Corporations being "fictive person" (whatever that means) isn't a relevant factor. What does matter is that they are legal persons[1], and therefore can sue people under tort law. It's not hard to find defamation cases where corporations are the plaintiffs[2]. In fact corporations suing people for defamation is such a big issue that there's even legislation to prevent it from being abused[3]
Yes, 'legal person', as opposed to real or physical person, i.e. a fictive person.
In the US, can other fictive persons sue for defamation too? If I walk around in a US city with a sign claiming that Barney the dinosaur stole diapers from orphans and use hard drugs, is that legally defamation? Or is it restricted to fictions used to name and organise economic activity, is it money and bookkeeping that creates this particular personhood?
> Yes, 'legal person', as opposed to real or physical person, i.e. a fictive person.
>In the US, can other fictive persons sue for defamation too?
The case law is pretty clear that yes, corporations can sue for defamation. As I mentioned before, you can find plenty of appellate-level cases where corporations have sued others for defamation. The fact that nobody has seriously tried to have such cases quashed on account of "corporations are fictive persons" or whatever suggests that it's not a serious legal argument worth considering. Arguing over this makes as much sense as arguing whether driving a car counts as "traveling" and whether that's protected by the constitution or not[1].
If you think it's fine and dandy that fictions are treated as if they're real in courts, that's just like your opinion, man.
Where I live, fictions aren't treated that way. The closest thing we have is immaterial rights, copyright and the like, 'protecting the fruits of spiritual labour'.
>If you think it's fine and dandy that fictions are treated as if they're real in courts, that's just like your opinion, man.
1. it's not just "like [my] opinion, man", it's how the legal system works in the US and most common law jurisdictions. You thinking otherwise makes as much sense as the people who think they don't need driver's licenses because they're not "driving", they're "traveling".
2. It sounds like you reject the concept of corporate personhood entirely. That's fine and all, but it's weird to bring that up when talking about tangential topics (eg. whether you can be sued for providing false information). It's even more weird to bring it up in a manner that suggests you're describing how the legal system works, rather than your opinion on how it ought to act.
the CNBC link you provided even says that the guy who got sued for the review later won the case
further more to win the case the other company will have to prove that 1) the document were fake, and that we faked them, and 2) that it doesn't match their real pricing, which means sharing that pricing info with the court and the other party. sure boss, sue me, and tell everyone what your actual pricing structure is, on the record, and at risk of contempt of court. that could be far more damaging than than any actual blowback from people making up numbers on the internet.
hell, post how expensive my product is, so that when I discount it heavily to future customers they think they're getting a sweetheart deal. "oh that quote was for a customer who wanted several bespoke features added, so it was expensive for them. but it helped mature the platform :)"
Meanwhile: Apple's internal teams already acknowledge this... by showing [digitally, with outward-facing LCDs] the wearer's "eyes" whenever they are able to see [and where they're looking, approximately?].
I'm no fan of either company but the general concept is that Meta specializes in software not fashion, so partnering with Rayban will allow people to feel fashionable while using Meta's device (and of course allowing meta to follow their every move).
Nope, the forums are not in English. The new forum's app/favicon is a yellow smiley face.
I thought Tapatalk is more like a generic mobile client addon to forum wares than being a forum itself. I remember that nagging banner when I was on XDA years ago...
That was the one that I thought of too. I didn't understand why every Invision forum would pop that up as the client to use. Seemed like they were giving away the keys to the castle for free. Crazy.
A worker kills himself at work by jumping off a work building and you are here trying to tell me speculation about work being involved has zero standing? I don't buy it.
It has no more standing than speculating that the suicide was related to a failed relationship with a coworker. And even in that case, a failed relationship is not usually the cause of suicide, even if it's a precipitating factor. Causes generally tie back to systemic issues.
Of all the ways one can die, suicide stems from the most deeply complex and systemic factors in one's life. To sit here and speculate about the cause with no information is irresponsible and I'd argue at the heart of what's wrong with social media today. For some reason people feel the need to have answers, even poorly considered speculation. I'd argue that it's far better to be willing to accept that there are times that require us to just withhold speculation until there's enough information to do so responsibly.
Whatever the cause turns out to be, these early discussions are the last contact most people will have with the topic, meaning whatever speculations are shared are likely to be the primary memories of those involved.
This community is quick to demand evidence and citations on most subjects (and rightly so), and this should be no different.
Newer Toyotas (Rav4 Prime and 2022+ Model years) are not compatible with Comma due to encryption, I would guess that probably also defeats this attack.
On a RAV4 Prime (or RAV4 PHEV for those outside of North America), these ECUs reportedly have "ECU Security Key" (A SecOC implementation) or signed/authenticated CAN bus commands since replacing them requires a check in with a Toyota server to "Update ECU Security Key" :
ECM
Hybrid vehicle control ECU
Forward recognition camera
No. 2 skid control ECU (brake actuator assembly)
Rack and pinion power steering gear assembly
Clearance warning ECU assembly
Steering sensor
Central gateway ECU (network gateway ECU)
Combination meter assembly
Airbag sensor assembly
---
There's nothing about smart key in here specifically. Not sure on later "ECU Security Key" vehicles though. If someone were to look up replacement instructions for the Smart Key ECU on Toyota's TechInfo, and if it has ECU Security Key update as a step or not, that could answer this.
SecOC is based on symmetric key cryptography. If an ECU is replaced and has a new key, this key will have to be taught to all other ECU's in the vehicle communicating with it.
I believe either the data from the adaptive cruise radar, or the data to control the steering is encrypted. I don't know if lock controls are. It was a small but important subset
Bug is a bit of a misnomer, it’s a constraint by the laws of physics due to the board having only a single wheel. If the board is being pushed beyond operating capacity, there is no graceful way to slow it down without the rider cooperating. If the rider never cooperates and the motor overheats, that’s when you see a nosedive.
This is close to how recaptcha v3 works. It can look at the users behavior on the site and classify normal users vs bot users. You have to do some setup to feed your own set of user action data into recaptcha though.
This footage was mainly released to counter the Giuliani narrative that secret ballots were wheeled in under a table in the morning, then pulled out and scanned after the observers left. In fact Giuliani's presenter conveniently skipped past the part of the video where the ballots are put under that table in view of the observers after being processed from envelopes normally.
But these videos also clear up the confusion around the burst pipe, which was a pretty straightforward issue in the morning, not related to the stop-and-start counting around midnight that is so controversial.
There were hundreds of videos of poll workers behaving in ways that ranged from suspicious to obviously illegal. Many have since been removed from social media. I don't like Trump and never voted for him, but his supporters who watched video after video oddly reminiscent of those in the OP's thread aren't unreasonable in feeling cheated.
He says 'they're throwing all the republican challengers out of this room' and a woman replies 'no they're not'. The man in the video isn't demanding anything like what the tweet describes.
I have to think you're engaging in this in bad faith because you're using misleading tweets to guide the discussion.
I see what you mean. I misheard the beginning of the man's statement and understood that he was making the demand. I'm not sure why you'd assume bad faith, I just linked another video which was posted in the replies of the previous one.
