francisdavey

His second "proof" of uncountability is very poorly explained. Strictly speaking it is false, since all his reasoning applies equally to the rationals. What he shows is that a countable set would have zero measure. You have to also show that (say) the real interval [0,1] has measure 1 (or at least positive measure) to get a contradiction. That requires some more work. You have to be using some property of the reals in order to prove uncountability, as of course the Cantor diagonal argument does.

You license your contributions under an open licence. You don't give up your copyright. There would be no other sensible way to operate a collaborative encyclopedia without a license of this kind.

I (lawyer) have never encountered a jurisdiction where a contractor could not license their work under the contract with their employer (the person contracting them).

I'm not a law lecturer. I spend most of my time wrangling contracts and advising about data law. But I did a stint of part-time work teaching a masters in law.

My experience then (this was back before "Attention Is All You Need", I hadn't met the output of generative models) was that students tended to produce work that did not have a proper thread of reasoning in it. There was a tendency to repeat things they had read but rehashed in various ways.

Reviewing some of their texts it was clear that much of the writing - by law tutors - was of the same kind. Much was incorrect. The fact that someone at some time had said a particular case was a proposition for something, meant that got repeated from book to book. Many authors simply didn't read their sources or check their references. Students repeated what they had been told incuriously.

Note: this was a graduate level course. Not wet about the ears undergraduates.

The worst material was little potted notes produced for law students. Utterly awful material in most cases.

Anyway, when LLM's became a thing, a lot of what did not feel right about their output and many of their error patterns, reminded me of the experience of teaching masters' students.

One of the saving graces of English court room practice (when I did that sort of thing) was that judges would say to you "where does it say that?" in a case you cited. You had better have them all at your fingertips and know exactly where you had cited. That avoided a lot of hallucination.

Just a random remark which might be of interest.

On the detailed map showing Taiwan etc, the text on my image is clearly "Amani". I think that's true on the "big map" also.

Is it popular though? When I studied Geography at school, we had a standard school atlas that was used by a huge number of schools throughout the country and across several generations. It had maps on essentially every page - of course. Only one was Mercator: showing time zones. That's it.

Growing up, I did not see Mercator at all often.

The name of the island I live on (Amami) is misspelled. That does not give me a great deal of confidence about the rest of the map.

To chime in on how English law approaches this (and perhaps amplify some of the good points already made): the common law position is that any restraint of trade is contrary to public policy and so should not be enforced unless some exception can be shown.

Post employment restrictions fall under the doctrine of restraint of trade - which explains why we use "gardening leave". While you are employed you and your employer have a relationship which includes a duty of loyalty by you to your employer. They have duties such as a duty to pay you for your work. By default they should also be offering you work, so a specific "gardening leave" clause is required to keep you at home, bound by restrictive covenants but without work and being paid.

After employment, it is much harder to make restrictions that will bite. Typically an employer must show there is some legitimate interest they are protecting and that it is reasonable to do so.

Hence: non-solicitation of clients tends to be easier to justify, though only if an employee actually had some kind of relationship with or knowledge of those clients. Whereas a non-compete is much harder to justify. It is also harder to make reasonable, hence time/space/sectoral limitations.

Looking at confidentiality: the default established in the amusingly named Faccenda Chicken v Fowler (Mr Fowler was a frozen chicken sales lead). It is that you are bound by the usual duties of confidentiality that arise when anyone has confidential information but that you cannot be prevented from using information gained while working that is part of your normal skill acquired as part of the job unless that is so secret as to amount to a "trade secret".

In this case, Mr Fowler knew where to sell chicken (from having done so). While this was confidential, he was able to use that information (not being a trade secret) in setting up a competing frozen chicken sale network.

The core idea is that you can't stop someone plying their normal trade.

That's the default. Obviously if you sign an agreement that imposes post-contract confidentiality obligations it can go further than Faccenda Chicken, but if it went too far, it would also be vulnerable to the rule against restraint of trade.

In short:this sort of "you cannot work in the industry" idea is very unlikely to work in England and Wales (and I suspect the rest of the UK - though I am strictly only an English lawyer).

That said: there is still value in reading your contract of employment carefully and making sure that you are happy with it.

It has (lots of) non-standard models. Or, to put it another way, there are statements that can neither be proved or disproved. This extends to any theory containing "enough" arithmetic and certainly any containing Peano Arithmetic. So ZF set theory is also incomplete in that sense.

You can "solve" this in Second Order logic, because you have a more powerful induction axiom, but how exactly you define that logic is tricky. There's no proof system that defines it completely, so you have to do this via a semantics that relies on knowing which models are or are not OK.

I don't think it solves the problem that you can't define all the "truths" (as most logicians would put it) of Peano Arithmetic.

The fact that Peano Arithmetic isn't categorical, and that if you want to nail it down you need either bigger theories (within which you can of course nail down a single model) or move to theories which don't have proof theories like second order arithmetic, suggests all might not be as easy as it looks here.

Being an ex-proof theorist, I'm a bit dubious of not having one.

I missed saying that in England (1) civil juries are essentially hen's teeth nowadays and (2) you don't tend to cross-over. Either you are in court most of the time, or advising on court proceedings, or you are a litigator (running those proceedings but not going to court) or you are a transactional lawyer who has nothing at all to do with them.

One big difference in England (I'm an English barrister, so that's my jurisdiction) is that most short civil proceedings end up being effectively closed to the public, or at least unlikely to be viewed by other barristers. Longer proceedings will typically be held in larger court centres where you are, again, less likely to see what fellow advocates are up to.

You do meet opponents, but in some fields, not often enough to really know.

In crime, your client would be in the cells much of the time and you could sit at the back of the court and watch lots of counsel do a good or bad job.

Of course even the civil bar do get to know each other in the way that commercial transactional lawyers - which is what I do now - don't have as much opportunity to do. I am typically dealing with commercial organizations all over the world. Too many lawyers to get to know.

When I used to appear in court a lot, I ran into plenty of intelligent people who managed to mess up badly because they didn't follow simple, clearly advertised, rules. So even though in theory it should be simple to do something, in practice people often get it wrong.

i.e. even where it isn't opaque, it is surprising how many people mess up.

(Of course that includes lawyers)