Readit News logoReadit News
liber8 commented on A 10-Year Battery for AirTag   elevationlab.com/blogs/ne... · Posted by u/dmd
hcurtiss · a year ago
To the degree lawmakers have weighed in, as you say, can you point me to a citation protecting the subsequent purchaser? I don't practice in this area, but that is definitely not my understanding of the law.
liber8 · a year ago
This guy is wrong, which is why he isn't citing any legal authority.

As anyone who has gone to law school will tell you, you can only acquire the title that the seller has. If seller stole the goods, he doesn't have any title, so he can't transfer title to a subsequent buyer. See, e.g. UCC § 2-403

There are exceptions when it comes to those who have voidable title (thieves do not have voidable title).

There are also cases where courts have more or less created exceptions close to those OP has described. For example, if Best Buy receives some stolen merchandise and sells it to good faith purchasers, courts have held that the victim needs to pursue the thief/Best Buy, not the end purchaser.

But generally, OP is wrong: if you buy a stolen bike at a flea market, you don't get title and the owner can get the bike back. Think of the policy implications if the rule was as OP claims. All thieves would have to do is immediately sell stolen goods and the owners could never get them back. That would be absurd.

liber8 commented on Hackers manage to unlock Tesla software-locked features   electrek.co/2023/08/03/ha... · Posted by u/1970-01-01
closewith · 2 years ago
Dash cams are much more tightly regulated in the EU than elsewhere (you become a Data Processor and have all the responsibilities that comes with that).

Private ANPR in public spaces is unlawful in I think every EU state?

liber8 · 2 years ago
Coming from an American perspective (where, when you are in public, you have basically no expectation of privacy), this seems insane.

Does this mean that if I'm filming a vlog at Brandenburg Gate (which inevitably includes video of other people in the background enjoying the area), I'm in violation of privacy laws?

Does that mean if I take a video selfie of me and my family members (which, again, includes images of others in the background, and which is automatically uploaded to icloud) I'm a data processor and am in violation of privacy laws?

I assume there is some line here, but I can't think of the logic separating a person's dashcam from my examples?

liber8 commented on When you lose the ability to write, you also lose some of your ability to think   twitter.com/paulg/status/... · Posted by u/blueridge
loup-vaillant · 3 years ago
> They are able to entertain millions of people around the globe while doing it and some build incredible wealth at the same time.

I think you meant hoard incredible wealth?

There's a limit to how much wealth you can actually create with immaterial entertainment alone. Even a best seller book: it takes time to read, so while it provides value to millions of readers, it also removes value in the form of opportunity cost. No way around choosing what to do with your own time.

Other alternatives have more potential. Educational content could lift some people out of incompetence and help them build actual wealth (say a very good programming or sawing tutorial). Writing useful software could also create wealth, even more so if it's Free (and free). And of course, building stuff (while taking care not to deplete our resources or burning up our planet…).

We say that people "make" money, but that's a dangerously misleading idiom. They don't actually make money, they extract money. Hopefully this money is actually earned in proportion to the value they actually injected into society (make a chair, get paid for the chair, all fair and square). But never forget that the people who "make" the most money generally do so by taking it from other people. Employers, landlords, stakeholders… who get most of their "earnings" not from what they do, but from what they own.

liber8 · 3 years ago
If people do not "make" money (i.e. create value), how do you explain the increase in the standard of living over the last 100 years?
liber8 commented on Tom Brady, Giselle Bündchen, Larry David Sued in FTX Class Action Suit   deadline.com/2022/11/tom-... · Posted by u/colinprince
HWR_14 · 3 years ago
Fraud isn't protected, so that is how you would handle the 1st amendment. Whether the person was acting as an actor or was endorsing it as a celebrity is a matter of fact for the jury. It actually doesn't even sound that hard to demonstrate. Tom Brady wasn't paid 10MM (or whatever) because he is that much of a better actor. He was paid to be himself and endorse a product.
liber8 · 3 years ago
None of the celebrity endorsers committed fraud. You didn't answer the question.
liber8 commented on FTX’s financial black hole leaves Binance balking at rescue plan   bloomberg.com/news/articl... · Posted by u/ahmedalsudani
rococode · 3 years ago
No, not at all like the stock market, which has real mechanisms for getting real cash paid by real consumers in real life for real products into the hands of stockholders.

Do people speculate on it more than they probably should? Sure. But at the heart of the stock market is a system of "I just sold a physical thing for $1000, and since you own the stock you get $0.00001 of that". At the heart of crypto is "my computer did some math, so... money".

liber8 · 3 years ago
How do you view public companies that have never paid a dividend and never intend to do so?
liber8 commented on How much people lost with Celsius Network   celsiusnetworth.com/#lead... · Posted by u/max_
this_user · 3 years ago
> The crypto mantra "not your keys, not your coins" rings true.

Which just highlights why "crypto" is largely useless. The vast majority of people are incapable of operating sufficiently secure infrastructure. And even for people who can, it doesn't offer any meaningful advantages that would justify the enormous effort required.

> Privacy should be a basic and legally protected feature of blockchains.

This is impossible when you are using blockchains, because all data is, by design, public, and there is no way of preventing anyone from data mining it.

liber8 · 3 years ago
>>it doesn't offer any meaningful advantages that would justify the enormous effort required<<

I'm blown away by the complete disregard most of this community has for crypto. Yes, it is currently full of scams and charlatans. But you honestly believe there are no meaningful advantages to decentralized currency?

Is anti-censorship not an advantage? I'm not a huge fan of the government's ability to seize assets without any due process (See, e.g. Canada https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60383385), which corporations are starting to get interested in (see, e.g. Paypal https://fortune.com/2022/10/10/paypal-users-fine-misinformat...). Bitcoin and other coins go a long way to solving these issues.

How about effectively free, instant transfers at any time of day or night? Traditionally if I wanted to wire money oversees, it's a full-day affair. I can transfer any amount of crypto I want in seconds to minutes, for far less than a wire fee.

How about the ability to instantly settle debts and contracts? This was literally impossible just a few years ago.

I know it's easy to shit on crypto (and there are many legitimate reasons for doing so), but you guys need to dream bigger.

liber8 commented on Common tech jobs described as cabals of Mesoamerican wizards   etiennefd.substack.com/p/... · Posted by u/betolink
tsimionescu · 3 years ago
While I understand and agree with the sentiment you express, I don't agree with using the word "magic" to refer to it.

I believe that in the minds of most people, the notion of magic essentially means the ability to use willpower to modify physical laws, or at least that physical laws are ultimately a product of a conscious will (often the will of a God, not a Human - but still a will that can be pleaded or bargained with through prayer or ritual).

And in this sense of the word, science has utterly destroyed magic. Not only is it impossible to extend your will to the world, it turns out that it is in fact the conscious will itself that is subordinate to physical laws, not the other way around - or at least this is what science is currently strongly hinting towards (we would know for sure if we had a much deeper understanding of the workings of the brain, and how consciousness arises out of it).

It's important to realize that this is vastly different from what scientists/philosophers throughout history have generally believed - even upto fairly recently, some form of Descartes-like dualism, with a mechanistic physical universe and a non-mechanistic spiritual universe of the mind (and God) being the most common way of picturing the world among most scientists even in the 1800s or later.

liber8 · 3 years ago
>>the notion of magic essentially means the ability to use willpower to modify physical laws<<

It's interesting that this is how you defined magic, because in a very real sense the ultimate purpose of most science is precisely to use our willpower to modify (what we previously believed to) physical laws.

Physical laws prevent human beings from flying, or breathing underwater, or viewing individual atoms. Until we literally used our willpower to design machines to overcome these "laws."

I have no doubt that eventually our collective willpower will be used to modify other "laws" we believe today, like the law that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Pretty magical if you ask me :)

liber8 commented on US Mortgage Lenders Are Starting to Go Broke   bloomberg.com/news/articl... · Posted by u/shaburn
idiotsecant · 3 years ago
>There's really nothing prohibiting them from doing that, I don't see why a law needs to be changed for this to start taking place.

That's exactly the point. There is nothing prohibiting them from doing that but they don't do it anyway because it makes life a little more difficult for them while making like substantially more difficult for the debt holder. Parent post is suggesting enforcing an inversion of that dynamic - put more power in the hands of the debt holder and less in the hands of the debt owner. A law is absolutely required to overcome the natural incentives at play, if that is the goal.

liber8 · 3 years ago
If a lender is facing bankruptcy, how are they going to fund the infrastructure necessary to negotiate with tens of thousands of borrowers? If a lender is not yet on the brink of bankruptcy, but sees it coming, don't you think if this was a viable business model for a lender to avoid liquidation they would pursue it?

Your proposed law wouldn't even make life easier for anyone but the richest debtors, who don't need a law to protect them. The vast majority of people live paycheck to paycheck and have de minims savings. If you offered them a 30% discount to pay off their mortgage (or even a 50% discount), they have no way to come up with that payment without going out and obtaining another loan.

liber8 commented on I stopped advertising and nothing happened   theantistartup.com/i-stop... · Posted by u/deeeej
WYepQ4dNnG · 4 years ago
I still can't wrap my head around the fact that people are actually "influenced" by influencers. I have never trusted anyone and anything. When it comes to spend MY MONEY I do my own research, period.
liber8 · 4 years ago
I genuinely can't tell if this is satire or not. Assuming it's not, unless your "own research" consists of actually buying a wide swath of competing products and testing them against each other, then at some point you are indeed relying on "influencers", whether those influencers are Consumer Reports, Amazon reviews, your parents/neighbors/friends, etc.
liber8 commented on The rich niche   therebooting.substack.com... · Posted by u/yannovitch
brimble · 4 years ago
I've never paid bills from the CC side, but from the provider side. I don't even know how I'd tell my CC to automatically pay some entity on a set schedule. It's all pulled by the service providers, separately, on whatever schedule they decide (or choose to let me configure). I know I can do it with account-to-account transfers (so, electronic checks) from my checking account, but had no idea that was a thing for credit cards. Where do you tell it to send the money? Do you have to get bank account info for the receiver?

[EDIT] On reflection, I've even built subscription systems reliant on credit card payments, and didn't know you could do this.

liber8 · 4 years ago
You don't need to tell your CC to pay some entity on a set schedule. I don't think my initial post was clear enough.

Credit cards are paid in arrears, usually with a 15 day grace period, so you are effectively getting a 15-30 day interest free loan on all purchases. When you set up a credit card, you can select any payment date you want. So, if I get a new AMEX, I can choose to have the bill due on the 1st, or 12th, or any day I want.

If I pay all my bills (i.e. Netflix, car insurance, etc.) with my AMEX, I know the AMEX bill is due every 12th (or whatever day of the month I choose). For any bill paid by the credit card (i.e. Netflix, car insurance, etc.), it doesn't matter what day of the month that particular bill gets charged to the AMEX. I only pay AMEX once a month, on the day I selected. So, by choosing what day my AMEX gets paid, I am effectively choosing which date I am required to pay all of the bills that got charged to my AMEX.

There are very few things that you can't pay by credit card. For those (i.e. mortgage, some utilities), you can schedule auto-payments on any day you want, through your bank.

u/liber8

KarmaCake day1125January 31, 2012View Original