freejazz
freejazz on Hacker News
9th circuit was pretty clear that a sports game was not what a "financial event" is under the statute.
Yeah, crazy how there was no financial incentive behind accurately predicting the future before Polymarket /s
Did you read the legislation? It's fairly plain language. The idea that something plain language will somehow end debates is pretty funny IMO.
Are you familiar with these cases at all? Gambling regulation is left basically entirely to the states.
Weird how your response to me asking you if there was an argument with actual merit is to decry my inability to engage in nuance in a legal discussion (ps I'm an attorney)... Also, it's worth pointing out that it seems like you completely made up the vast majority of your previous post. I guess that's just "nuance?"
>I was trying to have a conversation about the gray areas and why we don't just send people straight to jail for trying out a new, novel, (and potentially illegal), business model.
Actually we do. If a court finds your activity was illegal, you get the according punishment. The court doesn't say "oh gee golly, you're guilty but we'll let you off for this one because who could see it coming!"
>The courts are figuring it out.
The courts figured it out. It does not matter in Utah state court, what the 3rd circuit thinks. It is not binding precedent in Utah state courts.
I don't think there are "numerous lawsuits" which have had "mixed rulings" it's really only a subset of the cases that have had anything remotely construable as positive to these companies. And again, that doesn't excuse their behavior. Bold of you to point to one court saying "I'm not sure" when the vast majorities of the others have said "this is perfectly clear, and here's why the other court is wrong"
Like, do you have any actual argument as to why it's not gambling, or are you just going to hang it on this plausible deniability? It's not like they knew the 3rd circuit would decide in their favor anyway, so I don't really think your point is the slam dunk you're acting like it is. They knowingly engaged in activities that most states consider to be gambling. They aren't even really denying that. They are just saying it falls under federal regulation, but the argument for that is so shockingly poor, it's hard to imagine how the 3rd circuit's decision could stand, but its only on a preliminary injunction anyway, so it's still not quite a merits decision.
Yeah thats what drug traffickers who are also facing murder charges say...
Not really. I can recall countless threads where everyone said that this improves information availability. Do you want me to go through my post history to find them?
This would be a great post for Kalshi's lawyers to make. Hard to believe it though. To be clear it is a not a fundamental proposition of the legal system that every illegal activity be tested before it "actually" becomes illegal. It is a business' obligation to not violate the law, not the other way around.
Who cares about being conspicuous anymore? The president openly takes crypto bribes...
So you're saying it might actually be news??
The issue of whether or not "forced" arbitration agreements are binding is different, but in this context I don't see it being something an employee can get out of. Some states have laws, for example, that destroy arbitration agreements in employment contexts for sexual harassment claims. If you have anything to offer, I'm more than happy to consider it. Short of that, I don't really see what point you're actually making besides "Maybe? I don't know!"
Collecting a jury doesn't cost the participants of a lawsuit anything. And the vast majority of civil cases do not make it to trial.
>And it's less variable because juries are variable. Neither really requires a specific bias to exist for it to be true.
The vast majority of civil cases do not go to a jury, so again, I don't think this is good reasoning. The difference is mostly in discovery, which in an arbitration is stacked against any plaintiff bringing their claims compared to what they'd be entitled to in state or federal courts. That's probably the biggest reason they are less variable, in my experience.
>It is definitely possible that arbitrators interact with the company repeatedly and so there is gravity towards deciding in their favor, but I have no idea on the size of that effect.
Well according to you, you don't really have any idea of any of this, you are just reflecting your understandings which are based on what?
> Neither really requires a specific bias to exist for it to be true.
But that doesn't mean those biases are not present.
DoorDash is pretty much scum, stealing $130m in wages from their own "contractors"
Have you wondered why its cheaper and less variable than trials?
Sounds like your wife has a good case for a lawsuit
Oh yeah, no murderers, just a system that makes them...
Look at the world around. Look at the train crash.
Harvey has significantly more than "safety checks like this repo does" and if you don't realize that, you genuinely have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
>I see law firms as having no clue on how things work other than paying giant contracts to places that like to schmooze them because that's what they like to do as well.
Okay, yeah. Going with my second option. It's really the misplaced confidence that does it for me.
Well the firms with engineering teams are most definitely exploring doing it all in-house. There is no point in having the engineering team otherwise. I'm at a midsize firm that doesn't have that kind of staff and we're definitely going to be using something in the Harvey/Legora space, primarily because its not practical for us to roll our own.
That's because current AI models are incapable of doing knowledge workers' jobs. At least for me as an attorney, Harvey is only actually useful when it comes to helping me sort through large amounts of data. Even then, I can't trust its judgment (it has shown to be very poor) so it's only so useful
Harvey can be pretty useful and has all sorts of tailoring done to it to provide utility to legal professionals. I don't really see any of that here. Like someone else pointed out, the main benefit of Harvey is being able to say "well we used the leading legal AI provider."
Let alone the staff to get the old fogeys at my firm using it..
That his views on the antichrist shouldn't be taken seriously. Not sure why you're pretending there is more to it than that very obvious point.
Not hosting a defectively designed product doesn't obviate the liability of selling a product that is defectively designed. The liability is for designing and selling a dangerous product, not for hosting it.
So at worst the Chinese models would do what the US models already do??
> It cannot be taken seriously unfortunately.
What, like his views on the antichrist?