Stack Exchange
log in

Jen

 Discussion on question by Speakpigeon…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
Jen
Sun 17:24
Proficient speakers of English understand what "true" means. But you ask for more than that. You ask whether math is "really true." This is what injects ambiguity for proficient speakers of English. You could have just asked if mathematical theorems are true, but you asked instead whether they are "really true." You must mean something other than just "true." You introduced a distinction between "true" and "really true" — you need to tell us how you understand that distinction. There are many senses of truth and reality in philosophy. You need to be clear about which you're using.
 

 Discussion on question by Cardgame482…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
Jen
Jul 4 18:23
Are you actually asking a question about the law? It seems you know what the law is, and you're only asking about how socially to comply with the law. Do you have a question about what the law requires?
Jen
Jul 4 18:23
@Cardgame482 while Nate's suggestion should be in an answer if it is the answer, you don't get to say what's "good enough" if it is fact the answer. If you know it to be the law that asking for permission to send the sexual communication is not the answer, or not "good enough" that would be helpful context to include.
 

 Discussion on answer by littleadv: Bi…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
Jen
Jul 4 00:32
Yes, it establishes that interpretive rules are not even binding within the agency, and can be changed without the notice-and-comment process. But granted, the question is a little odd in speaking of agency rules as "precedent", so I understand your focus on Loper Bright.
Jen
Jul 4 00:32
Also see Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Assoc.
 

 Discussion on answer by Adam Musch: D…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
Jen
Jul 3 14:33
Suggested edit: clarify that the fair-use holding only goes as far as this particular use by Anthropic, on the evidence that was adduced at this trial. Other people doing similar things might not get the same outcome in another trial. Fair use is always case-by-case.
 

 Discussion between phoog and Karl Kne…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
Jen
Jul 2 13:42
The answer you're commenting on accurately states the President et Al's position.
 

 Discussion on question by Mike: Is it…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
Jen
Jun 24 23:36
The phone is not licenced. It's the kernel software (or modified kernel) that is GPL licenced. And all phones that use the Linux kernel need to, at first sale, provide access to the source. Many do so through links that are accessible somewhere in the phone's settings. Given that Android phones dominate the market share globally, most phones likely do contain software that is GPL licenced. I don't know the stats for general consumer electronics
Jen
Jun 24 17:41
[Sometimes a question asks something that seems very simple. (E.g. "Is [some apparently legal thing] illegal?) This is okay.](law.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1954/46948)
 

 The Symposium

A Party Space for Philosophy.SE! Both philosophy and mundane c...
Jen
Jun 16 15:01
Yes
Jen
Jun 16 14:23
Okay. Sounds good.
Jen
Jun 16 12:06
And it is "meaningful" because people can communicate concepts of causation, blame, etc. through the use of counterfactuals.
Jen
Jun 16 12:05
And no one doubts that we can use counterfactuals as a way of thinking through
Jen
Jun 16 12:05
No one thinks we can actually rewind time and play out the alternative scenario
Jen
Jun 16 12:03
If one made a different choice that itself is already one differencs.
Jen
Jun 15 17:29
I don't think anyone disagrees with that.
 

 Discussion on question by PMF: "Hirin…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
Jen
Jun 5 03:27
Are you purely asking whether paying for the replacement workers is within the ordinary remedy of "expectation damages" in contract? Or are you asking whether there is a contract to begin with (leaving the remedy as a secondary or separate question). Your title asks about existence of a contract. The body asks about a particular remedy. If you want to ask the title question you could simply end the first paragraph with the question: "has a contract been formed?", and delete the rest of the content.
 

 Discussion on answer by Dale M: If a …

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
Jen
May 27 20:44
Geez indeed.
Jen
May 27 20:28
If it's so obvious, just add it to the question. Apparently it wasn't obvious enough to figure in Dale M's answer. And if you don't want to discuss, then don't.
Jen
May 27 19:46
If you want to assume that additional fact, either edit it into the hypothetical in the question, or assert it as an additional premise to your own answer. Other answers need not make that same assumption if it isn't part of the asserted facts in the question.
Jen
May 27 19:46
@bdb484 I agree. For one thing, the fact that a school "is not forcing you to stay" does not exempt it from Human Rights Codes in Canada. Perhaps forcing a haircut is not a human rights issue, but it would not be because of the option to leave. I would be interested to know in what jurisdiction, the fact that one can leave exempts a provider from the relevant human rights law.
 

 Discussion on question by keshlam: Do…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
Jen
May 13 23:26
To the question author, why do you bring up the teleportation paradox? It appears nowhere in the question, yet you say "though I use that to illustrate just how extreme a situation would have to be to justify the claim."
 

 Discussion on answer by Tiger Guy: Ca…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
Jen
Apr 18 20:57
@MichaelHall Because no connection needs to be made. Any connection is irrelevant and is meta-commentary at best. Just state the hypothetical facts that you want us to assume without invalidating existing answers.
Jen
Apr 18 20:57
@MichaelHall Sure, but any facts that are relevant need to be stated in your question. It is not a criticism of Tiger Guy's answer that they stuck to facts expressly stated in your question. Whether your question is inspired by another question is irrelevant to this Q&A. If there are facts missing in your hypothetical that you think are important, please edit them into your question (but of course not in a way that invalidates any existing answers).
Jen
Apr 18 20:57
@barmar Tiger Guy doesn't need to address any of that though. If it's not in this question, it's irrelevant. Take the facts in the question as a given and don't complicate beyond what has been asked
 

 Discussion on question by user80346: …

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
Jen
Apr 8 21:58
Please edit to trim not to expand
Jen
Apr 8 21:58
Then please remove all the speculation and just ask a single question. If your question is the "in any event..." question, just ask that. If your question is somewhere in the "on second thought..." section, just ask that. In general, please trim to your final question. If you have second thoughts while drafting, just change your draft rather than keeping your evolving thought process in the question. You don't need more elaboration (as you try to give in comments — but do know that improvements need to be edits) — you need less elaboration and more focus.
 

 Discussion on question by Syed: Is in…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
Beck
Apr 5 14:28
To confirm, you are only interested in whether this is "logically possible." Not whether it is physically possible or possible under any particular understanding of physical reality. Is that correct?
 

 Discussion on question by MWB: Could …

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
Jen
Apr 1 23:14
@all this question is closed. Please move discussion about what laws actually exist, or who you have spoken with, to Law Chat
 

 The Sidebar

General discussion for law.stackexchange.com | Please note tha...
3
Jen
Mar 31 00:35
@joew if you leave a comment on a post of mine, I assume it is for a proper purpose of comments, which is to improve the post. If you see other comments on my post that have suggested improvements, trust that I have considered and dealt with them and then flagged for deletion as no longer needed.
Jen
Feb 19 05:02
You can probably just call the court registry and ask. Their staff will know what significant cases are going on or help you with a quick way to find out.
 

 Discussion on question by Mango Lingu…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
Jen
Mar 25 17:11
Right, but we can answer the question as asked: whether the mere fact of remaining in the chat, without more facts, makes out an offence. It does not in Canada. If other things can add on to make it an offence, that is a different question. That is true about almost any fact pattern; not sure the value in pointing it out. E.g. if the Q was "Does walking outside break a law?" It would not make sense to ask — well we gotta know whether they were naked or carrying a gun, etc. Or to add that "it would depend if you're doing something illegal"
 

 Discussion on question by MWB: Can Ca…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
Jen
Mar 11 20:08
Again, none of this helps clarify the question — if any of what is said above is relevant, it is only relevant in an answer. Please use Law Chat or provide an answer How to Answer.
Jen
Mar 11 20:08
@all none of this helps clarify the question — if any of what is said above is relevant, it is only relevant in an answer. How to Answer.
 

 Discussion on question by Phil: How C…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
Jen
Mar 6 17:54
Again: do not make the edit you've attempted twice now. You asked about all-women. Answers answered about all-women. You cannot edit to change that.
Jen
Mar 6 17:54
Do not edit the question in a way that invalidates existing answers.
 

 Discussion on question by cognitive i…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
Jen
Mar 5 15:27
Also, edit this to be way shorter. Focus on a single, clear, question about philosophy. Delete the rest. We don't need your arguments in the question. If you want to propose an answer, you can self-answer.
 

 Discussion on question by user80346: …

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
Jen
Feb 28 22:45
Welcome! Please pick a single question and delete the others. Your final paragraph gives several different questions about the same topic, each which would draw out different kinds of answers. Do you want to know whether an eviction is legal in the circumstances? Do you want to know why "conventional wisdom" is whatever it is? Etc. I would suggest a first question should be to determine what the law is. Only then would there even be a potential disparity to explain.
 

 Discussion on question by Meta Logici…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
Jen
Feb 22 09:27
Are you just asking whether sentences take meaning from context? Or are you just looking for an explanation of what makes the liar's paradox seem a paradox? Both have been answered elsewhere on this site.
 

 Discussion on answer by Rushi: How ca…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
Jen
Feb 5 15:01
Right but why would any of my comments about improving this answer (or showing where the answer actually is in this answer) suggest that I should talk to the question author about those suggestions? I'm focused on improving this answer. Please edit to highlight where you answer the question that was asked. I am not seeing it. Maybe I am a dum dum.
Jen
Feb 5 15:01
No, my comment is trying to find where the answer is in this answer post. It would not make sense to ask the question author to make that edit.
Jen
Feb 5 15:01
The section that you call your answer (the final section) literally says "suggest taking a larger-than-singleton selection from the above and asking" — the section you claim to be an answer, at best, just tells the question author to ask a different question. If I have missed where your answer is (clearly, you think I have), please edit to make the answer stand out more. Use bold, or a heading that says "answer", or some other way to help someone find the answer in here. No need to comment; just edit
Jen
Feb 5 15:01
Please edit to show where the answer is. I see a section that has a suggestion about asking a different question, but I don't see an answer in here. Use an edit, not a comment, to make it clearer.
Jen
Feb 5 15:01
Can you somehow highlight with an edit where you answer the question? Maybe put it in bold, or make it an introductory sentence.
 

 Discussion on question by interfect: …

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
Jen
Jan 29 05:05
We are not solving peoples' real life problems on this site; we are answering how the law applies to the hypothetical facts. A hypothetical may very well have been intentionally constructed to not conform to the typical circumstance, for the purpose of teasing out a detail of the law. And if a "more practical solution" is non-legal, they should ask on another site. Of course an answer can allude to the fact that the hypothetical is not realistic in the course of answering the legal question asked.
Jen
Jan 29 05:05
@MichaelHall the hypothetical posits a device "that can be locked to the current owner's account with the manufacturer" — that is what this question asks about. If the previous owner does nothing, the new owner cannot use the device as they expected. Just accept the hypothetical facts.
 

 Discussion on question by Neil Meyer:…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
Jen
Jan 26 21:19
@Wastrel as explained above law.stackexchange.com/questions/107016/…
Jen
Jan 26 21:19
@PeterM but our questions on law.se are assumed to be based on the facts as stated, as if they were proved. The question is whether these facts, if proved, make out the offence. For how to prove the facts, we have a catch-all Q&A that explains evidence generally: law.stackexchange.com/q/86825/46948 unless a question clearly makes itself about an evidentiary issue, we take the facts presented as a given and perform a pure legal analysis, rather than an assessment of proof
 

 Discussion on question by Trish: Coul…

Imported from a comment discussion on law.stackexchange.com/qu...
Jen
Jan 24 20:36
It is a hypothetical. We can take it as given. And whether in fact the particular chosen example is "clearly unconstitutional" is of no matter. All three answers that have come in engage with the substance and managed to ignore the particular example. To debate the specifics of a hypothetical perhaps Law Chat is a better place.
Jen
Jan 24 20:36
There's no need to defend your question against comments that miss the point. That will just turn comments into improper debate. You have two answers that understood your question.