learnstats2

Agree - there's nothing that stops you from asking for more. Even if you don't get it now, it sends a signal that you will expect more $ later.

But, if you are really satisfied with $30ph (if you don't have a better offer to fall back on), you probably won't get (much) more. Your weak negotiating position will inevitably shine through.

How would this prevent it from being a Ponzi scheme?

Ponzi schemes do keep paying out, for as long as they are growing.

The concept that one person impulsively changed their mind is not correct.

The board of Tesla will have agreed the plans.

I’d wager instead: the price of all crypto goes down.

Tesla buys into some unknown proof-of-stake coin.

The perfect cover for a pump-and-dump scheme.

I find it important to identify that yes, a license is required to use someone else’s code - I mean this legally, not morally: you can be sued.

The sibling points about trademark law (which is different) and remix culture (which has some legal protection but not that I’m aware for lines of code) seem to miss this point.

This is a licensed use, it turns out, which is great. If the author here had not identified that before publishing, then they were putting themselves at legal risk.

[on a technicality, the MIT license hasn’t been properly invoked, since the MIT license requires the text of the license to be included in full, but the original author’s consent for use seems now to be clear]

I'm not sure I deserve to be so downvoted for this, considering this clarification came after my comment ;(

The Hatetris code doesn’t appear to have an open source license, or any license, so it isn’t open source.

This use of the code is a clear legal breach of copyright, in the absence of specific agreement with the copyright holder.

(On the Hatetris page, the author declines someone’s request to use the code elsewhere)

The messaging above is good because the animal suffering morality angle is implied without needing to be stated.

If you haven’t been convinced by decades of animal cruelty messaging (and most people haven’t), you’re unlikely to be convinced by it here.

It might form a meaningful part of a bigger decision-making process, but we already have that information.

Do you mean being a victim, or being helpless?

I am a victim of a crime - I need to take the required action to get legal retribution.

Saying “I am not a victim” does nothing to help me.

As an adult, any service provider can claim that you agreed, when you signed up to a service, to give away your personal data.

It’s presented as a contract mutually agreed between you and the service provider - you get the service; the provider gets the data. A legal contract.

But, in all systems of law that I’m aware of, you can’t make enforceable contracts with children.

This exists as a way of protecting children from making disadvantageous agreements that they don’t yet have competence to understand.

So, the service provider can’t use any contract as justification for handling personal data of children.

This leaves the service provider without legal justification and then calls their ethics into question.

> Chances are your quality of life will only get worse etc.

The quality of your end of life gets (on average) much worse if you smoke.

Not only do you die 5 minutes earlier, but you also spend more additional time with disease impacting your quality of life, such as COPD.

> According to this logic, anyone who works in the subway should be dying, what, 10 years earlier? Which is obviously not happening.

On the contrary, that sounds extremely credible.

If you divide life expectancy stats just by gender and race, you already see more than 10 years difference.