531–540 of 631 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We can have both, because they cannot kill the web. We can enjoy better privacy in the OS, the open Web, and better controls for the applications that should not be a website (which is still quite a lot of them).
Then you can’t have trillion dollar monopolies with billionaire owners funding fascist regimes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm familiar with what exists -- I simply think it is flawed. I never said SMEs don't testify in civil cases. My contention was that the judge should have consulted SMEs when defining parts of the ruling outside her expertise. You aren't making a case for reasonableness as a concept. You are simply asserting that it exists, so it must continue to exist with the implication that it is good. You seem to be further impl…
I didn't say you said that. I asked if you thought that. Once again, that's a faciallly unreasonable response. Just to demonstrate that reasonable is a workable term that need not be this vague unlawful mystery that you decided is the case, entirely on your own. >My contention was that the judge should have consulted SMEs when defining parts of the ruling outside her expertise. The case consists almost entirely of th…
Those experts spent collective centuries learning their area of expertise, but the judge became familiar with everything over the course of this one trial...
> I don't need to. It is not my obligation to defend the legal system because you have your own ridiculous and unfounded assumptions.
I've provide an argument that it is not. You have provided an unsubstantiated assertion. If you aren't willing to engage, then why make the assertion in the first place?
> The issue is convincing you, an incredibly unreasonable person.
You have made zero reasoned arguments and outright refused to make any reasoned arguments, but consider me to be the unreasonable person who just won't listen to what you have to say. How does this make sense to you?
> Judges make orders. SMEs don't and can't. And lol at the idea you are suggesting that a layman jury should define these things. It is clear to me that you do not understand the role of a jury in a trial. Jury's determine disputed facts. Nothing more, nothing less.
If a judge rules that a bridge should be built, that doesn't mean they should tell the engineers how to build it. You are confusing the legal ruling with the implementation.
In this example, the engineers put in a suspension bridge and the judge got angry because it wasn't a truss bridge even though a truss bridge wasn't specified in the ruling and the judge has no real idea why one might choose one bridge type over the other.
If the type of bridge mattered, it was the judge's responsibility to talk with the parties involved and reach a decision then add that decision to the final ruling.
In this specific case, the judge should have gotten SMEs together to decide which approach was correct and included it in the ruling rather than complain that things weren't as the judge envisioned, but never even bothered to write down other than in the vaguest terms. Holding someone in contempt because they didn't read your mind is unreasonable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's a great application of reasonable: your post is incredibly unreasonable. It's a long rant that is not based in the law, the application of "reasonability" in the law, or other examples of "good faith" standards being used. It's made without any expertise or direct relevant knowledge, yet it is offered with the authority and conviction as if you understood more about the law than the judge in question. Reasonab…
You didn't read what I wrote and that is apparent in your response. You didn't address any of the facts and instead just blindly parroted back the equivalent of "it's true because they say it's true". If you think I'm the first person to argue that the reasonableness standard is unreasonable, you'd be mistaken. I stated that establishing reasonableness was hard enough with a jury of peers judging just one person in a…
I absolutely did read what you wrote. What I will not read is any of your response after this sentence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> so it must continue to exist with the implication that it is good The purpose and reason why these concepts are absolutely good would be specifically because people like you, with your attitude exist. The purpose of the law isn't to play this game of bad faith find the loophole. Instead, the purpose is to make people follow both the letter and the intent of it. And The reason why vague concepts like this are good,…
Then we should just eliminate all the laws and instead pass one law that says "don't be evil" and just let the judges/juries make it up as they go. The truth is that you don't believe your own argument. You want LOTS of laws specifying all kinds of unacceptable behaviors in great detail. You only differ from me in where that line should be drawn.
How do you envision the legal system dealing with issues such as intent and negligence without the notion of a "reasonable person"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are they using any language at all? Why not just let the app maker open the payment screen directly?
Same (perceived) reason my bank and brokerages (and I think even my kid's school website does this) pop up a warning every time I click on a link that will take them outside their website. I think there's a valid reason to think "if it's OK and common for banks and brokers to do it, it's OK for me to do it" and also to think "this will help protect users from being scammed by other apps who might pop open random link…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Jesus Christ. How worse can they be? Willfully malicious
Honestly, I’ve seen way, waay, waaaaaaaaaaaaaay worse in internal comms in different companies. Not trying to defend Apple, but this just sounds like an average conversation to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article is short enough that it makes more sense to quote it in full than to provide an archive link: > A federal judge hammered Apple for violating a ruling in an antitrust case that required the company to loosen certain restrictions it imposes on software-makers in its App Store. > Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ordered the iPhone-maker to allow developers to steer users to alternative methods of paying for serv…
For me, the archive.ph link now hits a CAPTCHA. Full article, works where archive.ph is blocked, no Javascript required, no tracking^1: https://assets.msn.com/content/view/v2/Detail/en-in/AA1DXcJN 1. Archive.{is,md,ph,etc.} puts the reader's IP address in a "spy pixel" URL. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spy_pixel https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23316085
For example, the later does not serve fulltext WSJ articles
https://web.archive.org/web/20250501001608if_/https://www.ws...
The CAPTCHA, a "service" from Cloudflare, is hit when using archive.{is,ph,md,etc.} at 207.241.237.3 If not using that IP, then will not necessarily hit CAPTCHA.
One can switch to another address that works without CAPTCHA, such as 185.101.35.175
Until it too has problems; only a matter of time
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is also wrong. Good faith is a requirement. Act in bad faith, and you can still be sanctioned. Do you have any background in this, or are you just asserting what you want reality to be? Because you are just spouting wrong information that, even for a non-lawyer, would take you 10 minutes to go find and read right information.
Non-lawyer here. This information is surprising to me (to be clear, I believe you, I just would have guessed otherwise). Is some degree of malicious compliance not extremely common when companies deal with the courts? From the outside it seems like the incentive would be to comply with a court order to the minimum degree required to avoid further legal consequences, but no more. Is compliance more enthusiastic that t…
Once a company gets burned by scary litigation, it is often very reticent about pushing the line again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly, I’ve seen way, waay, waaaaaaaaaaaaaay worse in internal comms in different companies. Not trying to defend Apple, but this just sounds like an average conversation to me.
I mean, that's just evidence that they really are doing illegal shit and should be punished for it.
Nobody stops you from texting your friends about buying ten pounds of cocaine, (when you actually meant confectioner's sugar), but putting it in writing may make your life more difficult if at some point, by happenstance, you might end up the defendant in a narcotics trial. Even if you are completely innocent.