Good news, the war will be over in two weeks and then we can fund daycares, right? Oh wait it's Thursday, gotta wait for the beginning of the week for the war to be ending soon.
We've been in low-key WW3 since 2022 or maybe even since 2014, it is just that like WW2 it did not arrive everywhere at once. But there are a lot of countries at war now and if the fall out from this entirely manufactured energy crisis is going to get just a tad worse then I expect more countries to join in shortly.
I really don’t! I switched it all of months ago - autocomplete, autocaps, all of
it. I reached a point where the constant frustration had to be worse than any productivity gain it was hoping to offer.
A few months on… I like
it! Frustration is all gone, any errors are just on me now, and it forces me to slow down a bit and use the brain a bit more!
Shouldn't countries wanting sovereign infrastructure create subsidies for creation of factories/job creation and also selling first/primarily within the region if it might cost on just a few million dollars (preferably a new competitor)
I think one flaw in my thinking could be that there might be a lack of experience within the people for something like this, do you consider it to be a factor and would it be difficult to hire people relevant to such fab?
Because TI has a ton of microcontrollers, power management ICs, opamps and so on that doesn't need or is even desirable to produce on smaller processes.
Yes, but that isn't where the increase in demand is. Those things are affected by fabs that could be producing them producing something else, but there will be some stock floating in the system so some resistance to increased prices needed to justify new fab resource, and if things correct a bit in the coming year the maths for a new build might look more dubious. Those with the money to fund a new fab right now are more likely to fund something capable of producing the newer part types. I could be wrong, but the fact that significant new fabs like that are not in progress right now would suggest not.
In this case, there is a safe harbor where ISPs can avoid liability by enforcing a policy against their customers that eventually cuts them off for repeated infringement. Cox stepped outside of this safe harbor by not following their own policy. But the court says that doesn't automatically make them liable.
Does this mean the entire enforcement regime is now more or less a paper tiger? It's sufficient to have a process that satisfies the letter of the law, but you can simply not follow through and enforce it.
> It's sufficient to have a process that satisfies the letter of the law
No.
Let's take an example of 401ks.
Any company that has a 401k has to pass non-discrimination testing to ensure their plan doesn't favor highly compensated employees over non-highly compensated employees. This is done through Actual Deferral Percentage and Actual Contribution Percentage tests. Just doing these tests can be very costly.
If you don't want to do these tests, then you can follow a 'safe harbor' action where the company automatically contributes x% for everyone. If the plan executes the 'safe harbor' action, then they automatically pass the two tests above.
However, if they don't follow through that plan they may still not have violated the nondiscrimination policies if they end up passing those two tests.
So to bring it back to the circumstance here, because Cox was not following their own processes which would have afforded them safe harbor they do not get the benefit of being automatically protected from the action. Then the court goes to see if Cox was sufficiently involved in the violating actions in order to be liable, and the court found that Cox was not.
So going back to the line...:
> It's sufficient to have a process that satisfies the letter of the law, but you can simply not follow through and enforce it.
Not at all. Because it was not enforced, Cox lost the safe harbor protections and had to defend themselves.
With 401ks and financial instruments in general, it's cut-and-dry: there's either a payment, or there isn't, and there's a whole accountancy industry that supports that.
With DMCA claims, it's an adversarial accusation with inherent unreliability built into the collection mechanism, usually submitted by third parties. The process doesn't lend itself to the same kind of auditability and accountability as securities and investments.
reply