But, if you are really satisfied with $30ph (if you don't have a better offer to fall back on), you probably won't get (much) more. Your weak negotiating position will inevitably shine through.

Ponzi schemes do keep paying out, for as long as they are growing.

The board of Tesla will have agreed the plans.

Tesla buys into some unknown proof-of-stake coin.

The sibling points about trademark law (which is different) and remix culture (which has some legal protection but not that I’m aware for lines of code) seem to miss this point.

This is a licensed use, it turns out, which is great. If the author here had not identified that before publishing, then they were putting themselves at legal risk.

[on a technicality, the MIT license hasn’t been properly invoked, since the MIT license requires the text of the license to be included in full, but the original author’s consent for use seems now to be clear]

This use of the code is a clear legal breach of copyright, in the absence of specific agreement with the copyright holder.

(On the Hatetris page, the author declines someone’s request to use the code elsewhere)

If you haven’t been convinced by decades of animal cruelty messaging (and most people haven’t), you’re unlikely to be convinced by it here.

It might form a meaningful part of a bigger decision-making process, but we already have that information.

I am a victim of a crime - I need to take the required action to get legal retribution.

Saying “I am not a victim” does nothing to help me.

It’s presented as a contract mutually agreed between you and the service provider - you get the service; the provider gets the data. A legal contract.

But, in all systems of law that I’m aware of, you can’t make enforceable contracts with children.

This exists as a way of protecting children from making disadvantageous agreements that they don’t yet have competence to understand.

So, the service provider can’t use any contract as justification for handling personal data of children.

This leaves the service provider without legal justification and then calls their ethics into question.

The quality of your end of life gets (on average) much worse if you smoke.

Not only do you die 5 minutes earlier, but you also spend more additional time with disease impacting your quality of life, such as COPD.

On the contrary, that sounds extremely credible.

If you divide life expectancy stats just by gender and race, you already see more than 10 years difference.

https://www.englishgrammar.org/bare-infinitive-2/

I disagree with the framing of this as "complexity" when it's really "Facebook's profits would be reduced/Facebook's business model would be compromised".

The complexity comes from Facebook's goal of maximising profits within the permitted algorithmic and legal space.

Reasonably convincing evidence, to me, would be:

- genetic precursor virus particles which have died and no longer exist - they are extinct, or,

- dated blood samples with immunological evidence of infection, sufficient that it isn’t just tampered/false positives. There’s no reason to expect this would have been collected.

i.e. if you haven’t collected it by 2019, there is never going to be any evidence.

This also answers your sibling commenter: it’s not in China’s interest to publicise any such search, when the odds of discovering anything (even if there were earlier infections) are vanishingly low.

Given that coronavirus would not be observable until there is a cluster of symptomatic cases in a city (and a doctor with relevant experience who can observe multiple cases - here 李文亮), I find it highly unlikely that we could observe earlier cases, if they spread less rapidly or outside a city - or even within another city with less institutional knowledge.

> b) China would be highly incentivized to root out

Even if so, this doesn't form part of any prior. China being incentivized to act in that situation, doesn't affect how likely or unlikely that situation was.

The headline says "Food Got Wasted — Mostly at Home" but the article seems to say that this applies to "food available to consumers", i.e. it is only really measuring the quantity of waste as household vs catering/restaurants.

Since more food must surely be eaten at home than elsewhere, it's not surprising that food waste is produced at home is first out of two options.

The article later admits that a higher quantity of food is 'wasted' before it reaches stores.