Stack Exchange
log in

IllusiveBrian

 Discussion on question by Nepene Nep:…

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
IllusiveBrian
Apr 23, 2024 09:06
@njzk2 They're already renting out office space they don't want to put to waste and the middle management doesn't think they can adequately monitor employee's work if they aren't in the same physical office. For some managers it also helps their sense of self-importance to force people to be in their physical presence instead of managing them remotely.
 

 Discussion on answer by IllusiveBrian…

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
IllusiveBrian
Dec 25, 2023 04:24
@JoeW One work of art that was the highest grossing film of the year, at least top 10 highest grossing works of art of the year. As I said I didn't see it so my interest is just popcorn observation but it's one of the most culturally relevant works of art this year. I'm also not convinced there are thousands of well-known works of art that have a comparable misogynist plot as Barbie's presented by critics as misandrist.
IllusiveBrian
Dec 25, 2023 04:24
@JoeW Was there another major work of pop art released this year you think they should be covering as anti-woman by the same logic? Ultimately they have an audience that expects certain topics to be covered but there was a split in the "anti-woke" community of whether Barbie was could be interpreted as anti-feminist.
IllusiveBrian
Dec 25, 2023 04:24
@JoeW Other than relative popularity and the fact that Barbie came out recently so there's an audience to hear people talk about it, Barbie is presented by the director as a feminist film. I added a citation to the answer. With that said if you accept their summarization of Barbie, I think you would be hard-pressed to find even an old film where women gain legal equality and then the protagonist fights to rescind their rights, and this is presented as righteous. Further if you did a commenter on the "conservative" side of the line I mentioned would probably agree that's just as bad.
IllusiveBrian
Dec 25, 2023 04:24
And I apologize if my opinion that gamers were unequivocally in the right shows through, though I'm not sure I agree that it does in the answer. I'm obviously biased though, if you think there's a more neutral way to mention it I'll consider changing it since I was trying to keep this answer focused on information and not arguing one side is right.
IllusiveBrian
Dec 25, 2023 04:24
@F1Krazy Multiple articles came out around the same time (many coordinated on the same day) talking about how gamers as an audience are bad people and companies shouldn't pander to their sexist members. As an example - archive.is/9NxHy#selection-615.7-615.81 You're free to argue that the intent wasn't to paint all people who play video games as anti-women, but that was a widely held perception.
 

 Discussion on question by Anthony: Ho…

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
IllusiveBrian
Sep 20, 2023 20:20
@Anthony That sounds really annoying, because pop ups are annoying. As a website user I've also been trained all my life to immediately close unexpected pop ups without reading them.
 

 Discussion on answer by Timur Shtatla…

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
IllusiveBrian
May 20, 2023 21:41
The portion of people with liberal views across all educational categories went up between 1995 to 2015 according to that graph. I wonder whether particular questions asked were more likely to get favorable responses in 2015 than 1995, or if the favorable responses went up evenly across the questions. The portion of hard right and hard left also seemed to increase across all categories, which may indicate a societal change that isn't solely due to education.
 

 Discussion on answer by Ertai87: Do R…

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
IllusiveBrian
Feb 8, 2023 09:07
@DavidHammen I'd imagine the answerer would be willing to clarify that if you provide a source, the Wikipedia article doesn't make that distinction either.
 

 Discussion on answer by Italian Philo…

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
IllusiveBrian
Feb 3, 2023 12:40
@ShadowRanger Executions usually allow the family of the convicted and the victim(s) to attend, even convicted murderers have family that want to try and support them in their last moments. For better or for worse none of them probably want to see the decapitated body, or the hempen jig, and it could be cruel punishment to scare off the convict's family, plus violating victim's rights to see the execution.
 

 Discussion on answer by David Siegel:…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
IllusiveBrian
Sep 15, 2022 03:27
@mindwin Eminent Domain is part of the Fifth Amendment so clearly the Framers contemplated it. I don't know how they would have felt about Kelo though.
 

 Discussion on question by kishoredbn:…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
IllusiveBrian
May 3, 2022 14:40
Are you backing up the data with a program offered by Apple? Apple certainly doesn't have liability if you are not using their program or service. If you did use their program the hurdle is that they've likely disavowed merchantability in their ToS.
 

 Discussion on answer by Eugene: Is it…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
IllusiveBrian
Nov 23, 2021 20:00
@Eugene I'm guessing the controlling federal law is 18 U.S. Code § 922(x)(2) law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922, but section 3 is all exceptions for juveniles being given a handgun by some authorized adult which apply if the possession isn't otherwise prohibited by state or federal law. So the handgun restriction isn't redundant.
IllusiveBrian
Nov 23, 2021 17:15
@Eugene Rural and small town gun culture extends beyond just hunting. A person living where there is a real risk of dangerous animals like wolves and mountain lions coming onto their property is going to want their children to be familiar with how to defend themselves with a firearm. The compromise is that long guns are both generally an effective tool to use for that purpose and the least likely to be used in crime, so only short barreled firearms are banned.
IllusiveBrian
Nov 23, 2021 17:15
@Eugene Is there evidence that this wasn't the intent? They may have been trying to ban minors from using handguns and short barreled weapons because those are used by gang members in Milwaukee. Long guns aren't usually used in crimes besides hunting violations.
 

 Discussion on answer by Eugene: What …

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
IllusiveBrian
Nov 23, 2021 17:17
If we want to throw the book at Rosenbaum, when he touched Rittenhouse's gun he became a felon in possession of a gun, and being on the Car Source lot may have been trespassing. I think he also was noted to have started a fire or damaged vehicles. He might also be guilty of recklessly endangering Macguiness by causing Rittenhouse to shoot at him, and may be vicariously guilty of reckless endangerment from Zeminski firing a shot in the air because they were co-conspiring. I don't know if he was on parole but if he was his actions might be a parole violation.
 

 Discussion on question by Ryan_L: Are…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
IllusiveBrian
Nov 9, 2021 19:26
This question seems overly broad since the actual question line appears to just be asking for the criminal rules of evidence (for Wisconsin, I'd assume).
 

 Discussion on question by Michael: Wh…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
IllusiveBrian
Jul 5, 2021 16:17
@forest He may have meant a spike in homelessness-related offenses like pitching tents in parks and on the sidewalk that would usually have been forced out to a more hidden location by police. So, a spike in the visibility of homelessness.
 

 Discussion on question by user2501323…

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
IllusiveBrian
Jun 1, 2021 17:28
@user2501323 There is no such thing as a trusted source. There are sources, and sometimes that information is corroborated by other sources and can be reasonably be trusted. You should be especially skeptical of "anonymous sources" that are providing something negative about another country or a political opponent.
 

 Discussion on answer by lambshaanxy: …

Imported from a comment discussion on travel.stackexchange.com...
IllusiveBrian
Apr 10, 2021 01:06
@Valorum You can't gather and store witnesses. Over time people move away, forget details, and die.
 

 Discussion on answer by Dan Scally: D…

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
IllusiveBrian
Oct 30, 2020 07:09
@SteveMelnikoff The answers in the OP are almost certainly canned answers Amazon added for the service to respond with, it would be naive to think that Amazon doesn't have a way to control the service's responses to specific questions rather than relying solely on an "algorithm." Microsoft already taught Big Tech that lesson with TayAI.
 

 Discussion on answer by ohwilleke: Do…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
IllusiveBrian
Jul 23, 2020 16:42
@ohwilleke They hire lawyers to assault police officers?
 

 Discussion on answer by DavidSupports…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
IllusiveBrian
Jul 3, 2020 15:26
@gerrit A person going a few km/h over the speed limit is likely about as safe as someone traveling at it yet will get a speeding ticket due to the traffic camera an officer likely wouldn't have issued. Speeding cameras mainly exist as a revenue generator for cities, not to make safer drivers.
 

 Discussion on answer by Lag: Can a pe…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
IllusiveBrian
Apr 22, 2020 01:16
@akostadinov A cryptographic private key isn't very different from a physical key and lock from a legal standpoint. If I own a building and have a key to its lock, just because I lose the key and someone else picks it up or they copy it without my consent doesn't mean they own the building or have my permission to use their key to enter it. Obviously the exact laws applied might be a little different because it's online but the basic concept of property ownership doesn't change just because the property is digital.
 

 Discussion on answer by Tymoteusz Pau…

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
IllusiveBrian
Feb 14, 2020 19:40
@sleske I think the English legal equivalent is "negligence."
 

 Discussion on answer by IllusiveBrian…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
IllusiveBrian
Jan 22, 2020 14:37
@grovkin OK, I see your logic now. However, I think that if I deceive you into thinking I'm someone else because you aren't willing to deal with me, I'm committing some kind of crime, even if it's fraud rather than trespassing. On the other hand, in the OP's example, if I gave you valid but different information to sign up to the site, I agree there is an argument that that access isn't unauthorized for the purpose of the CFAA. Perhaps we'd need to see an actual adjudication of a case like this to have a firm answer.
IllusiveBrian
Jan 22, 2020 14:37
@grovkin Sure, but that would be analogous to the ban being lifted by the site operator, wouldn't it? Just hitting the "new account" link and following it is more like opening the door, there's no human you're interacting with to do it, and you've already been told you aren't allowed to do it by the site. I guess it depends on what level of access is considered "unauthorized" given that you have been told by a site owner not to use the site and that ban has not been lifted.
IllusiveBrian
Jan 22, 2020 14:37
@grovkin I'm not sure I understand your reasoning. If e.g. a patron at a bar breaks some bar rule and is told they are permanently banned from the property, they are still trespassing even if they come back the next day with a fake mustache.
IllusiveBrian
Jan 22, 2020 14:37
@gnasher729 As far as I can tell that's not the case though, since the person has already been told they aren't allowed to use the site.
 

 Discussion on answer by phoog: Is ask…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
IllusiveBrian
Jan 8, 2020 19:00
@user253751 Well, the purpose of traffic fines is to finance the police department, but you're right for most fines.
 

 Discussion on answer by DavePhD: Did …

Imported from a comment discussion on skeptics.stackexchange.c...
IllusiveBrian
Nov 16, 2019 23:53
@SebastianRedl I don't read this that way. If you have a question like "How old is the Earth?", and you force the student to answer "about 4.5 billion years," they may have a claim in my reading because you are compelling speech that goes against their religious doctrine. If the question is instead "Given the available evidence, scientists cited by the textbook believe the Earth to be how old?", the student's answeris only rote recitation, not compelled expression of a particular conclusion.
 

 Discussion between IllusiveBrian and …

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
IllusiveBrian
Nov 3, 2019 20:24
@MarkJohnson The OP didn't imply they had done anything yet, but for the police to go kick down their door there hopefully has to be some probable cause or whatever standard the UK uses. The answer seems to imply that merely stating that you want to have a weapon for self-defense is probable cause that you both have the weapon and intend to use it for a purpose other than self-defense (self-defense being legal, it would not be probable cause of criminal intent).
IllusiveBrian
Nov 3, 2019 20:20
@MarkJohnson Fair enough, see my point about applying in Belgium then. Apparently the OP is now saying the question does ask about what happens if they apply for a permit and tell the government that they have a contraband item - in that case I'd expect the police to respond.
IllusiveBrian
Nov 3, 2019 19:20
@MarkJohnson Based on your answer, there is no permit application process in the UK, so I'm not sure what permit the OP has applied for in that hypothetical. If they are in Belgium, our poorly defined hypothetical seems to imply that the OP has applied for a permit pursuant to the Weapons Act, with the justification of self-defense, and the authorities for some reason take the OP's earnest attempt to follow the legal process with insufficient justification to be issued the permit as evidence that they currently own a weapon illegally and intend to carry it illegally.
IllusiveBrian
Nov 3, 2019 19:20
@MarkJohnson The OP asks whether or not carrying a particular weapon is permissible - the question doesn't mention owning one, intention to buy or carry one regardless of legality, or any language that would lead a person to believe the OP intends to break the law. The answer seems to imply that a person can't even safely ask whether a particular act is legal without the authorities breaking down their front door.
IllusiveBrian
Nov 3, 2019 19:20
It seems fantastic to me that a squad of armed UK officers would come down on someone asking if they are allowed to carry a particular weapon for the purpose of self-defense, even if the answer is no, if they have no reason to believe the person actually intends to break the law. I mean, I have a low opinion of the prioritization of UK police resources, but even mine isn't that low.
 

 Discussion between Iñaki Viggers and …

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
IllusiveBrian
Oct 31, 2019 00:53
If, for sake of argument, the bar had some list they were looking at that included the OP, or included someone else that looked like the OP, that could come out in discovery and even if the OP loses the defamation case, the fact that it was a case of mistaken identity would be established in the evidence, or the OP could in fact go after the source providing a false accusation.
IllusiveBrian
Oct 31, 2019 00:45
Even if the court wasn't willing to compel the bar's speech, a judgement against the bar on the matter could be provided to Alice along with a request to retract her written statements about the OP. At that point, it would be negligent of her to keep them posted, unless she had some other defensible evidence that the OP was a known sex offender.
IllusiveBrian
Oct 31, 2019 00:42
@Putvi Most US jurisdictions recognize defamation per se. There are specific statutory false statements of fact (depends on jurisdiction, but usually accusations of crime are included) which are considered damaging per se and do not require the plaintiff to show any actual damages. As Inaki is saying, they may have limited monetary damages that can be recovered if there isn't any cognizable monetary harm, but a person can still use a lawsuit over them to "clear their name."
IllusiveBrian
Oct 31, 2019 00:38
@IñakiViggers As I said, I doubt the OP would care about monetary damages, they would be seeking a declaratory judgement (or declaratory settlement, more likely) instructing the bar to provide a written notice retracting its claim that the OP is a known sex offender.
IllusiveBrian
Oct 29, 2019 22:57
it seems more trouble than it's worth to try and go after her for whoever she told this to in private, and there's always the Streisand effect to consider.
IllusiveBrian
Oct 29, 2019 22:57
Your answer still mentions actual malice, but it seems like the OP would just need to prove negligence. I doubt the OP wants money besides repayment of fees, he could probably get a declaratory settlement from the bar that includes a written acknowledgement from them they were wrong, and send that to Alice with a polite request to recant her statements. If she still doesn't, then he can go after her for whatever is still written publicly for libel...
 

 Discussion on question by Quenton: Is…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
IllusiveBrian
Sep 30, 2019 03:58
Did they get your license by asking for it or demanding it?
 

 Discussion on answer by Conor Mancone…

Imported from a comment discussion on security.stackexchange.c...
IllusiveBrian
Sep 4, 2019 16:14
@JohnDoea There is no distinction, every program needs testing. What level of testing is a business question more than a programming one.
 

 Discussion on answer by acpilot: Does…

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
IllusiveBrian
Aug 11, 2019 14:44
It's possibly accurate that the American system places political speech on a pedestal higher than many other Western countries in terms of its legal protection, as evidenced by the answer, but I haven't categorically researched every country.
 

 Discussion on answer by Obie 2.0: Do …

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
IllusiveBrian
Aug 9, 2019 09:40
Also, something I'd place on this list - although the Constitution has a written protection from double jeopardy, the US' unique "dual-sovereignty" federal system means that someone can be tried and acquitted of a crime in federal jurisdiction, and then tried in state jurisdiction for crimes relating to the same set of facts, and vice versa.
IllusiveBrian
Aug 9, 2019 09:40
One last thing - the fighting words doctrine may be modified or replaced by the decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio which allowed for prohibiting speech only if it is "inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." Relating that back to fighting words, the words would now probably have to be specifically provoking someone to commit a crime like fighting, not just be generally provocative.
IllusiveBrian
Aug 9, 2019 09:40
FWIW, the age of consent isn't 18 nationwide (e.g. it's 16 in Ohio), it's 18 federally. This means that both sides have to be 18 if they want to meet each other across state borders. Federal child pornography laws also prohibit taking sexual pictures of someone under 18 generally, even if that person would be of consenting age in the state.
 

 Discussion on answer by Dale M: Is it…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
IllusiveBrian
Jul 26, 2019 15:19
@DaleM + others I did say "or some other confounding factor," which was meant to address people that couldn't move the scooters for whatever reason. I admit that I hadn't read the article, given the number of scooters in some of those pictures it seems reasonable to me for a court to find hiring a professional to impound them to be reasonable (and the most mitigating way to do it to prevent further damage), but there is still the question of whether the impound fees are excessive, and at what point the owner's use of the service becomes reasonable (or if it is always reasonable).
IllusiveBrian
Jul 26, 2019 15:19
@CharlesE.Grant A person is supposed to mitigate the damage they suffer from another's tort against them. Unlike a car, a regular person can trivially remove a scooter from their property and place it on public property. If there isn't an ordinance against them doing that or some other confounding factor, the scooter companies could argue that claiming the impound fees is an unnecessary expense and only serves to try to punish the scooter companies, which is contrary to a plaintiff's responsibility to reasonably mitigate damages.