I don’t think they suck at forecasting…I think they are probably exceptional at forecasting but willfully lie about project costs when submitting bids for projects in order to come under the competition and win the contract. There doesn’t seem to be any penalties for this, so why would they stop?
Have you contacted the operator of the bot?
The L4sBot user bio lists how to get in contact with the handler @[email protected] .
True. And yet Cloudflare has to maintain its own army of lawyers to defend the constant barrage of lawsuits against Cloudflare claiming that they are facilitating copyright infringement. The average salary for 'Associate Legal Counsel" at companies like Cloudflare is about US $303,400. (source is Cloudflare themselves: https://www.salary.com/research/salary/employer/cloudflare-inc/associate-legal-counsel-salary )…and that’s just one of many. They are literally paying MILLIONS of US Dollars a year to defend against that. You think the admins for Lemmy.World have that kind of pocket change?
Also, “caches” are temporary in nature and are different from permanent local copies (which is the model employed by lemmy). There is a technical difference, and even with that technical difference, Cloudflare still gets sued all the time for it.
It depends on the jurisdiction. In the United States, we have the DMCA which has been weaponized by content creators and publishers, but we also have a “safe harbors” provision to the DMCA that is supposed to protect online service providers from being liable for copyright infringement based on the actions of their users - as long as they meet certain provisions and restrictions and perform certain duties and dilligence. And yet even with that in place, it does not stop content providers from suing service providers and forcing those service providers to incur the pain and expense of mounting a legal defense.
I am pretty sure that Lemmy.world admin team are European and that the instance is hosted somewhere in Europe, so they would have their own jurisdictional laws to follow.
TL/DR: even if a service provider is technically protected from the actions of their users it is still subject to provisions and conditions, and that still doesn’t stop them from being sued and having to mount a defense. Some people just don’t feel the hassle of all that justifies the whatever benefits they’d gain from fighting that fight.
Certainly you’ve heard of ‘The Pirate Bay’, who’s ‘users’ famously used their platform to share copyrighted materials…the founders of The Pirate Bay were arrested, tried, and convicted, and were forced to serve jail time. Turns out the “but it was our user’s doing it” defense wasn’t as reliable as everyone here seems to be suggesting.
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how federation works and either don’t know or don’t realize that content is replicated across instances that are federated with each other by virtue of users subscribing to it.
If you are a lemmy.world user subscribed to a piracy community on another instance, then that content is replicated and hosted locally on lemmy.world also. You’ve never noticed how you can access content that originated on a foreign federated instance and still be able to access that content when the federated instance is down? That content physically resided on the lemmy.world instance until it was blocked.
This doesn’t invalidate my earlier statement that citizens are still subject to city ordinances.
There are around 20,000 cities and municipalities in the United States, most of them have public-nudity/indecent-exposure laws.
You successfully made the point that the legality of city ordinances can be challenged in higher courts (and even sometimes overturned) but the reality is that most people have neither the funding nor the time nor the expertise to take that up…which means ultimately you’re still subject to a city/municipality ordinances as well as state and federal.
In 2017, Tagami v City of Chicago, the US Court of appeals for 7th Circuit ruled 2-1 that the city’s public nudity ordinance did not violate the complainant’s rights and upheld the lower court decisions (which meant that City of Chicago’s ordinance remained intact and validated as enforceable by the city).
At the end of the day, yes you do have to be cognizant of the ordinances/codes of the city in question and cannot rely on State/Federal law alone.
I would NEVER recommend a modern HP printer, but…I have a HP Laserjet 4000 (Circa 1997) that I ‘acquired’ from the company I worked for that went bankrupt.
This thing refuses to die. current impression count is over 500,000 prints. All its patents expired over a decade ago, and it’s still easy to find parts and toner (originals, and now even 3rd party knockoffs). It’s old enough now that modern generic drivers have built in support for it. The only parts I’ve ever had to replace are the rubber sheet feeder rollers which dry out and stop working correctly after 12-15 years.
So, I guess the point here is that some really solid printers were made a couple decades ago, back when manufacturers still took pride in their products, and they are old enough that the hardware is no longer protected by patents (so practically open) and robust driver support without all the bullshit. Picking up something from this era and cleaning it up would come close to satisfying a lot of your requirements.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
You are mistaken. City ordinances absolutely comes into play here. In the US, you are subject to federal law, any additional state laws, any additional county laws, and then any additional city municipal-codes/ordinances.
Here’s the Seattle city ordinance that applies:
Seattle Municipal Code, Chapter 12A.10.130 Indecent Exposure, Paragraph A.
A person is guilty of indecent exposure if he or she intentionally makes any open and obscene exposure of his or her person or the person of another knowing that such conduct is likely to cause reasonable affront or alarm.
source:
Well, I already named the jurisdiction: Seattle, Washington, USA.
The date/time shouldn’t matter since the ordinances haven’t changed, but it was Aug 12, 2012 just in case anyone reading this just happened to be in Seattle at the time and saw us. It was spectated by quite a number of people due to the size of the production - we had lights, a make-up/hair stylist, my assistant, the model, plus security.
Putting a Netflix show on DVD and selling it is absolutely illegal unless they have a distribution license provided by the copyright holder.
It would be legal after copyright expires (in the US, copyright exists for the lifespan of the author/creator + 70 years). Keep in mind that the US has stricter copyright laws than most of the rest of the world.
For other items, like physical functional items, reproductions are generally legal unless the item is patented. And it would still not be legal for the reproduction to also reproduce any registered names or trademarks associated with the original. Example: you could legally reproduce and sell knockoff Nike Air Jordans as long as you didn’t use the Nike swoosh or any likenesses of the copyrighted artwork. For items that are patented, or patent pending - making and selling reproductions is illegal - and for most patented items the reproduction doesn’t even have to be identical for it to be infringing, just replicating the functionality is probably infringing.
It depends entirely on the jurisdiction. Take the city of Seattle, for example (I know this because I planned an executed a nude photo shoot in public view inside the city limits and sought legal council ahead of time to ensure I wan’t risking being charged with any crimes). The general rule for Seattle hinges on whether the activity is intended to tittilate or sexually arouse observers - and if that is obviously not the intent, then even full nudity is not illegal. Many other large cities have very similar ordinances.
The smaller the town, and the more conservative the region, the stricter and less flexible the ordinances. There are beaches in South Carolina, for example, where they even regulate the minimum amount of coverage for bikinis and beachware.
Removed by mod
There are no benefits to it now…unless you are part of the minority who exploits and benefits from it.
It comes across as if it was a business decision without regard for their customers…without the basic understanding that their customers ARE their business.
Some were produced that were claimed to be dimmable - and I wasted my money on a few and was still unhappy with them. The other problem I forgot to mention earlier was the startup time: the earlier bulbs (and the cheaper ones) wouldn’t just ‘turn on’ when the power was turned on…they took some time to start making light, and the colder it was the longer it took - this is an aspect where LEDs are amazing - maximum brightness within milliseconds of getting energized.
One problem is that CFL bulbs is that they contain small amounts of mercury (about 4mg per bulb). Because of that, disposing of them responsibly requires going through big hassles rather than just throwing them in the trash. Also, because of that mercury, accidentally breaking one means contamination of the environment around the break.
Flickering - always was a big problem for these things.
Longevity: They were very sensitive to heat, which meant that they loved to burn themselves up in a lot of applications.
Dimming: CFLs were NEVER good at being dimmable.
CFL was just a very poor technology detour on the way to the vastly superior LED lights.
Do you sanction all theft, or just theft of things you personally disapprove of?
Please cite your evidence for review.