I find it telling that Volokh fails to link to the original complaint (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nvd.176...), which gives you a pretty good sense of why the court went down the route of foreclosing any second bite at this particular apple; and fails to mention the plaintiff has a history of filing against judges he appears to feel have wronged him, to the point that he was declared a vexatious litigant in Nevada and sanctioned in California for "impugn[ing] the integrity of the very system of justice in which they serve without a solid basis in both fact and law." Admittedly there's no requirement that a plaintiff be sympathetic to be right, but still...
Thats kindof complicated... I remember when an EMR only needed one sysadmin and no specialist knowledge... on our old system any errors were handled by the vendor.
A middle ground (which wouldn't clog up an overburdened court system) would require a US attorney to draft and sign a complaint for a takedown request, putting their accreditation on the line.
You could also require a signed letter that has been properly notarized. Again, adds an independent 3rd party with a verified identity and something to loose. And falsifying is a crime.
Notaries aren't accountable for the content of the documents they notarize. They're only responsible for making sure the signatures they are witnessing come from the correct people. They'd be happy to notarize DMCA takedowns, since it's nothing more than income for them.
The journalist later admitted that he failed to provide the appropriate context and nuance, which comes down to "red team pen-testers who already had high-side network access were able to more quickly and effectively compromise systems when they were using Mythos as part of their workflow," which is a pretty crucial distinction to make between that and the spectre of Skynet that the article raises.
>An update. A US official tells me that Sen. Warner misunderstood the NSA director Gen. Rudd in this case. Rudd did use the 'hours, not weeks' wording, but the use of Mythos in this context was—as widely assumed—part of a red-teaming effort, i.e. testing the security of internal networks
If that's the article's metric, surely they note that corporations have executed literally trillions of dollars of stock buybacks over the past few years, right?
Removing the airbag impact sensor and then rewiring it to bypass the fault detection, without triggering the airbags, is also indicative of someone who has extensive experience in something no one should normally have experience in.
Would this be anything more than a 1k or 10k resistor across a pair of terminals to make the ECU think a sensor was connected when it wasn’t? All that would require is a wiring diagram and a resistor, along with access to the car.
I doubt the airbags deploy when the impact sensor is disconnected, that wouldn’t be a very good failure mode. Maybe Takata airbags did that? /joke
That's shitbox-101 level stuff (if you're in a dumb state where they'd rather you monkey with stuff to turn a dash light off than just rock the light).
I've owned plenty of shitboxes and done my share of goofy fixes, but fucking around with integral safety equipment like airbag wiring is where I draw the line and get it fixed for real. It's one thing if it's only ever you in the car and you don't care about your own safety, but if other people are ever in the car they're going to rightfully expect you've at least got the safety equipment working to factory standard.
>I've owned plenty of shitboxes and done my share of goofy fixes, but fucking around with integral safety equipment like airbag wiring is where I draw the line and get it fixed for real. I
<eyeroll>
Everything is "integral safety equipment" if you screech enough. A lot of cars didn't even come with airbags.
The people who are relocating to DC to make "it's really about serving your country" money working for DOGE while getting reamed by the local COL don't care. They're gonna be there a few years. They just need the $1700 04 Camry they're about to be the 9th owner of to have A/C and get them to work long enough for them to buy something real. Seriously, the DC area is full of this kind of stuff.
While the brake situation in TFA is sus, the airbags not working seems like the sort of typical thing that gets lost when the 5th owner crashes it, has his sketchy mechanic patch it up that way, drives it for another year, he tells the 6th owner. The 6th owner blows the engine up, doesn't think that's worth mentioning when he sells it as parts. The 7th owner is a flipper who fixes it and has no reason to look. Etc, etc. That sort of non-obvious stuff gets lost.
> but if other people are ever in the car they're going to rightfully expect you've at least got the safety equipment working to factory standard.
These are the kinds of cars where the passengers expect nothing and are pleasantly surprised.
I would like to know the history of this car. I'm not doubting the claims, but a plausible explanation is that he bought the car used, possibly with a salvage title, and the flipper he bought it from bypassed the blown airbag. Airbags are expensive, and it's not uncommon to just replace the steering wheel cover where it went off.
Say you take out a mortgage, then rent the house to a series of meth dealers to extract the rent while devaluing the property, and then default: you're still personally on the hook for any post-foreclosure deficiency judgment. One issue with LBOs is that, after extracting cash and fees, PE funds have various ways to extinguish liabilities that individuals don't, both by shielding the PE fund from debts and the use of bankruptcy and restructuring of the acquired company to discharge liabilities, including those from litigation.
There are various proposals to deal with this, but the most effective are probably imposing joint and several liability on certain kinds of litigation (breaking the "investor veil" and allowing rights of action against PE funds for the actions of their portcos) and limiting business judgment rule protection for directors and senior managers who approve LBO sales that are reasonably foreseeable to end in bankruptcy, which creates personal liability for fiduciaries. In other words, align the financial and personal interests of the individuals and companies involved with those of the acquired entity.
>both by shielding the PE fund from debts and the use of bankruptcy and restructuring of the acquired company to discharge liabilities, including those from litigation.
Who's extending credit to these companies? Individuals can do something similar by declaring bankruptcy. I think banks can be considered sophisticated enough that if they got hosed on a LBO deal, that it's hard to feel sympathy for them.
The people doing the lending can still make a profit. They get their interest payments and have a secured debt against the company. I.e. If interest and repayments until time of bankruptcy + liquidation of assets at bankruptcy is more than you'd get investing elsewhere at lower risk it's still a good investment. It's the other stakeholders (employees/community/unsecured debtors) that lose out.
I mean, if I'm allowed to just make up silly hypotheticals, I can easily justify anything.
Say I raise money for a friend to buy a house and they proceed to rent it out to meth dealers. The friend is the one on the hook for the loans, of course; but would I not be on the hook for at least a reputation hit such that I can't do that again? Or do we think folks can get away with that sort of poor judgement forever?
In that sort of hypothetical the Mortgage bank is likely to take one look at your friend, see you with all the money for the down payment, and decide that you need to at least cosign the loan (if not be solely responsible). You would be on the hook for the reputation (and credit score) hit and certainly still paying off the rest of the loan or face foreclosure and possibly a criminal lawsuit for fraud.
Which yeah, leaves a lot of questions for why this is legal for an LBO. Where's the "credit score" hit on these PE firms doing LBOs? How is it that these investors are allowed to be their own mortgage bank, not require themselves to cosign the very loan they are providing the down payment equity for, and not be liable for damages such as bankruptcy of the entity they put on the hook for the loan?
If you give the friend the money as a gift, you have nothing to do with it, right? if you give it to him as a loan to inflate his assets and don't disclose that then you are committing a Federal crime.
I didn't give any money in that hypothetical. Rather, I convinced a lot of other people to give them the loan. That is, largely, exactly what fundraising is. You convince other people to give money to someone or something.
If people are regularly doing this at my request, and it is constantly going to someone that just burns the money, how are people still taking my requests?
Yes. That doesn't change my question, here. You can arrange to bootstrap another company. It could go bust in a way that you are not on the hook for any money, but you should be on the hook for the things you did. That is the entirety of my point.
The hypotheticals being pushed on this thread have a foregone conclusion that the arranging party is completely free of any hit.
The hypotheticals seem to be in line with reality though. This business model works because the people who make money are the ones who are in control of whether to do it. Liquidating a large company in bankruptcy can get a lot of the money back for the investors while leaving a smoking ruin where it used to be generating economic value.
Are they, though? There are certainly some cases where it has happened, but I don't think it has been established that that is the norm.
Naive searching on the term shows that they common in PE, and they do have a worse default rate at 20% over 2% otherwise. Certainly something to look at more closely. And I would be nervous being party to one. That said, 80% success is still better than what some companies are looking at otherwise.
There's a major difference between individual L-1 petitions filed with USCIS and blanket L-1 petitions/visa applications filed with U.S. Consulates abroad, with the former much more challenging than the latter. This is the case now and has been the case for many years. The main change with blanket L-1 petitions/visa applications now is the result of a policy change (put in place about 6 months ago) limiting where an applicant can apply for a visa, essentially, limiting visa applications to the applicant's country of citizenship or legal permanent residence.
It's pretty common for hydrocarbons to migrate down from source rocks down into basement along fracture lines or surface weathering, no abiogenesis required.
That's really the key problem facing US universities, from land-grant colleges to the Ivies: everyone depends at least in part on closing budgetary gaps with global students who pay full freight. Current Administration policies, both specifically targeted at foreign students and more generally at higher education and immigration, are poisoning the seed corn colleges and universities rely on. The only good news, relatively speaking, is that Europe is evidently constitutionally incapable of taking advantage of what is a genuinely one-in-an-imperial-lifetime chance to drain intellectual capital from the United States, which means that America and our higher education system can recover from this, should we have the fortitude to do so in the future -- there just isn't much in the way of competition.
> Europe is evidently constitutionally incapable of taking advantage of what is a genuinely one-in-an-imperial-lifetime chance to drain intellectual capital from the United States
Perhaps you're already implying this, but for Europe to drain intellectual capital from the US, it would have to offer a hell of a lot more than cheap college for foreign students.
Those are not global students. Those are people who are already living in the state. Foreign students typically pay the most tuition possible with no financial aid, subsidizing everyone else.
so all those foreign students could become "not foreign" by merely coming here for a tourist visit and overstaying? Quite the idea. I will suggest to a few college-age friends to claim to be illegal. Why pay more when you can pay less? Plus, there is no way to verify a LACK of citizenship or of SSN.
