Yeah, drug use is also influenced by social and economic status, which also influences driving risks. People of lower socioeconomic status drive less safe cars on less safe roads for longer commutes. This is something valid to evaluate with a drug like THC which is detectable long after use. It would be nice to see the distribution of levels detected and not just the average.

> People of lower socioeconomic status drive less safe cars on less safe roads for longer commutes.

But can't you account for 'type of car', 'type of road', 'commute length' as direct variables pretty easily without dipping into social/economic backgrounds?

The socioeconomics of the situation is why I'm questioning it, not what I think would be best measured.

Although it certainly isn't "easy" to measure all of this directly; there are thousands of that constitute the type of driving scenario that someone might engage in. Even just "type of road" isn't a single thing, it's hundreds of things.

And likewise, what share of that 40% were killed by the other 60%? Fault was not evaluated here.

There's a whole industry of commercially available products that analyze blockchains transactions for the purpose of tracing them. Anyone can simply buy these services. It is functionally accurate enough to find and prosecute criminals.

> It is functionally accurate enough to find and prosecute criminals.

Is that a high bar? I mean, you could have said that about forensic fiber analysis—and then it was revealed that the entire history of the field was just expert witnesses lying their asses off for whatever conclusion law enforcement wanted. It turns out that to prosecute criminals, being complex enough that expert witnesses can provide a smoke screen to rationalize law enforcement targeting that is actually based on prejudice and not concrete facts can be sufficient.

Nobody is being prosecuted on the basis of blockchain analysis data alone -- what I mean is that the data is good enough that that it provides information valuable enough to find the criminal in meatspace with the related physical evidence.

e.g. police look for online drug dealer with blockchain data, get warrant, bust down door, find big pile of drugs.

The point being, the data might not be "proof" on its own but it absolutely illustrates that there is no privacy on public ledgers.

depends on the wallets you use and what you do with them, being able to identify criminals is honestly a plus and if you really wanted to you could make their job *really* hard if you wanted to truly hide from an abusive government. Not being able to hide huge transactions in the millions / billions is honestly a good thing. Imagine the transparency we could get if all governments used crypto currencies instead of the walled garden that is SWIFT.

Today, Iran. And even parts of Europe as late as the 90s

The US also had a period of time in which their government directed large construction projects, and they too were particularly prosperous in the time afterwards.

1. Apple can't see the credit card of anyone who bought a gift card from any third-party retailer

2. The normal use case for a gift card is that it is transferred to a person different than the original purchaser. Launderers also do this.

>How can there be a meeting of minds when Vizio's mind disagrees with the contract.

Because "modern contract doctrine requires only objective manifestations of assent"

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/meeting_of_the_minds

Courts started doing this because people were playing dumb in court to get out of contracts: "oh I didn't know I was agreeing to that"

So instead, courts started calling bullshit on it, and today judge things as: "look, you went along with the transaction as if you agreed to it and a reasonable person in your situation should have known you were agreeing to it, and that's good enough"

Sure, ignorance of the law is not an excuse, but contracts are not law. In fact, the law requires a "meeting of the minds" as a required element of a contract. Although, the modern bar for this is extremely low, and courts will judge this based on manifestations of assent.

That being said, Vizio has a high paid legal department and is certainly not ignorant of the fact they ship third-party licensed software. They are simply ignoring it.

Courts would say "look you're professional organization well aware of software licensing landscape and you're using it, so you have agreed"

And also it doesn't matter what the legally provable significance of an IP address is for the purposes of violating a ToS. A ban from SoundCloud is not a court proceeding. ToS agreements are allowed to have arbitrary rules, and they routinely do.

There is also age-requirement legislation for platforms that contain social media components or collect private information, which SoundCloud also does.