I once got dinged for not reporting. I saw an email that was clearly an internal security campaign. I deleted it. I received an email a day or two later stating that I failed to take action on a phishing attempt. Damned if you do; damned if you don't.
You can setup a Google app automation to do this for you.
I did for e.g. knowbe4 since all their test emails have the same header information. It made it quite easy to never see any of their attempts, though I did have to check every once in a while to see if I'd been signed up for any random learning and it removed those emails as well..
I don't live in the city. Aside from not being able to walk to school, mine would have to wake up roughly 45 minutes earlier (60 minutes if we want to be safe) to catch the bus. We are about 8 minutes from the school via car. Between the lack of housing density and ugly school zoning, taking the bus cuts significantly into their sleep.
I had the same setup growing up. Lived about 3 miles from school but was one of the first stops on a 45 minute bus route through largely rural areas. I got a lot of reading done.
Your kid won't be harmed by sitting on a bus every day.
As a kid who had go get up at 5am to catch a bus to school, maybe they might. The issue is not riding the bus, but impeding on sleep. As a teen, I would have preferred to wake up st 6:30 to be to school at 7AM rather than wake up at 5AM to be there at the same time because I'm the first stop. My mom wasn't kind. I did survive, but I also had less sleep which isn't great for a growing mind. I'd drive my kid in the same situation. Hell, I drive my kid now because I don't want a kid who can't write letters yet walking around any real distance without me. Especially in a semi-rural area where we've encountered wildlife and feral pets that weren't dangerous to me, but were dangerous to her.
Many schools are starting later for this reason. Just because the bus may take long doesn’t mean there aren’t other issues that should be solved to make buses a more viable option.
There are fair-use protections, but it costs money to defend. Part of why so many Smash tournaments folded in 2022 was because of Nintendo telling people they weren't allowed to host tourneys using their IP. Granted I'm not a lawyer, but people gathering to play a multiplayer game and then streaming the matches doesn't inherently constitute any infringement on Nintendo's rights or ability to make money. Many TOs (tournament organizers) left the scene or stopped featuring Smash as a title over the C&D notice. No one wanted to take on Nintendo in court.
Kind of. Some TOs are calling Nintendo's bluff. Nintendo released a set of guidelines[0] on what kinds of tournaments can be hosted. However, Collision 2024 just happened with attendees and a prize pool surpassing the guidelines.
> people gathering to play a multiplayer game and then streaming the matches doesn't inherently constitute any infringement on Nintendo's rights or ability to make money.
Esports and tourneys in general generate a decent amount of money, are recurring and control a decent chunk of the narrative around games affecting their marketing.
Not trying to defend Nintendo or any other company, but their objective as a profit-driven organisation is to generate maximum profits.
Not really. Fair use does not really legally exist. It exists primarily as a defense after you’ve already been sued - which is also why there is no official codification of what fair use actually is.
Also, as Nintendo can argue, imagine this was a movie. Imagine it was a movie being shown on screen for two hours. That would be case closed. Now imagine it was a movie recutting competition. Again, case closed. So what makes a tourney special? In the eyes of the law, a judge might say, absolutely nothing.
You might argue, “well, there’s skill being applied, whereas a movie is passive.” No dice there - just because you put effort into your copyright violation is meaningless. You might argue a movie is a full work when a video game only displays a subset - but do you think you could publicly perform 30 minutes of The Lord of the Rings and be OK? Of course not.
Interesting way to put it, but I'm still not sure that quite applies. The game is a multiplayer game intended to be played with other people. Commercial endeavors change with movie viewing. It's implied that single entity can own a single copy while charging admission to profit from their single copy of the movie. Meanwhile, movie companies (mostly) don't care if I play _The Lord of the Rings_ in a private setting to a small audience of known people.
I would argue that the competitive nature of tournaments implies that the entrants all have a copy of the game along with hardware to run the game (emulation withstanding). The only thing is streaming the event. Even then, what would be the difference between streaming a tournament and streaming myself or a small group of friends playing? It doesn't seem like that would infringe upon the core purpose of the game.
The law is fairly immune to mental gymnastics and mind games, regardless of what the dramas indicate.
For movies, it’s fairly simple and widely understood you are buying a license for private viewing. While there’s some room for interpretation, it goes without saying that if you are inviting strangers and/or charging admission and/or running advertising, you’re inviting scrutiny.
Also, let’s just be honest, the moment you run advertising for anything, it’s almost impossible to argue this is not a publicly available event. Public is also fairly broad - collages have to license every movie they want to show to a classroom, for example. My college paid over $2000 to Netflix for a single showing to Math Club of one movie for about 7 viewers.
> The game is a multiplayer game intended to be played with other people
The law only cares about copyright. What it is, is irrelevant.
As for your point about how the participants must have bought the game - I don’t think that would work either. Imagine you ran your unapproved Lord of the Rings convention. You also had the movies playing on repeat the whole time. I don’t think arguing that “only people who have bought the movies have any interest in being here” would protect you.
No, it simply clarifies that the DMCA cannot be used to say that fair use does not exist anymore, solely in a potential copyright lawsuit, but that DMCA provision does not apply in a DMCA circumvention lawsuit.
This is also why this carve-out is practically useless and also does not define guidelines for fair use.
Is it really outrageous to ask for some of the crumbling infrastructure around us to be updated or better maintained? Granted the OP comment said _first_ when it's not really an either/or situation. It's not like we need billions in R&D to apply what's been solved in dozens of other metros across the world.
> outrageous to ask for some of the crumbling infrastructure around us to be updated or better maintained
The top reaction on this thread almost refutes itself. Were this a story about autonomous rovers being ordered, I doubt anyone would blink an eye. But because it’s about even studying trains, we have complaints about cost.
> not like we need billions in R&D
But it does cost us billions more to do with trains what our peers have done.
Discussing things like this on HN too often consists of people arguing based on what they assume is true without knowing what they want already exists.
They're two completely unrelated topics. Rail infrastructure in the US has nothing to do with rail infrastructure on the moon.
Yes, they use vehicles on rails in both cases. That's where the similarities end.
I truly wish that teams used retrospectives in this manner instead of the shallow conversations that are often devoid of blame. Not that every sprint needs to have a deep, impactful retro, but it's nice to talk about shortcomings, be able to accept blame, and move forward with actionable items. Everyone comes out ahead.
Assigning (and accepting) responsibility is, I think, rather different from the "blame" that such retro's try to avoid.
You have to have a very safe work environment for that to happen. Otherwise, saying "I was blocked by person X" finding the wrong ears is a great way for person X to wind up on a PIP if the company's management is sufficiently inept.
I do miss being able to be honest at work.
Edit: rereading my comment, I realized I could have been clearer. What I really was getting at was the motivation: how do we help each other avoid the problem in the future, versus "everyone but person X can feel okay about what happened".
Same with me. By blame, I really meant responsibility.
We missed a pretty big deadline not too long ago. In the retro, I accepted a lion's share of the responsibility. I'm a senior dev rather than a team lead, but I had my head down during a lot of the technical discussions and PRs rather than diving deep with the juniors and mid-levels. I apologized for it.
I have made myself more available since then. PRs have been under more scrutiny from everyone, and I feel like the constructive feedback and requests for comments have been flowing more openly.
Fully agree. My wife is a Montessori teacher, and her observation has been that people are afraid of failure, even in an environment where failure is an expected part of learning. There are some cultural differences, but she says that it’s a fairly accurate baseline.
There’s an excellent talk [0] that discusses why and how blameless has missed the mark. Somewhat compressed version of the same talk by the same person here [1].
The creator posted this elsewhere in the comments:
> it seemed like it was mostly intro stuff, or straight to DBA level
This would have been perfect for someone like me a few years ago. I went into my first job knowing how to make simple queries and simple joins. I changed jobs into a legacy system where there was an overwhelming amount of data sharded across few databases and several hundred schemas.
I didn't need to learn how to do simple joins or basic keywords like union and intersect that every tutorial talked about. I also didn't need a bunch of DBA knowledge like distribution strategies, replication, and HA techniques. I needed to learn how to leverage what was in the database to pull the exact data I needed more efficiently than what I was doing - windows, cursors, and good subqueries. I was the type of person being addressed.
My guess is that the older folks who have the experience to speak deeply about these topics aren't interested in maintaining a blog. One of my most interesting college professors worked on chess engines professionally. He has a small online presence, but his commentary is usually in response to pointed questions or wild claims about chess engines.
The guy has stories upon stories about both hardware and software design and their impact on performance at both high and low level. All of his tangents in class were downright fascinating.
I went from a company that used Google Hangouts, which is like using pen and paper relatively speaking, to trying to use Slack. Slack wasn't official, but it was an allowed form of communication. People who didn't have the vested interested just couldn't figure it out. So while I preferred Slack, having to hold everyone's hands through basic functionality was awful.
Now I'm at a place that uses Teams. I don't think Teams is perfect, but I feel like Teams gets extra hate just because it's Teams. The best feature in my opinion is the group thread feature. Having people able to start a threaded conversation by default gives a lot of granular control over what notifications I receive by default.
Coming from Slack, group threads is annoying. Teams gets extra hate because it's often forced upon engineers for cost-saving measures. Slack has a lot of nice features that help maintain a company's remote-work culture. Teams is just an organized collaboration tool. There's a huge difference.
When Teams was forced upon us at my company, it was a trash product that I would be ashamed to release. It crashed a lot. It was slow. Background noise cancellation was non-existent. Scroll-back history was nearly impossible. Search was trash. Of these things, it's now more stable and has background noise cancellation, but it's still slower and more difficult to use with garbage search and a confusing interface to find the team you're looking for.
Before we had teams, there was a lot of talk in the company of "breaking down the silos". Well teams has silos built-in. It literally makes it harder to find the right person or team to talk to just by how it's designed.
Part of the problem with this is the horrible business practices and policies in place. In a way, it is urgent that you get back to your health insurance rep or your car insurance rep or whatever private business that's selling you a government mandated service. That phone rep knows that you only have 15 more days to finish your insurance claim, or you've gone past the deadline. Then when you call back, the rep can't do anything. Terrible business policy doesn't allow them to. Something like this happened to me.
I had an issue once with a claim. It was an ongoing ordeal with lots of small meetings and documentation. It was eventually denied. However, I had a rebuttal window. Unfortunately for me, it came during a stressful period of work. I made the initial call to my rep. No call back. I was buried under work, and the 5 day rebuttal window (how absurdly short) blew by without me realizing it. Turns out the rep was on vacation, and after my case was closed, there was no reason for them to return my call.
These issues are never a matter of urgency that should be dealt with in that instance. However, don't let your window of opportunity close due to an adversarial business policy.
I'm not a lawyer, but: if you missed the dispute window because they didn't call you back, I'm not sure you missed the dispute window? In matters of law the statute of limitations often 'tolls', or pauses, once a dispute begins.
out of curiosity which insurer did this + in which state?
