is based on what type of job they do. An install is worth significant money. An Install which is classified as a repair of a self-install is not worth as much. You've put the blame on the contractor not understanding what it means to be a contractor, when the article is about changes to the financials of being a contractor and how that has rendered a once decent job into a shit one.
He has skills as a cable technician, but monopolies mean he doesn't have a lot of other options for employers. Knowing people who used to be these techs, this job used to pay well. It was a single-income family job in the bay area in the 90s and early 2000s. If he makes enough as a single individual to make rent, hes doing better than fast food in just about every area.
On the post: FAA Blocks 5G Deployments Over Safety Concerns Despite No Actual Evidence Of Harm
between the confusion of policy experts, and the conspiracy theorists in our comments, theres a lot of "why could they possibly be doing this?"
The FAA banned cell phones being on while the plane is in motion for decades on the very same "it interfere with da radios" premise. A decade after anecdotal evidence from widespread failure to turn them off and academic studies pointed out this wasn't likely, it still took congress repeatedly dragging them through the mud and repeated high-profile spats with passengers for them to allow "Airplane mode". The FAA doesn't like anything other than planes communicating wirelessly. Regardless of the evidence, this is what the FAA has done.
Its the same here. Lots of FUD to justify their jobs and hidebound efforts to keep plane travel in the 50s while the airport lives in 1984. I'm more confused why a "policy expert" would find themselves confused over this action. What part of the FAA's history suggests they are forward looking when it comes to communications tech?
Next >>