I'm sure you can define "EU sovereignty" in a way that's consistent with that, but that's not very useful.

and a page-turner for the Kindle: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CVWZWX56?ref_=ppx_hzsearch_conn_...

They can also better afford to play dirty in various ways, from burying you in discovery documents to dragging things out with various motions.

And in general, yes — they often also have at least slightly smarter lawyers (and more eyes on the case). That doesn't mean cheaper lawyers are dumb, and there are smart lawyers out there who aren't incredibly expensive, but the average intelligence goes up noticeably as you interact with more expensive firms (which tracks, because they hired people with the top performance in and possibly after law school).

AI may close the gap on some things, but not others.

FYI, even lawyers who represent themselves generally don't do well, no matter how smart they are or how much experience they have in that area. But that's not because the judge wants them to pay into the cartel -- it's because law is hard, there are a million factors affecting performance on a particular case, and one major factor is ability to keep perspective on your case. People are uniformly terrible at this when looking at their own cases.

This isn't why expensive lawyers tend to get better results in court, or why those who represent themselves often end up screwed. I'm against the legal monopoly system, but this is out-of-touch and silly.

In the example of the color spectrum, I don't mean that things necessarily don't (or do) have color. Take fundamental particles, as an extreme example. They don't themselves have any color at all, though they have 1ualities in common with color. And depending on what you do to them, they can exhibit qualities of color (or not).

But the fact that something has a color doesn't mean that thing itself is on the color spectrum — color is not a necessary quality of that thing, and can change depending on other factors — for energy that could be level of excitement, or for other things it might be the level and color of light in the room. Also, the physical things you point a camera at often do not themselves have color! They show up as being a color in the picture not because of their inherent qualities, but because of what wavelengths of light they do or do not absorb. And you can, by using different types of cameras or adjusting their settings, take in more of some wavelengths, less of others, or none of some, regardless of what things look like IRL (which is based in the wavelengths of light being reflected/not reflected from those things to your eyes, and which wavelengths the cones in your eyes can take in, and then how those are processed by your brain, etc).

"There's a spectrum between..." is not an uncommon way to describe something where there's a range of possible things.

Many scientists believe that one day we will likely be able to split off at least some of the undifferentiated mass of ASD into potentially completely unrelated disorders that may share a lot of aspects of presentation.

For example, we may find out that one set of genes combined with cytokine storms in utero cause dysfunction in synaptic pruning, while another set of genes combined with gut dysbiosis may affect brain plasticity in the critical period of early childhood. Those would be two completely unrelated conditions, with overlapping symptoms for some (but not all) who have them.

Likewise, when we talk about the "autism spectrum," we're not including every exhibition of traits associated with autism. You can have some traits associated with autism without being "on the spectrum."

Also, perhaps as importantly, "spectrum" isn't a term that generally applies only to color, or even electromagnetism.