droidno9

OpenAI also does not use API data to train its models.

Source: https://openai.com/enterprise-privacy

Bird isn't technically a party to this case, but it's on the hook for costs and damages via an agreement it has with the City of Los Angeles to indemnify the City. So, ultimately Bird would have to spend money if the indemnification clause it has with the end user is found to be illegal.

The indemnification clause is quite broad. That's the part that could make it unconscionable.

What Bird is really fighting over in this case is the indemnification clause in their user agreement. If this clause is not found to be legal in California, the potential liability down the road could be millions in other cases.

This is the current indemnification clause. It could've been different at the time plaintiff in this case used Bird.

"In exchange for Rider being allowed to use Services, Vehicles, and other equipment or related information provided by Operator, Rider agrees to fully release, indemnify, and hold harmless Operator, Technology Services Provider and all of its and their owners, managers, affiliates, employees, contractors, fleet management service providers, officers, directors, shareholders, agents, representatives, successors, assigns, and to the fullest extent permitted by law any Municipality (including its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, contractors, and volunteers) in which Rider utilizes Services, and every property owner or operator with whom Operator has contracted to operate Services and all of such parties’ owners, managers, affiliates, employees, contractors, officers, directors, shareholders, agents, representatives, successors, and assigns (collectively, the “Released Persons”) from liability for all “Claims” arising out of or in any way related to Rider’s use of the Services, Vehicles, App, or related equipment, including, but not limited to, those Claims based on Released Persons’ alleged negligence, breach of contract, and/or breach of express or implied warranty, except for Claims based on Released Persons’ gross negligence or willful misconduct. Such releases are intended to be general and complete releases of all Claims."

Bird indemnifies the City of Los Angeles as part of their agreement to roll out the scooters. Bird then makes their users indemnify Bird in the user agreement.

The key to this whole thing is for a judge or jury to toss out the latter indemnification as unconscionable. If this indemnification clause is found to be unconscionable here, it could potentially open up Bird to significant liability in future cases. Bird is going to fight tooth-and-nail to make sure this is not the outcome, or offer to settle once it has enough information to figure out that the legal winds are not blowing in its favor.

You're right. Should've been "disclosure" instead.

This is one of the reasons why lawyers use templates, as a defense against brain farts where we write "disclaimer" instead of "disclosure."

From the look of it this product is just an API to distribute the contract you already have and collect esignatures--kinda like Docusign, but with text.

Indeed!

Interesting product. Congrats on shipping!

I'm wondering about the use case of developers actually wanting to send out contracts (on behalf of their employer, I assume). Is this something that your clients who are software developers are asking for?

Disclosure: I'm a lawyer and software developer.

Edit: Correct a brain fart.

I'll just leave this here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9epG_qaCimU.

A couple of additions:

On non-disc road bikes, the tire size is limited by not only the width of the rims, but also by what the brake calipers can accommodate. For example, newer Shimano rim-brake calipers can accommodate tires up to 28mm in width, whereas older versions only up to 25mm in width. With disc bikes, the tire size is limited by what the wheel and frame can accommodate.

Gravel bike tires are all over the place, with companies making frames that can accommodate 700c, 29", and/or 27.5" wheels. And thus tire variations can be quite overwhelming.

Learning the material well and getting good grades are not necessarily correlated. If an assignment has grading rubrics, satisfy them literally and you'll get a good grade. As for really learning the material, it's often challenging to do within the timeline allowed for a course, especially with other courses competing for your attention. Just try to do well and get through the semester/quarter, then afterward when you have more free time, pick the subjects that speak to you and go through the material again, this time with the objective of internalizing the knowledge. Feel free to supplement your school material with material from other sources. Remember that what you're learning in school will only scratch the surface of CS; the real learning, if you choose to pursue it, will happen afterward.

Best of luck!

The two incomes from your apps would allow you to live very well in VN, especially if you live outside of SGN. Suất sắc!

Don't discount the possibility that she'll have her sentence commuted by a future President. Look at the roster of political heavyweights that she was able to attract to the company. It wouldn't surprise me if one or more of these people still have an affinity for her and, at the right time, throw some good words in the President's ears on her behalf.

I suspect they would have control of the account that the state set up to distribute benefits since they had enough information to file the claim in the first place; but the non-mailing contact info would be email and phone number that they control. Once the funds have been distributed, they'd be notified and then make the transfer to the second account set up at another bank. From there...poof...

This is probably why a second bank account was opened up in my name. This bank's KYC controls were so lax that they didn't even bother to do a credit inquiry on me, which would have resulted in a notice to me from a credit monitoring service that I use.

This happened to me in CO. I received two debit cards in the mail earlier this Summer to a previous address, one for the one CO uses to distribute unemployment benefits, one for an Internet-only bank based out of CA. I think the fraudster got my info from CO's voter registration record, which is public by default. The address on there hasn't been updated.

I had to fight the CA bank over the course of several weeks before they would close my account, and only after I had filed a complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Pro tip: do this for any financial disputes; financial firms will be very responsive to your issues.

I also called the bank CO uses to distribute unemployment benefits and they were much more amenable to my request to close the account.

For CO's part, the only link they provided on the CO Dept of Labor's site to report fraud (a Google form) had language to basically say that I am reporting myself as the fraudster and I would be subject to perjury in filing the report. For obvious reasons, I didn't fill it out. (It took them months to change the form.) I then called their main phone number and the only way I could talk to anyone was to schedule a callback 2-3 months later.

Ended up freezing all of my credit bureau accounts.

BTW, I don't place this fault entirely on CO. It was a hectic and uncertain time and they were trying to distribute funds into people's hands as quickly as possible. I don't expect them to be able to change such a complicated process overnight, or even months. It's a clear example of fraudsters being well ahead of regulators.

Great idea. How do you deal with resizing?

There's a recent case on Misprision of felony from the 9th Circuit, which has jurisdiction over California. [0]

"The panel affirmed the long-established federal rule that “[t]o establish misprision of a felony,” under 18 U.S.C. § 4, “the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt: ‘(1) that the principal . . . committed and completed the felony alleged; (2) that the defendant had full knowledge of that fact; (3) that he failed to notify the authorities; and (4) that he took affirmative steps to conceal the crime of the principal.”"

[0] https://www.whitecollarbriefly.com/2017/06/07/9th-circuit-cl...

18 U.S. Code § 4. Misprision of felony -- Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This statute doesn't require an active investigation.

Just to be clear, the complaint charges Sullivan under these two federal criminal statutes:

18 U.S. Code § 1505. Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees -- [...] Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress—

Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

18 U.S. Code § 4. Misprision of felony -- Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

18 USC § 4 is independent of any federal investigation, unlike § 1505. The complaint itself lists quite damning facts. Have a read, it's quite readable. [0]

[0] https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/7041237/Joseph-Su...

Until Dropbox adopts zero-knowledge encryption across all of its products, it's going to be a hard "no" for me. I'd rather spend my money with companies that take zero-knowledge seriously. According to Dropbox, this product is zero-knowledge encrypted. So at least they're moving in the right direction.

I wonder if a part of this mindset can be explained by the inability, i.e., lack of skills, to deal with confrontation. We all have to confront people and life circumstances at various points in our lives in order to grow, and if we don't have the skills to deal with them, fight or flight kicks in. The latter, overtime, result in a gradual buildup of low self-esteem, resentment, and anger.

Dealing with confrontations is a skill that can be learned, like most of the life skills out there.

> The main thing they failed on is that the court thinks that they exert too much control on the drivers.

No, the court didn't address prong A at all because it found that Uber/Lyft could not possibly satisfy prong B of the ABC test.

This decision technically doesn't find that Uber/Lyft are violating the statute. The analysis considers: (1) the likelihood that the prevailing party will ultimately prevail on the merits; and (2) the relative interim harm to the parties from the issuance or nonissuane of the injunction.

Here, a Superior Court judge found that the State of California is likely to prevail on the merits in the end. The reason being that Uber/Lyft failed to satisfy the prong "(B) The person performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business." Basically, the judge thought that Uber/Lyft is in the transportation business, not some "multi-sided platforms" as they claim to be.

Can this injunction be overturned by a higher California court? Absolutely. Does it look bad for Uber/Lyft in the court of public opinion? Yup, very much so. That's why three's an Opinion piece in the Times today by the CEO of Uber.[0] He knew this was coming.

[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/10/opinion/uber-ceo-dara-kho...

The relevant statute:[0]

2750.3. (a) (1) For purposes of the provisions of this code and the Unemployment Insurance Code, and for the wage orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission, a person providing labor or services for remuneration shall be considered an employee rather than an independent contractor unless the hiring entity demonstrates that all of the following conditions are satisfied: (A) The person is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact. (B) The person performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business. (C) The person is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed.

[0] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml...

Short answer is no. This lawsuit, and particularly this motion for preliminary injunction, was filed by the State of California--not drivers.

What are you talking about?

Change the drop-down menu to FY 2019.