> After news broke out of Volkswagen cheating on diesel emissions, multiple other vehicle manufacturers got caught falsifying emissions data, as well as exceeding legal emission limits. This uncovered a greater industry-wide issue that goes far beyond only Volkswagen Group.

If you just insist on putting AI in everything, you are doing as good a job as most CEOs right now.

Was that so hard? Doesn't seem hard at all.

Yeah, and? Not everyone is in control of the culture of the organization they work in. I suspect most people are not. Is everyone on HN CEOs and CTOs?

I don't get it. The literal interpretation is a clear joke, as you say. So what's the point that it is making?

To be clear, I think the law discussed is stupid. I also think the argument that if both parts are legal they should also be legal together is wrong. What am I avoiding?

The commenter who quoted him here in the thread meant to make a joke and I didn't get it? I thought he quoted him as a point against the law we are discussing.

"It's a big club and you ain't in it". Obviously the problem is the club is too small, that's why for most of the people it is true that they are not part of it.

"Half the population is stupider than how stupid the average person is". As if somehow there's not a single person exactly on the median. In fact there is probably a huge number of people there, and within a margin of error of it.

If you are not an insider with special info and special access, no matter what you do in the market, you eventually lose to the insiders. So, if you blur the details a bit, you're just giving your money to these people.

The rational move would be to just not participate in a market where insider trading happens. I don't really understand why people aren't avoiding these markets like the plague.

The story mentions some "official rules". Consider that we also have official rules and behaviour that does not obey them.

I dare suggest your own view might be reductionist.

Why did he need to highlight some terms? How do you mean "change the nature of the agreement", change from what? They didn't have an agreement before this.

> because it's no longer a change, it's a new contract that replaces the old one

What sophistry is this? Of course it's a change. Most of the contract is the same, it's not like Paypal changes it's business to selling shoes. They do the same things, and the terms are mostly the same, only they make some changes. There's nothing supporting your claim that it's a new contract.

> things like price, term, or anything that would change the nature of the overall agreement

That's everything in the contract. Which parts of the contract don't affect the nature of the contract? Why are they there? What the hell is "the overall nature"? If a fee for something changes from $1 to $2, as I understand the english language, "the overall nature" of the contract doesn't change. Just a fee. It's a detail. But this is exactly what you list as "material terms".

It's all BS.

To be very clear, I think it's completely stupid.

I never heard of a corporation being forced to point out explicitly which lines in their long terms and conditions document have changed. But it's a well known obligation for regular citizens, because material terms.

> that the modifications are actually disclosed to the counterparty before they sign

Does Microsoft explicitly draw your attention to the fact that Copilot is for entertainment purposes? No, it buries that in a long document hoping you won't see it, and advertises it as the complete opposite, but it's ok when they do it, because those are not material terms, whatever that means. It means it's ok when the big guys do it, in the end.

I can never find an article that mentions the final outcome.

The times for Murphy's Law for computational power are just beginning.

Of course this means learning the lesson of how the first defeat happened. You reset so that you can learn more lessons. If they ignored the lesson of the first defeat, that's stupid. But the reset itself makes sense.