For opinions that’s right—for news stories about complaints being filed, they are sometimes not publicly available online, or the story might not have enough information to find them, e.g. what specific court they were filed in, the actual legal names of the parties, etc.
RamblinDash
Karma: 690
They also do this with court filings/rulings. The thing they do that’s most annoying is that they’ll have a link that looks like it should be to the filing/ruling, but when clicked it’s just a link to another earlier news story on the same site, or even sometimes a link to the same page I’m already on!
It’s something that kinda falls out of Attorney ethics rules, where a lot of duties attach to representation of a client. So we want to be very clear when we are and are not representing someone. In addition, under state ethics laws (I’m a state government lawyer), we are not authorized to provide legal advice to private parties.
I suppose it’s related, but I think maybe I was thrown off by the parenthetical. I perceive it as fundamentally different from altruism. This form of ‘love as being on the same team’ is also about enjoying your loved ones’ successes, seeing them learn and grow and triumph, even if you don’t particularly give or protect anything in particular. Because when we’re on the same team, their win is my win.
Another aspect of Love that’s not really addressed here I tend to think of as a sense of ‘being on the same team.’ When I relate to people I love, I might help them or do something nice for them for the same reasons that Draymond Green passes the ball to Steph Curry—because when Steph makes a 3, the team’s score increases and that’s what they are trying to do. Draymond doesn’t (or at least shouldn’t) hold onto the ball and try to score himself unless he has a better shot (he usually doesn’t) - points are points.
Whereas when interacting with someone I don’t love, I might help them to the extent it advances my own goals, broadly defined (which includes things like ‘being well liked’, ‘getting helped in the future’, ‘the feeling of doing a good deed’).
In general, courts are not so stupid and the law is not so inflexible to ignore such an obvious fig leaf, if the NDA was otherwise enforceable. Query whether it is, but whether or not you just make your statement openly or whether you have a totally-fictional statement about totally-not-OpenAI would be unlikely to make a difference IMO.
*I don’t represent you and this statement should not be taken as legal advice on any particular concrete scenario.
One argument that this post misses is that a significant chunk overall, and much of the most burdensome subset of this debt (which is not the same as the highest volume of the debt), will never be collected anyway, although it still makes the holders’ lives worse. So the estimates of the costs of this policy are very inflated if they treat the forgiveness of unsecured debt as costing $1 for $1.
Still, I agree that just plain blanket forgiveness is bad policy. I don’t think that’s what was ever on the table tho? Forgiving a capped amount (I think $20,000 was proposed?) would alleviate the burdens of the most burdensome and least-collectible-anyway debt (held by low-income people, many who weren’t able to finish their degree for various reasons), while leaving people with high-priced fancy law degrees paying off their loans mostly as normal.
That said, if you think as a policy matter that college should be funded more like high school (free public option, expensive private alternative for those who want to pay), then you could be more justified in enacting that model along with cancellation as a kind of policy retroactiveness, or “reparations for victims of un-free college.”
So I guess I’m not sure what you mean by that. I think it might be easier to support what I’m saying in the negative. Some example of inauthenticity or un-openness might be:
Consciously faking your personality (in a way that you wouldn’t want to maintain as an essentially permanent change)
Lying about what you want out of the relationship
Pretending to like/dislike hobbies or interests that you actually strongly dislike/like
The problem with doing these things is that, to the extent that doing them was necessary to gain the relationship, you are now stuck with a relationship that is built on a papered-over incompatibility. If your plan is that you will fake a completely different personality/goals/interests, then you will now be in a relationship where you have to permanently keep faking that stuff while constantly being wary that your new partner might find out you were faking plus you have to spend a lot of time and energy doing stuff and/or interacting with someone you don’t actually like, or else ending the relationship and being back at square 1, except that you’ve invested time/energy that you won’t get back. There can be toned-down good versions of this bad strategy tho, I think, which are more like “putting your best foot forward” than like “being inauthentic.”
Truth: Looking for a life partner, getting desperate
Good strategy [probably depends on age, for this one]: Open to various possibilities, see how it goes.
Bad strategy: Your date says they are really only looking for short term fun, and you agree that’s all you are looking for too.Truth: A talkative person who loves debating ideas
Good strategy: Tone it down a little, try to listen as much as you talk and try to “yes, and” or “that’s interesting, tell me more about what led you to that” your date’s points rather than “no but” (you can often make similar points either way)
Bad strategy: Just agree with everything your date says; even if you actually have a strong opposing viewTruth: Don’t really care for hiking much
Good strategy [when trying out someone who loves hiking]: “I haven’t been too into that before, tell me what you love about it? I’d be open to giving it another shot”
Bad strategy: “OMG I love hiking too!”The problem that all these bad strategies have in common is that if they are successful, you end up with something you don’t want.
[M]aybe being yourself and open works for people who happen to already be relationship-compatible. People who are not would be worse off by trying to be themselves. I think I have been burned in the past a lot by that kind of advice, although my experience is too much of an anecdote to infer an average.
I think you are maybe using a different definition of “worse off.” I would submit that a relationship that is maintainable only by being inauthentic and unopen is, in the long run, significantly worse than no relationship, both because of the experience of being in it, but also because of opportunity cost.
That’s different than holding some things back at the beginning, or keeping some impolite thoughts to yourself sometimes. But if your goal is a long-term partnership, you move further away from that goal by spending time and energy on someone you know you aren’t compatible with.
IDK, I think this comment warrants the level of karma. OP is proposing messing around with a drug class that kills thousands of people per year. Even only counting benzo overdoses that don’t involve opioids, it kills ~1500 people per year. Source: https://nida.nih.gov/research-topics/trends-statistics/overdose-death-rates (you can download the data from that page to see precise numbers).
It’s not often that a forum comment could save a life!
Oh, I wasn’t saying that student debt is variable interest, just making a point about debt and inflation in general.
I think people experience rising prices as inflation, but rising wages as a result of their own hard work. Thus, “inflation” feels bad, even if it actually benefits you. Also, wages are stickier than prices, so even if overall wages are rising your own personal wage might not rise smoothly along.
Also, if your debt is variable-interest, then inflation doesn’t necessarily benefit you. It only benefits you if you have fixed-interest debt.
I feel like this comparison of the enforcement here with the TikTok ban is not directed at the actual primary concern about TikTok, which is content curation by its opaque algorithm, not data privacy per se.
By analogy, if a Soviet state-owned enterprise in 1980 wanted to purchase NBC, would/should we have allowed that? If your answer is “no,” keeping in mind how many people get their news via TikTok, why would/should we allow what effectively seems to be a CCP-(owned or heavily influenced) company to control what content our people see?
I am not a mediator so maybe you have me beat, but it’s not immediately clear why you would assume this
But don’t the non-diseased copies not just need to generally meditate, but to do some special kind of meditation where they forget the affirmative evidence they have that they don’t have the disease?
In this scenario, why are the non-disease-having copies participating? They are not in a state of ignorance, they know they don’t have the disease.
Asteroid impacts are a prime candidate to stop global warming.
I dunno man, Randall Munroe thinks that they would cause global warming.
The nicest thing one can say about that arrangement is that it failed to start WW III
You say this like it’s some kind of grudging acknowledgement, but it’s actually the entire point of the structure and a Big F’n Deal. Recall that there was less than 25 years between WW1 and WW2. It’s been almost 80 years without WW3, despite high tensions at various times. WW3 would have been catastrophic, and preventing it is a great accomplishment.
If that’s what Quinn (comment OP) is saying then I think it’s obviously wrong—people really do value the goods and services they access via the internet very highly. This leads me to believe that this is not what Quinn is saying.
What I (post author) am saying is people don’t apply even a tiny fraction of the vibes that come with that high value to their actual ISP (or, analogously, airline, electric company etc).
This is equally applicable under normal law, under which property taxes already exist, they just tax both structures and land instead of just land.