Stack Exchange
log in

nanoman

 Discussion on question by cph_sto: On…

Imported from a comment discussion on english.stackexchange.co...
nanoman
Oct 25, 2024 17:32
Given the clarification that the people in question were more "tricked" than "coerced", this may be relevant.
 

 Discussion on question by SimpleStude…

Imported from a comment discussion on academia.stackexchange.c...
nanoman
Oct 10, 2024 03:05
@AzorAhai-him- I think there's a misunderstanding. The "win-win" remark (which has since been removed from the question) sounded like it was indeed a win for both sides: "This is a win-win game, I will get my PR and he will pay domestic fees for me." I think the point of the last part was that the advisor's grant would normally have to pay OP's tuition and fees as a foreign student and these would be reduced (perhaps substantially) if OP becomes a domestic student (permanent resident). I wonder if this simple misunderstanding may have colored the perception of OP here as rude/entitled.
 

 Discussion on answer by David Hammen:…

Imported from a comment discussion on space.stackexchange.com/...
nanoman
Jul 6, 2022 13:45
"The design goal of less than 3 serious mishaps per 1000 flights is most likely closer to a serious mishap every few hundred flights or so in reality" -- I'm confused -- 3 per 1000 is roughly the same as 1 every few hundred, so what distinction are you making?
 

 Discussion on answer by David Siegel:…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
nanoman
Jun 13, 2022 23:42
@DavidSiegel Did you mean to make a substantive revision/clarification to your answer? I'm confused because your edit summary says "I am specifically writing of copyright, not IP" (suggesting a substantive point), but the only change was a typo ("choose" -> "chooses").
nanoman
Jun 13, 2022 23:42
@PaulJohnson Your source seems to support mine, at least in OP's scenario of abolishment: "The biggest constitutional problem associated with shortening the term is the fact that many copyrights would immediately cease to have any economic value. Even under Penn Central, this total deprivation would weigh heavily in favor of finding a taking."
nanoman
Jun 13, 2022 23:42
@tuskiomi ... And we are talking about actions of the federal government. The question is explicitly about the US government abolishing copyright, not an individual violating copyright -- just as the government turning private real estate into a park without just compensation would be a constitutional issue, not merely a matter of the individuals who end up using the park.
nanoman
Jun 13, 2022 23:42
@tuskiomi "which scholars?" The authors shown in my link -- distinguished law professors at Chicago and Cornell, writing for the National Constitution Center. Sure, it may not do much in court directly, but it represents an expert synthesis of existing jurisprudence and so, I would argue, a legitimate source for this site. ...
nanoman
Jun 13, 2022 23:42
What about the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment? Given that copyrights currently held are valuable assets, would it be a case of "private property...taken for public use, without just compensation"? Scholars have written: "The Clause also applies to the confiscation of intangible property, including...copyrights".
 

 Discussion on answer by cag51: Gradin…

Imported from a comment discussion on academia.stackexchange.c...
nanoman
May 9, 2022 13:38
@BobBrown Assuming, of course, that students have access to exactly the same compiler, with the same flags, that the instructor uses!
 

 Discussion on answer by The Square-Cu…

Imported from a comment discussion on worldbuilding.stackexcha...
nanoman
Jan 20, 2022 20:05
"horse's head accounts for about 10% of the animal's total mass" -- does this include the horse's neck? The human part replaces the horse's head and neck. So the result may be even less front-heavy.
 

 Discussion on answer by David Siegel:…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
nanoman
Dec 2, 2021 16:58
@Jafe This confused me at first too. But there is only one comment -- the outer quote. The inner quote ("You cannot create derivative works without permission...") is from an answer, not a comment.
 

 Discussion on answer by joseph h: Wha…

Imported from a comment discussion on physics.stackexchange.co...
nanoman
Jun 14, 2021 09:18
I'll edit -- I said "these hypothetical gravitational waves" meaning the thermal ones discussed in the preceding sentences. And in the hypothetical that such waves exist from the very early universe, I disagree with your statement that they would be extremely long (millions of km) now. Yes, they are heavily redshifted, but they also started out tiny because the early universe was so hot. To first order it makes little difference (to the current wavelength) at what epoch the radiation was "released", since all fields were cooling and redshifting together anyway.
nanoman
Jun 14, 2021 09:18
Great. If you downvoted perhaps you see fit to reverse? :)
nanoman
Jun 14, 2021 09:18
Whoa, what I intended is that my answer "denies the existence" of a thermal gravitational wave background (and I link to a paper). I talk about other gravitational waves from many localized sources that could combine into a "background". And I definitely agree that gravitational waves are redshifted -- I don't think anything in my answer or comment contradicts that. If you downvoted my answer and you still think these things aren't made clear, please let me know how I can improve it.
nanoman
Jun 14, 2021 09:18
"the waves would have significantly increased in wavelength" -- but they would also have started out extremely small. The effects nearly cancel, i.e., during the relevant period (radiation-dominated) the temperature was approximately following a redshift path anyway, so even Planck-era thermal radiation would turn into millimeter waves today like the CMB. See my answer.
 

 Discussion on answer by Matthew Gaise…

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
nanoman
Jun 9, 2021 08:43
@JoelEtherton "It's easy to tell half way through a PIP what the end outcome is going to be" -- but the employee can work hard for 51% of the PIP and then stop, proving you wrong. I understand you're saying that doesn't tend to happen, but if someone wants to defeat your heuristic they can easily do so.
 

 Discussion on question by David Bloms…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
nanoman
Apr 23, 2021 16:50
@AdamBarnes And the specific weapon is because the obvious choice -- the soldier's gun -- is issued specifically to him and would be traceable from the bullet via ballistics. In a combat environment, grenades are readily available and non-traceable.
 

 Discussion on answer by RemcoGerlich:…

Imported from a comment discussion on chess.stackexchange.com/...
nanoman
Mar 21, 2021 16:25
@DanDascalescu Similar to how IBM gained great publicity for programming computers to beat the best humans at chess and Jeopardy!, fully solving chess would be worldwide news. It would give the responsible institution a big boost in reputation and customer interest for their likely ability to apply computing power and search algorithms to other hugely difficult, but more practical and profitable, problems.
 

 Discussion on answer by Ryan_L: What …

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
nanoman
Feb 9, 2021 02:49
@Ben I think the marketplace of ideas is best understood as a "bootstrap" process: not that it works in every case, but it's a mechanism for leveraging broad agreement on some basic principles (freedom of speech, respect for facts, etc.) into broad agreement on other, more specific and substantive matters (societal decisions affecting material well-being). If enough people buy into the basic principles, society gets "herd immunity" to the most damaging ideas that don't stand up to scrutiny. Then leaders who don't permit criticism, or don't even allow their people to leave, raise big red flags.
 

 Discussion on question by fgrieu: Why…

Imported from a comment discussion on academia.stackexchange.c...
nanoman
Dec 29, 2020 07:21
Is this paper included as pointless/garbage? It comes up in one of OP's search links but appears reputable.
 

 Discussion on answer by Ron Beyer: Is…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
nanoman
Sep 10, 2020 15:46
"You might also be able to erect a 6' tall opaque fence around the car" -- in Table 3-13-6(c) at your link, the row describing the fence option shows prohibited for inoperative vehicles.
nanoman
Sep 10, 2020 15:46
What actually triggered the violation and the enforcement? It sounds like the vehicle has been inoperative (and registered as such) for years and the warning only came after OP started repairs. But the repairs are not the actual problem; they are just presumably what brought attention to the car, right?
 

 Discussion on answer by David Schwart…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
nanoman
Jul 29, 2020 00:12
@DavidSchwartz In my defense, the word "violence" or "violent" was used 5 times in your answer, so it was hardly obvious that you felt it "has no bearing on this question". You've since softened it with phrases like "violence or harm".
nanoman
Jul 29, 2020 00:12
@GwenKillerby "You" meant not the OP (asker), but the author of the answer I was commenting on (David Schwartz). I was going on this: "exactly what your landlord is trying to do here could happen. People could threaten violence or harm as a way to chill other people's speech."
nanoman
Jul 29, 2020 00:12
Also, consider the incentives involved. You're assuming the landlord doesn't like the sign; but perhaps he's really just afraid of vandalism. Since the tenant is not liable (unless the sign breaks a valid lease provision), the landlord will have to eat the cost of any vandalism (either directly, or in the form of higher insurance costs) unless he can track down and recover from the vandal (very unlikely). So, in effect, the landlord unilaterally faces the cost/risk of the tenant's speech choice. This would normally be considered an undesirable "moral hazard"...
nanoman
Jul 29, 2020 00:12
...because the one who controls the risk is not the one who bears the consequences. (Note, a private employer can fire an employee for exercising free speech that reflects badly on the employer.) The landlord naturally will try to mitigate this, whether or not he agrees with the sign. The landlord may support it but fear the public reaction's impact to his wallet. It's a negotiation, with the claim of tenant liability as a bluff. The landlord may still have leverage in that he can deny the tenant favors/leniency in other areas, offer a worse lease renewal, etc., if the sign stays up.
nanoman
Jul 29, 2020 00:12
Vandalism is normally not considered violence, since it causes property damage, not bodily harm.
 

 Discussion on answer by Kate Gregory:…

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
nanoman
Jul 27, 2020 03:18
... Saying "You're a RECRUITER! You should know this sort of thing. You may have clients that want..." is trying to relate multiple levels, recruiting for OP's own firm and for clients. But OP recruits only for her own firm, not for its clients, because her firm's business is not recruiting.
nanoman
Jul 27, 2020 03:18
A quibble: OP does not work at a recruiting firm; she works as a recruiter at a consulting firm. Thus, she is typically recruiting consultants, not other recruiters. So there's not really the "recursive" aspect you're riffing on. The part of this answer that's about qualifications of recruiters is not very relevant (very occasionally OP might be recruiting a recruiter for her own team). ...
 

 Discussion on answer by Jörg W Mittag…

Imported from a comment discussion on travel.stackexchange.com...
nanoman
Jul 3, 2020 00:32
@JonCuster The fact that 41616 could be reverse engineered either way is a remarkable coincidence! It is only the 4th possible number that is both square (204th square number) and triangular (288th triangular number).
 

 Discussion on answer by dxh: How can …

Imported from a comment discussion on parenting.stackexchange....
nanoman
May 29, 2020 22:55
@Dúthomhas And I'd like to learn from your POV. Is your emphatic advice limited to bullying that occurs at school? I'm struggling to understand what you would recommend when an incident occurs completely outside a school context, when you have zero connection to the misbehaving child's school, and/or during a long school break. Life is bigger than school, different families have many occasions to interact with each other, so what exactly is the trigger for your rule "keep quiet lest you get the kid beaten"?
nanoman
May 29, 2020 22:55
@deworde ... And an incident that should be discussed with a child's parents can happen outside of school, perhaps during a long school break (like summer in the US). You may not even have a child attending the other child's school. And perhaps you will say, "Don't let your child interact with any child you don't know, other than at school" -- but that will be impossible, e.g., the moment they attend a birthday party where the host also invited other little friends from a different circle.
nanoman
May 29, 2020 22:55
@deworde Regarding your post about biting, I think the school's policy was entirely about protecting themselves from a lawsuit by the other child's family, for "defaming" them, or if you were to respond aggressively. I don't think it's in any way an indication that your talking to the other parents would be a danger to the children involved.
nanoman
May 29, 2020 22:55
@deworde Are you suggesting that schools should be considered a required clearinghouse for any interaction between families who don't know each other well, in case a parent somehow gets upset and takes it out on their child? To me it sounds like a bizarre and unnecessary constraint. If a parent is the type to beat their child, who knows what sets them off? It's terrible and we should act when there's evidence of it, but I really doubt it can be effectively reduced by preemptively walking on eggshells with every parent just in case they're abusive. ...
nanoman
May 29, 2020 22:55
@Dúthomhas ... A much more likely problem is that the parents, who naturally love and support their child, won't believe that the child could do such a thing unless they saw it with their own eyes. They'd be hostile to the person telling them but protective to their child. However, your "bruises" scenario posits that they will believe it. And that means it can only be worse if they hear it from a "professional authority figure", whom they're more likely to believe than a random other parent. ...
nanoman
May 29, 2020 22:55
@Dúthomhas ... So how can even the school staff ever bring it up with the bully's parents? You're saying they will cause those very same "bruises" if they do. And you don't seem to think that victim parents can ever resort to legal action, even if a misbehaving child causes major property damage, injury, and medical bills. We have to hide a child's naughtiness at all costs based on an assumption that their parents will beat them if they ever hear about it?!
nanoman
May 29, 2020 22:55
@Dúthomhas The categorical "don't tell the parents" confuses me. It'd be one thing if you said "leave it to the professionals", but you're suggesting that the parents can't be allowed to find out in any way because then they will beat their bully child. This almost sounds like a smear against any parent whose child exhibits a bullying behavior, the majority of whom I expect are not abusive parents. ...
 

 Discussion on answer by gnasher729: M…

Imported from a comment discussion on money.stackexchange.com/...
nanoman
May 27, 2019 16:59
@9ilsdx9rvj0lo Restricted, not totally forbidden. Teens under 18 routinely have part-time/summer jobs in the US. So JMac's comment would apply up to the maximum number of work hours allowed.
 

 Discussion on question by Santhosh Su…

Imported from a comment discussion on travel.stackexchange.com...
nanoman
Mar 6, 2019 00:54
We should also discuss the regulations on carrying ice to the Arctic and coal to Newcastle.