Readit NewsI did spend the first half of my career in banking though, so maybe I've got a different baseline.
Your pizza order needs no clarifications and if you get it wrong, it's just a pizza. If you misunderstand your mortgage you're looking at far more costly consequences.
Although you could well be right about the nature of the transaction, it's definitely a bad idea to be doing that with the bank!
Still a good idea though, since it deters far more subtle attempts.
Impractical for a normal person who wants to just live their life.
> it is very much part and parcel of his drive for wealth and power, as evidenced by how vocally he compared Comedian to NFTs and blockchain entries while eating the thing.
I'm not really sure what the author wants us to take away, but it feels like we should somehow be insulted that Justin Sun compares "Comedian" to an NFT.
But I'd say that Comedian is the perfect example to use when explaining what an NFT is.
When you buy Comedian you do not buy the duct tape or the banana - those are changed regularly, as the banana will go bad. Instead you buy a recipe and a certificate. The recipe tells you at what angle to tape the banana and the certificate validates that the banana you taped to the wall is the original Comedian art work.
If you tape a banana to a wall without the certificate, it is a fake.
And that is how it works with NFTs. You don't buy a picture of a monkey, you buy a certificate that you own a picture of a monkey - and anyone who right-clicks and downloads that picture now owns a fake, because they don't have the certificate.
The banana, the angle of the banana the certificate itself are all theatre, designed to be a plausible high value good that can be created from thin air with the sole purpose of being an excuse to transfer someone some money that they can then claim to be legitimate earnings regardless of where the money originally came from.
Anyone who gets suckered into this scene without understanding its true nature is, well, a sucker.
Most collisions with cars are also not even likely to be as dangerous as you suggest - the really hazardous traffic is lorries, buses etc. I think you also downplay the risk of serious injury when colliding with a pedestrian - to both of you. This also confers potential legal risk, as you are the road user likely to be liable in this jurisdiction should a vulnerable path user incur a serious injury.
No doubt risk averse cyclists like mothers with children are likely to prefer these shared paths whatever the prevailing conditions, but that doesn’t mean they are outright superior and the specific context is likely to matter a great deal.
Kids riding to school is the only use case they satisfy.
My understanding of law is generally UK based, but I'm not aware of legislation what would supersede a contract term limiting liability when the event that created the liability was one of general diligence/competence in carrying out the contract rather than relating to health and safety or some other area that is heavily legislated.
For that reason I'm unconvinced on the article's statement that this isn't just a "French Legal System" thing and that the same kind of judgement might be made in other jurisdictions.
Yes you can go back and forth and argue the toss, but it pushes up the cost of the sale and forces your customer to navigate a significant amount of bureaucracy to get a contract agreed. Or you could just run AV like they asked you to...
It's all about compensating controls.
It just not as simple as commenters on this thread wish!
If your goal is weight loss, and you have a choice between an extra hour of exercise, or eating one less Mars bar a week, skipping the Mars bar will be better for your weight loss.
If your goal is weight loss you should probably skip a mars bar every now and then, but I think you're underestimating what's possible after a bit of training and fitness improvement.