dam_jackalopes

Yeah, I'll be looking for an alternative. I've already drifted off of everything but the email service. The opportunity to potentially not due business with orgs run by insufferable assholes is all the push I really need to take another look around.

I feel as though I've articulated my issues with the disproportionate expense of dealing with EV Class 8s from a first responder perspective being placed on local communities.

If you want to read that as not wanting the public to pay for first responders, you're of course free to do so.

No, as I stated in the comment, as a concept there's no issue with that.

The problem is that the costs for preparing for these events are going to be enormous, are going to be shouldered by systems that are struggling to maintain current capabilities and that those costs are not proportional to the benefits being received by having these vehicles operating.

The orgs that create the problem receive billions in value, mostly, from the federal gov't while the costs are shouldered by local gov't. This is before you take into account how those same orgs are behaving in other areas of society.

I worked at a "Semi" OEM where we were doing work on battery, hydrogen powered, etc. development as part of the SuperTruck effort and these events are what kept us up at night. Really glad the driver was able to get out.

I suspect that we're going to socialize the costs for getting first responders prepared (in so much as we actually do try to get them prepared) for these type of events. As a concept, that's fine but it leaves a really bad taste in the mouth when you're doing that to the benefit of an actor like Tesla.

I'm not a SWE, (I'm a data engineer) but this jives with what I saw while looking for work. I'm not a particularly good DE, so I was out there for 18 months. There were still plenty of listings but not many of them were in "tech" companies in the traditional sense. Part of this was leaving a tech hub for what is very much not one, but the biggest issue that I found in landing work was that I was now competing for relatively boring $100k+ jobs with guys who were working $200k+ jobs in 2020 - 2023. The 3 - 6 "tech" orgs that used to employ these folks regionally just aren't really hiring that much.

Nonsense. You're stating that you have insight into the motivations of a judge without any evidence that you have any inkling, at all, that you know why a decision was reached. You made a claim, feel free to provide any evidence to back up that claim.

The best part is the clause you tell me to reference is extensively explained in the judgement. That you haven't read.

Clearly. The judge lowered the penalty by some 90%. What about that makes the reward in this case "outlandish" or based on "vibes"?

"Claroc researchers were able to discover the Muse share links because all of them use the domain name cf.metaaiusercontent.com. Discovery is further made easy by the decision to add the conversation name to the URL, along with a long string of text. Simplified examples of such links are home-sale-budget-9f21c8a3.cf.metaaiusercontent.com, q3-revenue-review-7b1e42f0.cf.metaaiusercontent.com, and loan-application-draft-a4c9e2.cf.metaaiusercontent.com. It’s this last design decision, putting the conversation title in the subdomain rather than in the URL path, that makes public discovery possible."

Yeah, clearly it's the idiot users...

"we're already admitting that the penalty is based on vibes and not simply an unbiased calculation"

We are? I haven't read the judgement and I'm pretty sure you haven't either. You're making a pretty big assumption here.

"Sounds like that number is no more justified than $25,000,000.00 or $25."

The penalty was written into law. That's what justified it.

The irony is that you're saying the award is based on "vibes" or feelings but, honestly, that's all I've been seeing from critics of the penalty. No one can explain what's wrong with it from a legal perspective. It's just been a lot of "it's a really high number!" and "they're making numbers up!" from people who can't point to anything from the decision itself.

Has he written about this incident? What specifically about user behavior applies to this incident? I'm not reducing anything to anything, you just haven't haven't explained what about user behavior contributed to what the post is about.

I don't know why the judge reduced the penalty as the article didn't state that. I don't really have anything to go on other than you saying everyone is just making up numbers. I don't find that argument convincing given my experience with the courts.

That's not what happened here though. The penalties were defined by law, the jurors applied them. The judge already reduced most of the penalty. So... what about this case is outlandish?

Yeah, that makes sense. On the other hand, the severity of the crime isn't what makes the penalty high in this case. The fine for the crime in this case is $5,000. Given that the penalty was reduced by nearly 90%, the penalty for the crime is something like $570. That doesn't seem outlandish to me.

What makes it outlandish?

But that reality has nothing to do with the issue addressed in the article or the defense of Meta that the comment you responded to talks about. Irresponsible or ignorant users didn't cause Meta to ignore security basics in their release and it doesn't explain defending that incompetence.