Except you can't pass another setuid binary as argv[1] because the AI writing this slop never added that feature to this python script.

I can't get it to work on any distro i've tried.

It's like when Microsoft was like "we want the Xbox to be the center of a connected home entertainment experience" (it was something like this but I don't exactly remember the dumb phrasing). That's cool I guess, but nobody cares about you succeeding in your strategy and they are the one who have to buy it.

It's therefore practically hard to give a useful answer to your questions. There are states and courts that don't recognize drafts as privileged. There are states that do as long as they are created for the purpose of seeking legal advice. There are states in between.

Also keep in mind the main goal of this kind of privilege is to ensure people seek legal advice, and feel comfortable doing so, before they do something that’s going to get them into trouble. it does protect your ability to prepare a defense, and that sort of thing,but if you do a thing after you email your lawyer and the lawyer says "that is a horribly illegal idea", privilege isnt really there to help you, even if that particular email often happens to be privileged. It's there to help society, not keep you from having to pay damages. For example, Companies overuse lawyers in things like clean up after security incidents - very little of that will be actually privileged from discovery no matter how many lawyers got involved.

All that said general advice is to ensure drafts are deleted after being sent.

The only real common thing in this area of law is that the party trying to withhold the document bears the burden of showing it is privileged.

Depending on exactly how much magnesium is in the alloy, metal shavings can be highly flammable and otherwise hazardous.

I think it's fine to mess with stuff like this, just make sure you know what you can do safely to the materials.

I don't know what happened but the last paragraph of the complaint says he approached another firm, became aggressive, and pulled out a firearm.

There isn't a transcript of the hearing itself or other affidavits that give a different pov like you are giving.

He also did not show up to the hearing or send a lawyer to present an alternative view or set of evidence.

At that point it becomes an accepted set of uncontested facts (legally, i mean)

https://web.sanmateocourt.org/midx/

Search for 26-CIV-00518

Deep link to the petition/complaint PDF: https://tinyurl.com/32xj5djy

(The details are the last page)

The respondent did not show up to the hearing. They also did not show up to the gun relinquishment hearing, where it was noted they have approached another VC firm with a firearm before being apprehended by the police. The san mateo prosecutor's office was notified of non-compliance.

This seems unlikely to have any sort of happy ending.

No, this is a totally normal thing, at least for the 9th circuit (and a few others). They do not publish all rulings, and they don't designate all opinions as precedential.

The rest is just disagreement with governing law, framed as if the court should have disregarded it and done what you wanted.

"California law requires that the end user makes an affirmative action to accept a TOS agreement in the form of checking a box or clicking a button. Something the court admits the defendant does not do."

This is only true as of July 1st, 2025. So was not in force at the time of this dispute.

"Just showing someone text does not count as accepting the TOS."

During the time, it did, as the court explains pretty well.

It is hilarious that you think this was about clearing a docket.

As a lawyer, I would guess this was literally the last thing they cared about here.

I also happen to think consumers get shafted and am quite happy with california's recent contract law changes, but ... this ruling is quite clearly reasonable, if not totally correct based on the law as it existed at the time.

It is a totally reasonable discussion of what assent entails, is clear that assent only exists when people actually read the notice, and placed the burden on the companies, etc.

One can disagree with the law at issue here, but the court was very carefully following it, and had a meaningful and thoughtful discussion of the issues involved.

Which you dismiss as just "trying to clear their dockets" because apparently you don't like the law as it is (which is cool, but not the courts job)

Material changes require mutual assent. This case was about whether mutual assent existed. The court said "yes".

So no contracts were changed by one side without the other one signing off - the court found the other side signed off.

This is not the first time someone tried to say a machine is the author. The law is quite clear, the machine cant be an author for copyright purposes. Despite all the confused news articles, this does not mean if claude writes code for you it is copyright free. It just means you are the author. Machines being used as tools to generate works is quite common, even autonomously. ill steal from the opinion here:

In 1974, Congress created the National Commission on New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works (“CONTU”) to study how copyright law should accommodate “the creation of new works by the application or intervention of such automatic systems or machine reproduction.”

...

This understanding of authorship and computer technology is reflected in CONTU’s final report: On the basis of its investigations and society’s experience with the computer, the Commission believes that there is no reasonable basis for considering that a computer in any way contributes authorship to a work produced through its use. The computer, like a camera or a typewriter, is an inert instrument, capable of functioning only when activated either directly or indirectly by a human. When so activated it is capable of doing only what it is directed to do in the way it is directed to perform.

...

IE When you use a computer or any tool you are still the author.

The court confirms this later:

Contrary to Dr. Thaler’s assumption, adhering to the human-authorship requirement does not impede the protection of works made with artificial intelligence. Thaler Opening Br. 38-39. First, the human authorship requirement does not prohibit copyrighting work that was made by or with the assistance of artificial intelligence. The rule requires only that the author of that work be a human being—the person who created, operated, or used artificial intelligence—and not the machine itself. The Copyright Office, in fact, has allowed the registration of works made by human authors who use artificial intelligence.

There are cases where the use of AI made something uncopyrightable, even when a human was listed as the author, but all of the ones i know are image related.

Overall, they could not make the showing necessary.

I read the motions and responses, and was not particularly impressed with their arguments for change of venue.

Anybody with significant contracts with the DOD is not going to use anthropic because they want to keep getting contracts with the DOD.

I can't speak to permitting but the coating and coating voc stuff I know quite well and what they state is simply bullshit.

I can also say I know of a bunch of auto paint places that opened in the mountain view surrounding area alone in the 10 years I lived there.

So I suspect it's all bullshit

First, manufacturers don't really make non voc compliant auto paints. The market is too small. They may make 550 and 275 variants but most don't.

Second, even like Texas has voc regulations on paints and also requires filtering and enclosed spray booths and gun cleaners and ....

And like I said, nobody is selling non compliant coatings because the market is zero.

They are all using voc compliant paints these days, even outside California.

I have no idea how hard permitting is mind you, but the claimed thing here is that they can't be voc compliant and that's just totally wrong.

The appeal will go to the 11th circuit.

Appealing is expensive because they have to post a bond with 100% collateral, and you pay for it yearly. In this case, probably around 8 million a year.

So in general its not worth appealing for 5 years unless they think they will knock off 25-30% of the judgement.

Here it's the first case of it's kind so i'm sure they will appeal, but if they lose those appeals, most companies that aren't insane would cut their losses instead of trying to fight everything.

The brokeness was always what got me. I had to believe either they had no unit tests, or 1000's of them were failing and they released it anyway. Because it was so fragile that it would have been impossible to test it and not notice easily broken things.