Due to industrialization and cars, stormwater runoff, especially what’s called the first flush, is very polluted. If we had unlimited resources, treating both wastewater and stormwater runoff + strict impervious cover restrictions and on-site storm retention systems would be the best option. The reason a combined sewer isn’t generally preferred now is because the maximum capacity must account for torrential rain, otherwise the system will outflow raw sewage, and a polluted first flush is preferable to raw sewage. The cost to retrofit London’s sewer to be separated would be several orders of magnitude more than upsizing the combined sewer to handle predicted rain events. If they got the capacity right, then it is the best option.
They do. But since most miners would just ignore the license, they implemented LHR (low hashrate) beginning on GeForce 3000-series that detects the types of ops used for mining and artificially slows the GPU to about 25% of its actual speed.
Their source code got leaked and it was reverse engineered to defeat it. That said, it was all kind of late in the game, GPU mining died not too long afterwards.
It’s just an unfortunate fact pattern. Compensatory damages are by design supposed to be a quantifiable number that you can directly point to on a ledger somewhere. Mann claims to have lost grants, and indisputably lost reputation, but has remained employed at a seemingly proper level throughout his career. Scientists don’t get kickbacks from grants, so no quantifiable losses _to Mann_ there. Loss of reputation is hard to quantify, though it is sometimes done by having a PR expert testify “this is how much it would cost to restore a person’s reputation to its previous state”, but considering Mann’s previous state was “unknown to the public”, that’s also tough to do. IIRC, Mann has had to have private security at various points, but that was paid for by his employer, so Mann can’t be compensated for it. It seems like in the absence of hard numbers like that, the jury decided to compensate using punitive rather than trying to make up a number, and no party is allowed to tell the jury that that will get struck down.
What? It was my impression that scientists draw salary directly out of the grant, and that many scientists do not earn any salary other than what comes out of their grants.
So Mann's salary is whatever, call it $500k/year, paid for by Penn State. He brings in grants to perform research that justify to Penn State why it's worth it to pay him that $500k/year (e.g. a $5M grant will include some amount for the PI + research assistants, some amount of lab spend, some amount of overhead to Penn State). If that grant doesn't materialize, Penn State is still on the hook for that $500k.
That's why it was tricky for Mann to prove damages here - Penn State was likely harmed, but Penn State didn't sue.
You get a salary that can be paid from the grants, but if you get $1m or $20M in grants it's not going to be a change in your salary. At least until you negotiate a higher salary. And if you don't get the grants in the next cycle, the university will be paying your salary.
It’s an interesting piece. Now let’s swap out “Nazis” for paedophiles. I’ll be your bottom dollar their principled stance starts to fall apart. Platforming paedophiles has never stoppped them. In fact, it encourages them to group together.
It’s a pity this is a difficult thing to handle. Moderation decisions are hard. Very hard. But being hard has never been an excuse for not doing the thing that is hard.
Except that Genshin will not be subject to it. Genshin Impact is made by Mihoyo, a Chinese company. In order to sell Unity licenses to Chinese customers, Unity Technologies created a joint venture called Unity China, and, as is standard Chinese government policy, it must be majority-owned and controlled by Chinese entities. The majority owner of Unity China? Mihoyo.
(On top of that, it makes no sense — Genshin would be a poster child for revshare: a single entity that has made billions off microtransactions and that can be easily audited in one go.)
That is something oft-repeated in conservative circles without a shred of basis in law. In fact, Section 230(c)(2) of the CDA does the exact opposite. It was written to explicitly _grant_ immunity when companies moderate in good faith.
No, the scammer stole someone’s credentials and the bank clawed back the payment. The bank can always reverse it at any point in the future. The consumer never, ever can.
reply