singleshot_

I defy you to read my post without understanding a single lick of it. It is remarkable how far away from the point you landed.

The entire point of my post -- nay, the entire point of the jury system in the United States -- is that until a jury is empaneled, the word "reasonable" may as well have no meaning whatsoever. No one is ever going to define that word short of a jury. You may think you know what is reasonable, they may think they have set forth reasonability in the law, but the only judge that's ever going to make an applicable decision on the word is a juror.

The Supreme Court may decide whether a reasonable jury could have come to a certain conclusion (about whether something was reasonable) but the Supreme Court is also not the place to look for this definition.

Good luck in your studies.

I have some astoundingly bad news for you about the entire system of trial by jury which is that virtually the entire thing depends on twelve average people defining the word "reasonable" in the context of your offense.

I defy you to go to law school with that attitude, sir

Relevant search terms: “air rights”, “penn central transportation co. V New York City”

A functioning society

> a large number of people are required to use those services for their job

Okay, but their job is a net drag on our society, so you haven’t quite convinced me.

Counterproposal: ban influencers

> If you want to force Uber to take responsibility for the driver, the simplest thing is to get rid of the driver.

No. The easiest thing to do would be arbitrate against uber. Deploying a fleet of self driving cars would be much, much more complicated.

Wait, did I miss something? Wasn't that the point the entire time?

Restitution is an equitable remedy, not a legal basis.

> HN likes to abdicate YC of all wrong doing or negative outcomes

My take is that we like to hang out on PG's blog and make fun of his avarice. Is there a better place to do this?

Insurance kills this plan every time.

Sure, but the Waymo is taking intrusive video of much more than the inside of the car. And unlike a mast-mounted camera, it can be sent almost anywhere at almost any time.

> If you have never actually _______, please just stop trying to confidently assert things about this subject.

If this site had a slogan, I think you just guessed it

Well, you probably haven’t asked anyone who knows. The government doesn’t have a compelling interest. Banning it wouldn’t be narrowly targeted.

People with morals are narcissists and Peter Thiel is humble.

Well, that’s a point of view, I guess.

Do the prosecutors where you live have a hard time getting jury trials?

> leads to too much stress and anxiety in otherwise healthy people to think about controlling their glucose

The idea that a healthy person who thinks about sugar becomes anxious seems less than completely hinged. I’m not sure you’re describing a real problem.

The TCO of a slim Jim is less than the TCO of a steak dinner, too.

Do you think the prosecuting attorney has a substantial likelihood of a conviction?

What does mlb require a smartphone for?

I’d prefer not to.

Is it illegal for an interviewer to know what university you attended? I better change my resume.

Very interesting that the Christmas Disk still has not been released.

“See that thing? It’s watching you” vs. some complicated story about room 641a… I agree, it makes a degree of sense.

You’ll encounter some very bad news if you do some research on the state of the law as it applies to suing people for defective software. All of the things that you’d like to be able to do to a manufacturer of a car whose steering wheel falls off, are things that you would have a very hard time doing to a manufacturer of software, which is not a tangible item, and which is generally covered by a warranty that discharges all these responsibilities.

A great number of things that people in chat rooms “can definitely see” end up sounding awfully ridiculous in court.

Given that the politicians are making a billion dollars on crypto scams, being gifted multimillion-dollar airplanes, and recipients of gold crowns, I’ll eat whatever I want regardless of who is elected.

The truth is that if we weren’t burdened with multi billionaires, we would have plenty of everything.

no one is talking about a Terry stop except you. “Might” is not probable cause.

I think it's just something that Jack Welch at GE said so many times while making so much money that people started to believe it / wanted it to be true. I'd be happy to hear other stories about why this nonsense arose.

Generally speaking, there are two fiduciary duties of the officer: do not usurp corporate opportunities and do not act without information.

Your second question is not relevant because you do not have to be the majority shareholder to initiate such an action.