somenits

6 ms·

1.
by somenits 3y ago
On this, the communists and paleo-conservatives can agree: The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound
2.
by somenits 3y ago
You would think so, but Congress has occasionally done things like this, like pass the Wiretap Act and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, both of which impose restrictions on government access to information beyond what the Courts a
3.
by somenits 3y ago
> Because that's what's really happening here. Once you sell your data to Facebook, Twitter, etc, it's no longer "in your house." If you granted third parties license to collect and sell your data under terms of
4.
by somenits 3y ago
It depends. If someone breaks into your house with government encouragement, that’s a Fourth Amendment violation. If he breaks into your house because he’s a burglar, and then happens upon something he knows the government would want, and t
5.
by somenits 3y ago
I could respond with something equally condescending and sarcastic like “You Europeans should try not legislating yourselves into laughably low salaries,” but that would be rude and counterproductive.
6.
by somenits 3y ago
Please see my comment here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36794762
7.
by somenits 3y ago
Can you find a source saying that Georgia Pacific or any other company was able to use this process to shield the parent company from liability? I’m not finding anything to that effect. Everything I see complains about them using the proces
8.
by somenits 3y ago
Of course it would benefit J&J too. You get to consolidate your cases in one court. You get to be in federal court, which is by conventional wisdom believed to be more defendant-friendly. You get to achieve legal certainty in a shorter
9.
by somenits 3y ago
You know you've lost the argument when your only response to actual facts and analysis is "yeah but what does this name sound like".
10.
by somenits 3y ago
You know you've lost the argument when your only response to actual facts and analysis is "yeah but what does this name sound like".
11.
by somenits 3y ago
That's not true. Judges can't just take cases from different districts and different states, different court systems altogether, and consolidate them. Plaintiffs can choose to file a class action, but you can't force them int
12.
by somenits 3y ago
> Second, it is a bit rich that this legal maneuver is framed at "protecting claimants" when it blocks those claimants from pursuing cases that maximizes their damages. This is purposefully obtuse. If a few courts award 5 plai
13.
by somenits 3y ago
How would you like it if you were a plaintiff suffering severe lifelong emotional distress but the jury saw that the medical bills were only $1000? It's not as simple as you make it out to be.
14.
by somenits 3y ago
No, wrong. That's not what happened and it's not what the article says. The court didn't like the idea of them using the bankruptcy system to consolidate the cases.
15.
by somenits 3y ago
This is the top-voted comment but as many of the other replies have pointed out, it's totally wrong outrage-bait. J&J, the parent company, is still ultimately liable for the full amount. The bankruptcy process just allows the court
16.
by somenits 3y ago
If you weren't allowed to see medical bills and such, then you were probably tasked with determining other kinds of damages (e.g. emotional distress) that are totally unrelated to those.
17.
by somenits 3y ago
Are you proud of your ignorance? Seems like you're not interested in understanding, just in continuing to feel outraged.
18.
by somenits 3y ago
Embrace the cynicism. Things become so much clearer. Just be sure to find the humor in it all or you'll be miserable.
19.
by somenits 3y ago
It's just recognition by a UN body. If you'll indulge some cynicism, all it really means is that a bunch of people spent your tax money (which funds the UN through member-state contributions) to sit around (and expense a bunch of
20.
by somenits 3y ago
I'm not confused. But you are introducing unnecessary concepts here. A firm needs to make some profit in the long run, whatever you want to call it, to be able to sustain investment. If there's too many firms in the market, that c
21.
by somenits 3y ago
There is an optimal number of firms in competition with each other. It could be that for a particular industry, 10 firms means everyone is losing money and unable to make new investments, while 8 firms means that there's a healthy amou
22.
by somenits 3y ago
You'll get a compiler error though unless you, in the same edit-compile cycle, created a new variable with the same name. You also can't search-replace a type name as easily, because other variables will have the same original typ
23.
by somenits 3y ago
Good article, a couple nits/additional notes: 1. The article points out you should compare structs field by field, but it doesn't explain why memcmp wouldn't work. The reason is that the padding between the fields might not n