eadler
Chow, T. Y. (2008). A beginner’s guide to forcing (arXiv:0712.1320). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.0712.1320
> “All mathematicians are familiar with the concept of an open research problem. I propose the less familiar concept of an open exposition problem. Solving an open exposition problem means explaining a mathematical subject in a way that renders it totally perspicuous. Every step should be motivated and clear; ideally, students should feel that they could have arrived at the results themselves. The proofs should be “natural” in Donald Newman’s sense [13]:
> This term . . . is introduced to mean not having any ad hoc constructions or brilliancies. A “natural” proof, then, is one which proves itself, one available to the “common mathematician in the streets.””
What We Know We Don’t Know • Hillel Wayne. (2019, April 28). Hillel Wayne. https://www.hillelwayne.com/talks/what-we-know-we-dont-know/
I want to thank you for explaining economic principles even if the OP doesn't understand them. As someone who has less econ background then they'd like — your explanations are clear.
Medical (and especially therapy) notes, attorney/client communications, and a few other have privilege [1] and you would not /required/ to submit this. If the opposing side requested something that turned them up, and they were responsive, you'd include a response and include a reference in a "privilege log" [0]
What is privileged is subtle and often overstated. You can't just put "attorney/client privilege" and CC a lawyer — you need to be asking a genuine legal question. Google almost got in trouble for something like this [2].
Private notes, including diaries, are not privileged. I'd like to see some serious proposals for "diary privilege" but no state has such a rule.
[0] https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/creating-privilege-logs-a-... [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/privileged_communication [2] https://www.proskauer.com/blog/the-sound-of-silent-attorneys... — although they won later appeals. My point here is that its complicated.
Thanks
Your obsession with Obama and ignorance of current events are well known to me and everyone else who reads this site regularly.
Please make an effort to apply your purported critical thinking sklls and claimed integrity rather than reposting one article repeatedly.
Being unwilling to differentiate between two obiously different forms of badness—both in kind and in quantity—is intentional ignorance and is antithetical to the curious conversation expected of this community.
I didn't say this
> ...
Re the rest. Thanks. I had implicitly assumed we were talking about financial or white collar crimes rather than all crimes. In other words the types of crimes people generally assume that richer people commit (insider training, tax evasion, wage theft, etc.)
I think you are correct in the most general sense of "all crime"
What makes you believe this? Any data to support this claim?
It's inconsistent with the majority of research I've read on the topic but I'm no expert.
2. This is covered extensively in the document I linked
3. This is covered extensively in the document I linked
4. I regret commenting on musk's politics. I have no idea if he actually voted for democrats previously and if so he he actually ever supported small-state libertarian values. They aren't relevant to the case.
5. 6. I'm not commenting on conspiracy theories
false
> * A high-achieving CEO was left with with zero compensation for a ten year period
false
> * Musk's compensation was agreed by a majority of shareholders both before and after the judge annulled it.
not usefully true because the voters didn't have complete information and the board was captured.
> * Musk has a conservative political worldview
false, but I'll admit that many people would call it "conservative"
> * The judge that annulled Musk's compensation was Democrat-appointed
no idea. Irrelevant
> * A man's political worldview should have no bearing on the compensation owed to him by his employer
true. Irrelevant. Musk's political worldview had no bearing on the court case of which you seem to have heard of but not understand.
You appear to be reacting to a simulacrum of reality rather than what actually happened.
I suggest reading https://courts.delaware.gov/Opinions/Download.aspx?id=359340
Is this the case for all federal jobs or can it be longer for some roles?
What is their average tenure at the department?
The actual court decison (which I have also read) is consistent with the article.
Or it would be happening absent the recent chaos.
Please see Elgin v. Dept. of Treasury 567 U.S. 1 (2012) for details.
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2011/11-45
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep...
I am fairly certain that consumer and employment pre-dispute arbitration agreements are strongly negative but I haven't learned enough about FINRA/securities arbitration to have a strong opinion.
Good explanation: https://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanlewis/2017/04/18/what-is-...
Another distinction here is that a store is offering a contract. It isn't a debt until the contracted is accepted.
The morning after pill is not an abortifacient. While there are different types most (like Levonorgestrel) are antiovulatarory or anti fertilisation.
Stephen Winick. (2022, December 13). The Truth Behind the Hanukkah Dreidel: Metafolklore, Play, and Spin | Folklife Today. The Library of Congress. https://blogs.loc.gov/folklife/2022/12/the-truth-behind-the-...