Stack Exchange
log in

Nate Eldredge

 Discussion on question by Hani Abdull…

Imported from a comment discussion on travel.stackexchange.com...
Nate Eldredge
Jan 30 11:03
This seems like something you need to discuss with an immigration lawyer, not just a bunch of amateur travel enthusiasts.
 

 Discussion on question by interfect: …

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
Nate Eldredge
Jan 29 05:05
Taking an extreme case - if you throw the phone in the trash can, its ownership passes to someone else - maybe the local municipality, maybe the trash hauling company, depending on local law. But it would be absurd to expect that the trash company could come and legally compel you to unlock it.
Nate Eldredge
Jan 29 05:05
But all that said, you do still have to clarify how you acquired ownership, so that we can try to understand whether that transfer was accompanied by an obligation to unlock. It's not enough just to know that you own it. Again, it depends on surrounding facts.
Nate Eldredge
Jan 29 05:05
Well, if it was sold to you under the understanding that it would be unlocked, then you can recover from the person who sold it to you, as they breached your contract (whether deliberately or not). You don't have to chase back the chain of responsibility. They, in turn, can go and try to recover from whoever sold it to them, and so on.
Nate Eldredge
Jan 29 05:05
On the other hand, if it was a gift from the previous owner, then I'm quite sure there is no such obligation. Unlocking it for you would be a separate gift that they may or may not decide to give you.
Nate Eldredge
Jan 29 05:05
For instance, if it was understood between you and the previous owner that you only wanted the device for target practice, a court might find that unlocking the device was not a term of the contract agreed between you, and that the previous owner has no obligation to unlock it.
Nate Eldredge
Jan 29 05:05
I ask because, other than gifts, most means of acquiring ownership of the device would be through some sort of (oral or written) contract with the previous owner, in exchange for some consideration. Then the question would be whether it was an explicit or implicit term of that contract that the previous owner would unlock the device. The answer to that might depend on the context.
Nate Eldredge
Jan 29 05:05
By what means did you become the owner, in this hypothetical situation? Purchase? Gift? Some other arrangement?
 

 Discussion on question by Ventolinmon…

Imported from a comment discussion on academia.stackexchange.c...
Nate Eldredge
Jan 29 01:34
I'm not sure what answerable question you're actually asking here. You have a "why" in your title, but it seems the only possible answer is "because they think it's a reasonable policy".
 

 Discussion on question by Neil Meyer:…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
Nate Eldredge
Jan 26 21:19
Was the driver aware of feeling unwell or impaired, even if she didn't know why?
 

 Discussion on question by GBG: Theft …

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
Nate Eldredge
Jan 5 21:57
The crime would be attempted theft of services, presumably.
 

 Discussion on question by Miss Unders…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
Nate Eldredge
Nov 23, 2024 22:02
I’m voting to close this question because it is not about law but about politics.
Nate Eldredge
Nov 23, 2024 22:02
These are all questions of international politics, not of law.
 

 Discussion on question by user71827: …

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
Nate Eldredge
Nov 20, 2024 23:06
Tell us something about Alice's employment contract. For example, does it specify a notice period? Or if she's an at-will employee, say so.
 

 Discussion on question by sock: How d…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
Nate Eldredge
Nov 5, 2024 19:23
My point was that the law, as it appears to read, isn't limited to people in line to vote. OP was suggesting a message targeted to a particular person known to be in line. Mine was to Ohio electors in general. I could even have said "Everyone in Ohio not currently in line to vote should go out and vote for X."
Nate Eldredge
Nov 5, 2024 19:23
So if I was to post here, on November 5, that "Everyone in Ohio should vote for Candidate X", have I just violated that law?
Nate Eldredge
Nov 5, 2024 19:23
The Ohio law says that "During an election and the counting of the ballots, no person shall do any of the following: ... Solicit or in any manner attempt to influence any elector in casting the elector's vote". If read literally, it would ban influencing any voter anywhere on Election Day, not only those who are actually in line to vote. Surely that is over-broad?
 

 Discussion on question by Kai Burghar…

Imported from a comment discussion on travel.stackexchange.com...
Nate Eldredge
Oct 26, 2024 12:02
"Deut$che Bahn" seems inaccurate; shouldn't it be "D€utsch€ Bahn?"
 

 Discussion on question by Paul J. Luc…

Imported from a comment discussion on retrocomputing.stackexch...
Nate Eldredge
Oct 15, 2024 04:19
@PaulJ.Lucas: Indeed, but when you do, it's expected that you will ensure that each question includes a link to the other. That way you don't have a situation where someone spends time writing an answer without realizing it's already answered on the other site.
Nate Eldredge
Oct 14, 2024 16:39
IIRC, K&R's code samples generally don't attempt to typedef struct types, so they may have thought it was stylistically better to have the struct keyword. So it could be that using typedef to avoid using struct was tolerated (to keep typedef general) but not encouraged.
 

 Discussion on question by Amit Tomar:…

Imported from a comment discussion on academia.stackexchange.c...
Nate Eldredge
Oct 14, 2024 07:24
You're doing a depth-first search. Consider breadth-first instead.
 

 Discussion on question by End Antisem…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
Nate Eldredge
Sep 14, 2024 18:09
Attribution, or lack thereof, generally has nothing at all to do with whether copyright is infringed. An exception is when the copyright holder has granted a license that is explicitly contingent on attribution.
 

 Discussion on answer by Raffzahn: Why…

Imported from a comment discussion on retrocomputing.stackexch...
Nate Eldredge
Sep 14, 2024 08:52
"Implies" is an odd choice of wording, since mathematical logic uses a right arrow to denote implication.
 

 Discussion on question by uhoh: How t…

Imported from a comment discussion on academia.stackexchange.c...
Nate Eldredge
Aug 14, 2024 21:44
If they're dismissing complaints from reviewers, I find it hard to imagine they'll be more receptive to the evaluation of an algorithm or review.
 

 Discussion on answer by littleadv: "O…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
Nate Eldredge
Jul 25, 2024 02:46
What issues would there be with the IRS? If his goal was to keep everything legal, he could simply declare it all as income and pay the appropriate taxes, and he'd still have a profit.
 

 Discussion on question by user1937198…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
Nate Eldredge
Jul 22, 2024 20:35
What kind of "cause" are we talking about? Are you suggesting that the malfunction of the non-medical software could directly harm the patient, e.g. by radiation overdose? Are these devices actually built such that this is possible? Or are you thinking that the failure would just stop the machine from working at all, thus keeping the patient from receiving a needed treatment and "causing injury" in that sense?
 

 Discussion on answer by ohwilleke: Do…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
Nate Eldredge
Jul 2, 2024 22:05
@jesse_b: Re enlisted vs officers, I asked a new question about that.
Nate Eldredge
Jul 2, 2024 22:05
There is also a difference between "the president has the authority to do X", as was asked in the title, and "the president is immune from criminal prosecution if they do X", which is what the ruling actually says. In the hypothetical example, the order to assassinate a rival would still be unlawful, and Seal Team 6 would still be obligated to refuse to carry it out. But the president couldn't be prosecuted criminally for giving it, nor for its consequences if it were carried out.
 

 Discussion between supercat and Nate …

Imported from a comment discussion on langdev.stackexchange.co...
Nate Eldredge
Jun 26, 2024 23:54
Or you can target a language dialect whose semantics are more to your liking, e.g. C89 or C99 which don't have the forward progress rule.
Nate Eldredge
Jun 26, 2024 23:54
Well, at that level of generality, I think there are only very general and rather tautological answers. You can look for language constructs that block the undesired optimizations while preserving, as much as possible, the desired ones; such as a dummy side effect. (In the case at hand, we haven't found one that works ideally in practice.) Or you can restrict yourself to target compilers that allow you to block them (like gcc and clang with -fno-finite-loops).
Nate Eldredge
Jun 25, 2024 20:58
I did notice that gcc and clang both support -fno-finite-loops which I think gives the semantics you are looking for.
Nate Eldredge
Jun 25, 2024 20:47
Oh, it's not a good test in C either, because they also don't delete while(b) { }.
Nate Eldredge
Jun 25, 2024 20:37
Another thought I had was printf("");, which compilers know is a no-op. It looks like gcc and clang both handle this properly when compiling C: godbolt.org/z/1eocaGPrM. Unfortunately, in C++, they both delete a loop while (b) printf(""); which I think is clearly a bug. I'll plan to report it.
Nate Eldredge
Jun 25, 2024 18:43
@supercat: If it does then that will be a clear violation of the standard, and should be unambiguously considered a bug. But what seems to me more likely is that it would only hoist it out if the loop is provably terminating.
Nate Eldredge
Jun 25, 2024 18:43
Oh, my earlier comment got truncated. I was going to say that although in principle the compiler could hoist out an atomic store, in practice they don't, as you suspected.
Nate Eldredge
Jun 25, 2024 18:43
@supercat: The C and C++ standards are quite clear that "atomic operations" count as forward progress, so that a possibly infinite loop which performs an atomic operation can't be assumed to terminate and isn't UB. This would even appear to include, e.g., an atomic load whose value is discarded, which could otherwise be optimized away (even though current compilers don't). An interesting question is whether that also includes fences. clang will optimize out an infinite loop containing a fence, but gcc won't.
Nate Eldredge
Jun 25, 2024 18:43
Another idea is to execute atomic_store_explicit(&dummy, 0, memory_order_relaxed); on each iteration. This counts as a side effect, so an infinite loop is not UB. But in theory, the compiler is allowed to hoist it out and just do the store once, since there's no
Nate Eldredge
Jun 25, 2024 18:43
One idea I had was to add (let's say) a 64-bit counter, incremented on every loop iteration, and have a dummy side effect (e.g. read a volatile variable) which only executes when the counter rolls over. Then if the compiler can prove the loop terminates in less than 2^64 iterations, it can delete it, so we make some progress toward (1), and we still have (3). But if the compiler can't prove termination, then it will have to actually generate code to increment and test the counter, which adds some overhead in case (2).
Nate Eldredge
Jun 25, 2024 18:43
So it seems to me that we ideally want to achieve three things: (1) if the loop always terminates and the C compiler can prove it, it's deleted; (2) if the loop does terminate but the compiler can't prove it, it executes without unnecessary overhead; (3) if the loop does not terminate, then an infinite loop is actually executed. Adding a dummy side effect gives you (3), but breaks (1) and may add some overhead to (2).
Nate Eldredge
Jun 25, 2024 18:43
Would you like to edit the title to focus on the particular question in the post, about possibly infinite loops? Currently it seems over-broad.
 

 Discussion on answer by Tak: What hap…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
Nate Eldredge
May 12, 2024 05:39
That's true, it was changed on the date of the governor's proclamation of the election result. But that's not a legislative function. It adopted the exact text approved by the voters, and my understanding is that nobody would have had the authority to draft other text.
Nate Eldredge
May 12, 2024 05:39
If you think that the proposition alone did not actually insert that text into the law, and that it was some other legislative action that did so, then I ask you to find it. I believe that all the information you would need should be on the CRS page for 39-22-104, linked in an earlier comment. I can't provide any further information because I don't think it exists.
Nate Eldredge
May 12, 2024 05:39
Okay. I'm going to try one more time, and then go to bed. Section 1.7 today has a tax rate of "four and forty one-hundredths percent". Prior to 2022, it didn't. How did that text get there? The only relevant footnote shown is for Prop 121, passed by voters on Nov 8, 2022, and proclaimed by the Governor on December 27, 2022 (a purely ceremonial and non-discretionary function that simply announces the election results), and suggests that it was effective immediately upon proclamation (i.e. on 12/27/2022). [...]
Nate Eldredge
May 12, 2024 05:39
According to the history at the same page I linked, section 39-22-104 was repealed and re-enacted in its entirety, effective June 22, 1987. Section 1.7 was added effective August 2, 2000; amended June 6, 2005; amended again by Proposition 116 effective December 21, 2020. But I don't see how those are relevant to the question at hand.
Nate Eldredge
May 12, 2024 05:39
We seem to be going around in circles. I don't know what you mean when you say "the passage of the law". I presume you mean some action of the legislature, and I'm asserting that there is none, so there is no such date.
Nate Eldredge
May 12, 2024 05:39
And the History section at the end of the page shows only Prop 121 as amending Section 1.7, effective upon proclamation of the Governor on December 27, 2022, whereas all other amendments show a House Bill or Senate Bill number.
Nate Eldredge
May 12, 2024 05:39
The CRS page I linked above, in footnote 11, shows Section 1.7 as having been amended by Proposition 121 which passed on November 8, 2022. It does not reference any other legislative act nor any other date. If the legislature had acted to enact this amendment, surely we would expect to find a corresponding footnote in the Revised Statutes?
Nate Eldredge
May 12, 2024 05:39
What I'm suggesting is that there was no separate law passed by the legislature, because I believe that the passage of the ballot proposition amended the statute law all by itself. I'm challenging you to find such a legislative act if it exists. I don't think that it does.
Nate Eldredge
May 12, 2024 05:39
Prop 121 passed in the general election of November 8, 2022. If the legislature did act on it, they would have had to do so very fast, because the new rates were printed on the tax forms for tax year 2022, which appeared in early 2023. But politically, I don't think this proposition was favored by the legislature at the time, and I'd be surprised if they took any affirmative action to pass it.
Nate Eldredge
May 12, 2024 05:39
In all the ones I've checked, the text of the statute is identical. So let's take for example Colorado Proposition 121 of 2022, which lowered income tax rates. It's now part of Colorado Revised Statues 39-22-104, section 1.7. The footnote shows it as enacted by the proposition itself, not by any act of the legislature. If you believe that an act of the legislature was needed to enact it into law, can you point me to the corresponding session law?