thinkmilitant

"IF you have Grammerly plugin in your browser they capture EVERYTHING you type into a browser, and you've given them all of the rights to that data, for which they can sublicense at fee."

While it does seem like their TOS gives them the legal out to do this, is it not more likely that this is merely a CYA measure to cover any data they happen to collect and any way they happen to use it? If their TOS narrowly covered only the data they planned to collect and the uses they expected to have for it I would imagine every change to their code would become a potential legal liability.

I would add, when mixing money and friends/family is unavoidable absolutely insist on a well worded contract. I know many people think that this is some sort of taboo among people you are close to, but it is essential all parties are very clear about what to expect from one another once money enters the picture.

It doesn't guarantee a trouble free time, but it at least avoids the tragic and very common "miscommunications".

checks library Yup, that's how I have it in all my cyberpunk books. :)

Exaggerations like this remind me of the anti-drug adds of my childhood. So much harm is done by over reaching the bounds of reality when trying to convince someone that an action could lead to harm. It's a quick way to have them doubting every part of your message.

If it's still about punishment, it's still coming from the wrong place, imo. Furthermore, everyone will have different opinions on which crimes are more heinous than others.

Take heart, the world is larger than America and much of the good we've already done will continue to ripple forward.

Adopting the attitude that we've already lost gives a sense of closure to a topic that still requires effort and attention.

-What do they stand to gain from building?-

I would assume dolphins still die from lack of food, disease, and predation. One(human) would assume they might want to build something to reduce those odds?

This can't be true 100% of the time or the hiring/working condition would be roughly the same regardless of legal environment. This, at least to me, does not seem to be the case.

I would imagine the vetting process is rather extensive.

To my mind, it is not about funding or not funding security at airports/borders/etc. It's about if terrorism poses enough of a threat to be worth compromising our standards of governance. We can fund and support security in these zones without suspending our civil liberties and we should.