AnyOldName3

Drax often bids more for waste wood than the lumber industry would get for selling timber, so there’s already an incentive to declare any wood they can unsuitable. As long as there’s a way to get wood to Drax, the industry will find and exploit it.

Investors have been happy to incentivise companies to hire idiot CEOs and managers who say the right buzzwords but reduce output by making bad decisions and only hiring people who don’t think they’re bad decisions, so an automated buzzword-dispensing idiot isn’t necessarily going to seem to investors like a downgrade compared to what they think most workers are. They’re just as likely to think AI lets them invest in companies where even the lowest tier employees are potential CEO material, and continue not noticing that the per-employee efficiency keeps going down. Data showing that layoffs nearly never pay for themselves doesn’t stop stock prices soaring whenever one happens, so I wouldn’t expect data showing AI makes companies less profitable to stop stock prices going up when a company announces a new dumb way they’ll use it.

There was quite a lag between the variable-rate mortgage rates going up and everything noticeably exploding, so lots of people who were aware there was a real risk of things going tits up decided that it hadn’t and therefore wasn’t going to and had stopped looking for signs by the time they started to appear.

The discussion on the talk page was basically nuh uh, loads of reputable sources like the Israeli and German governments say there’s no evidence of genocide, and even if they’re biased, anti-genocide NGOs are more biased because they have to accuse nations of genocide to justify their existence, with people responding to point out that’s not how Wikipedia’s rules work, and if it were, they’d have to rename the pages on various other genocides because there are very few that no nations deny.

If you trust Adam Smith, an efficient market would quickly make new goods and services available for the lowest possible price. People are supposed to be incentivised to sell things, and competition is supposed to stop an excessive amount of money being diverted to profits instead of reinvestment and price cuts. There are supposed to be systems in place that ensure that there are always opportunities for competition, but the wealthiest have the most power to erode those mechanisms and the most interest in eroding them, and neoliberals think an Ayn Rand novel is the definitive text on how capitalism works rather than Adam Smith’s work, so even if you land in the capitalism makes everyone better off mode, it doesn’t last for long before it falls back into fuedalism with extra steps mode.

Magnets from Temu were probably just loose in a bag or some bubble wrap with no warning label. People should know they’re not food anyway, but defying a warning label wasn’t the particular flavour of dumbness exhibited here.

I don’t know if this is the same loophole used in NZ as in the UK and EU, but in the UK and EU, lots of things are banned from retail rather than completely illegal. If they’re imported and the importer sells them without demonstrating that they’re safe, the importer has committed a crime. If the importer keeps them for personal use, that’s fine, though. In theory, people ordering things from outside the EU and importing them are supposed to be aware that they’re importing things and that the stores aren’t necessarily only selling CE-marked goods, so they’re responsible for checking that they’re safe themselves, but in practice, people just see an online shop and don’t make a distinction from a domestic online shop except the price and delivery time. The EU is working on a law to close this loophole in some way.

Planking was just lying down on things, so hardly an instance of teenagers endangering themselves.

The tide pod thing wasn’t exactly what it seemed to be. Some children with learning disabilities and some people with dementia had died from mistaking laundry pods for food. At some point, some media outlets decided to sensationalise it by leaving out the bit about learning disabilities. That meant that there were teenagers who thought other teenagers had died from eating them, so they could make videos pretending they’d done that, just like teenagers have staged videos to make it look like they’re doing dangerous things that they aren’t really doing ever since people have let them have cameras. Some of them decided that the easiest way to pretend was to put a real laundry pod in their mouth, pretend to chew it and swallow, pretend to die, and then cut the video and spit it out. If they checked the relevant warnings on the packet, they just said not to eat them and to rinse their eyes if they got any there, so this plan might seem safe. However, laundry pods are so corrosive against mucous membranes that putting one in your mouth and spitting it out immediately because it starts to burn immediately can still be fatal or cause permanent injury. The media reported the deaths and injuries as if teenagers were intentionally eating laundry pods, rather than pretending in a way the packet implied might be safe, so most people weren’t learning that pretending was also deadly and that the warnings on the packet weren’t exhaustive, so it just made fake tide pod challenge videos even more tempting. If the reporting had been more responsible, then most people would have first heard even pretending to eat laundry pods can kill rather than teenagers are eating laundry pods.

The article was updated a few hours ago but when it was originally posted and accumulated its first slew of upvotes, the fine hadn’t been rescinded yet and the only statement from the council was that their enforcement officers had acted appropriately and the fine was appropriate.

Also, in much of the UK, the surface water and foul water drains both go into a single combined sewer system, with areas that have been built up for centuries like this one being most likely to still use that old approach.

I’ve seen plenty of news reports say that combined sewers are nearly ubiquitous, but now when I’m googling it, I’m seeing some sites back that up, and other sites saying it’s only about a fifth of the country, so I don’t know which to trust. I can see Ofwat and some of the water companies say that the rules changed (potentially in 1991) so new developments after that point have to use separate sewers, and that wouldn’t be that much of the UK, as most building is redevelopment of existing sites where existing sewers can be reused, rather than new developments, and most things haven’t been rebuilt in the last thirty years, so I’d be surprised if it was 80% separate if it’s only new stuff using it, but less surprised if it’s just the Victorian sewers that are combined (and areas that still use Victorian sewers that have been spilling foul water into waterways) and things have been gradually switched over for more than a century. Do you have a source that explains the incompatible figures?

Even if nationalised, our water infrastructure still needs hundreds of billions of pounds investing in it to bring it up to an acceptable standard, and the government doesn’t have the money and has other priorities to spend it on if they magically got a surprise pile of cash. The only financially viable way to fix the problem in a hurry would be to seize past dividends from water company shareholders to cover the cost of doing the things the water companies were supposed to be doing (which would conveniently tank the share prices and make nationalising the water much cheaper), but lots of pensions are propped up mostly by water shares, so doing that would plunge lots of pensioners into poverty, which isn’t politically viable as the government’s already in enough trouble for perceived being mean to pensioners, and they can’t afford to support more impoverished pensioners.

It’s only not treated because the UK has a massive problem with not treating sewage. In the UK, storm drains flow into the same sewers as toilets and go to the same waste treatment plants, where everything gets pumped out the same emergency overflow pipe into open water because there are millions more people in the UK than there were fifty years ago, and sewage treatment capacity is virtually unchanged because it’s cheaper to pay the fines for emergency overflow than to build more treatment plants.

The UK only has one type of sewer, so the storm drains flow into the same waste processing plants as the toilets. However, those waste processing plants then declare an emergency due to unexpected high volumes and just dump everything into open waterways if it’s rained within the past week, which, as it’s the UK, it almost always has. There are multiple issues at play here, and they’re all dumb and foreseeable if you assume companies will do whatever is most profitable without breaking the law, and none of them are this person’s fault.

It’s the UK. It’s a big scandal at the moment that most of the drains lead to rivers, lakes and the sea with only a small fraction of sewage actually being processed before being released from the processing plant. The fines for not processing the sewage were smaller than the costs of building and running treatment plants, so the water companies have just been paying the fines and giving all the money they were paid to build the treatment plants to shareholders as dividends. As no one’s broken any laws they haven’t already nominally been punished for, there aren’t any realistic and politically tenable solutions unless billions of pounds can become magically available.

Lower emissions, and natural gas is cheaper than diesel. Also, the lead time is much shorter, as there aren’t many manufacturers of large diesel generators that could keep up with AI datacentre demand, whereas there are lots of airliner turbofans being retired that could be refurbished to become these generators.

America’s first amendment doesn’t grant a total right to free speech. Conspiracy to commit murder is just speech, but is very much illegal, and so is copyright infringement.

If you saw a fruit stand and it had a sign saying you were allowed to try one grape without committing to buy a bunch, and the owner noticed you were doing anything with grapes other than buying them or trying one, they’d be allowed to ban you from their stand or if they really wanted to be a dick about it, take you to small claims court to recover the cost of any stolen grapes. If the local police wanted to be dicks about it rather than just not show up over something so petty, they could treat it like any other kind of low-value shoplifting and arrest you. The owner letting you have a free evaluation grape doesn’t mean you can do whatever you want with grapes, whether or not you invent loopholes like claiming you’re a different customer if you walk away from the grapes and come back again or that it’s fine as long as you ony take one grape from each bunch or that it should be fine as long as you pretend you’re evaluating the grapes even though it’s obvious that you were never going to actually buy grapes. They are not your grapes until you’ve paid for them, and while they’re not your grapes, what the shopkeeper says is allowed is what’s allowed, and it’s up to their sole discretion whether you’re taking the piss and need to stop.

If you ask a random person off the street or on social media, they might well agree with you that making a link publicly available means it’s legal to download the linked thing, but that doesn’t mean that they’re right. If you read the text of the DMCA (or equivalent in another country), ask a lawyer, or read a summery in plain English of the DMCA written by a lawyer, it’s really clear that, barring some very specific exceptions, you have no rights to do anything with anything unless either you’re the copyright holder, you’ve been granted a licence to do specific things by the copyright holder, or you’ve bought a copy from the copyright holder and have implicit rights to do things with the copy you’ve bought (which is why, typically, software is sold as a licence, not a copy, as that stops you getting your implicit First Sale Doctrine rights). A lawyer would tell you that Microsoft haven’t granted you, as someone who is not evaluating whether to deploy Windows 11 IoT LTSC for a specific project, permission to download the ISO, so you don’t have permission to download the ISO.

The fact that you mention DMCA takedown requests here shows a serious misconception about what the DMCA is and how it works, because they’re a very specific and minor part of the DMCA that has no relevance to normal people. Takedown requests are a mechanism between copyright holders and online service providers when the service provider is hosting infringing content on behalf of someone else, without necessarily knowing that it’s infringing, and the DMCA introduced them because previously your ISP and any websites you visited were also liable for any crimes you comitted using their services. The person downloading the Windows ISO isn’t an online service provider, so the consequences for them wouldn’t be a takedown request. There are much more exciting consequences for normal people, like unlimited fines and jail sentences.

The fact that the DMCA is so broadly overreaching and draconian that it’s impossible to enforce, and that therefore you don’t need to worry about only breaking the law a little bit as no one’s going to care doesn’t mean that what it says isn’t the law. Plenty of people who’ve ended up in trouble for something else have ended up prosecuted for various copyright offences that were easier to make stick than whatever painted a target on their back in the first place.

Despite it not being a problem for normal people, if you’re a big company with enough money to be worth going after, minor things like getting a Windows ISO from the wrong link can cause trouble. Generally, companies have learned that it’s bad for business to sue their customers, but it’s still worth their while to add on extra fees and charges for breaches of contract as long as they’re not so big that the customer bothers disputing them. To avoid these problems, large companies have compliance departments, and they’ll absolutely discipline employees for doing things like downloading things from the wrong link that wouldn’t matter at all for a home user.

I’m still replying because you keep responding with misconceptions and general nonsense and asserting that it’s factual. That’s enough of a reason on its own when the topic’s something as objective as what the law as written is. It should be obvious from the number of times I’ve said that the law is dumb, draconian and overreaching that I’m in favour of it changing, and that would require more people to know that the law is dumb and makes things illegal that no one would expect to be legal. However, a lot of your last few posts has basically been that if anyone makes any of their property freely available to certain people under certain conditions, in the eyes of the law, it’s okay for anyone else to take it, too, which is obviously bogus in any society with the concept of property. The rest seems to be that somehow, all the lawyers working for the multibillion dollar intellectual property holders that lobbied for world governments to implement current copyright law managed not to notice obvious and easily-exploitable loopholes, and then the lawyers working at those companies today left links up that make the loopholes exploitable, which is a really naive viewpoint. In battles against millions of dollars worth of legal advice, if something seems too good to be true, it probably is.

Copyright law is written as if magically duplicating the fruit is the same thing as stealing it. In a discussion about what the law is rather than what it should be in a sensible society, the analogy is fine. As Microsoft is the copyright holder, you only have the right to do anything with their files that they have deigned to grant you, and anything else is legally piracy. In the case of this specific link, they’ve granted the public the right to use it for evaluation purposes, but they’ve not granted any other rights, so it is legal to use the link to download the file for evaluation purposes, and illegal to use it for anything else.

If you want a slightly different analogy, it’s a little like how if Disney put on a free screening of the latest Marvel film for disabled children at a cinema, and didn’t check at the door, an able bodied adult could wander in, past signs saying that the screening was for disabled children only, and watch the film for free, but the fact that they could physically gain access doesn’t mean they had any legal right to be there. They could be ejected from the cinema and/or sued for the cost of a ticket and any legal costs. You do not have a legal right to click link on Microsoft’s website next to some text saying that it’s for evaluation purposes only unless you’re clicking it for evaluation purposes only. Just because you’ve made it to the link, it doesn’t mean you can ignore the text saying who is and isn’t allowed to click it.

It’s freely available for evaluation purposes (from that link - it’s freely available for other purposes from other links, too, and so are other editions of Windows), but that doesn’t mean you’re legally allowed to use those public links however you want. If the copyright holder says they’re for evaluation purposes only, then if you know you aren’t intending to pay even if you like it, then you’re not evaluating whether or not the download link is public, so it still counts as piracy. It’s still stealing to take produce from a roadside stall with an honesty box if you don’t pay even though the produce was just sitting out in the open.

No, they’re illegal several times over as you’ve got to pirate the thing in the first place to end up in a situation where you need one, and then they’re inherently a DRM circumvention device, which are illegal to possess, and then using them circumvents DRM, which is illegal to do. The upside is that you’re unlikely to be caught.