& effectively if there is no checks on this is there actually a difference? There only difference is that the threat is to an entire cohort rather than an individual.
They did that though. They have doubled down and told the users they were wrong & that this was a needed
Eventually relenting because of the consequences isn't a laudable accomplishment. Also it very much appears as they not really relenting, just trying to recover some PR
Conclusion for those who read the title and read it as an implied negative effect on use.
> Drug treatment for ADHD was associated with beneficial effects in reducing the risks of suicidal behaviours, substance misuse, transport accidents, and criminality but not accidental injuries when considering first event rate. The risk reductions were more pronounced for recurrent events, with reduced rates for all five outcomes. This target trial emulation study using national register data provides evidence that is representative of patients in routine clinical settings.
Actually AFIAK most of the US has moved to electronic filing, but that has actually made things more expensive. Typically courts hire out the electronic filing part. The hired companies typically collect money from both the state/county and the end user. Larger court systems like LA, NYC, and Cook are big enough to force concessions, or even fund new companies, but others have to buy into one system or another.
It would be great if a bunch of courts could band together to setup a shared open source solution, but courts at the state level are pretty fractious. And the legal system is both pretty slow and pretty reluctant to change.
Maybe; They should have still been able to file amicus curiae but likely they would have to appeal the remedy instead of attempting to become a co-defendant.
The case was Google illegally using it monopoly power. The Remedy was to prevent some of the anti-compitive actions. If the agreement was to split up Google, or for it to sell off chrome it wouldn't make sense for Apple to be a co-defendent.
I've found its helpful to divide notes into two separate categories: notes & logs. Anything that is not a log is a note. This includes recipes, people, tools, reading list, etc.
Logs are meant to serve as a labnote book. Each entry is saved in a daily journal & with a date and simple description header. What I'm doing, why, how its going, checklist, etc. Basically a dumping ground for everything I could possibly have a use for re-using later. This help eliminates entire categories of notes(e.g. call with mechanic), and give you a chance to leverage smaller notes with backlinks to the individual experiences using it. The effort to keep notes evergreen is very difficult when the content keeps changing.
There is of course the safety & morality of AI in military, the potential issues for hallucinations, environmental concerns, etc. But I'm more worried about the ability to defer accountability for terrible acts to a software bug.
This is a motte-and-bailey fallacy that got brought up a lot by gambling proponents early on. The biggest difference is that by design investments on average will return a zero or net positive potential for return. Gambling will always return an average negative return by design.
EDIT:
There was a study that came out a month ago that showed that state by state when online sports betting became legal, there was about a $20/month reduction in retirement investments. Considering only ~12-20% of the population has taken part in sports betting, this is not an insignificant reduction in retirement investments.
Should the same rule exists in more authoritarian countries like China, North Korea, or Belarus?
If so should the government be allowed access to non-nationals outside the country? How about if a non-national is inside the country communicating with those outside? How about if those folks are journalist reporting where journalism is illegal (see Russia's laws on "fake news" on Ukraine).
I'm not saying your point of view is wrong, but I think its easy to jump to that conclusion as this is probably the least sympathetic case to set principle. But this _does_ set principle.
Yes, but this is wider trend. EV sales are flat to down last quarter. This is pretty much exclusively due to sales of Teslas slumping. All pretty much all of the other EV manufacturers have sold record volume.
They are to an extent. Cirrhosis is permanent. Other conditions such as fatty liver are reversible-ish.
The issue is that the liver is basically fully functional until after you’ve destroyed ~88% of it.
For a tortured analogy it’s a lot like a DB. Most of them time you’re well under your total capacity. Even short spikes in queue length aren’t an issue. But once you hit the tipping point there are cascading failures.
This also isn’t the first issue. Ignoring the stock maximization issues & issues like the Dreamliner mess.
This reason this is real real bad was because the 737 Max. The C suite said it was real come to Jesus moment. Now we’re finding out not only is the culture not fixed, but it has such mismanagement that there’s no effective QA.