It is currently Kleiner 8, Pao 4. She needs 9 to get a judgment in her favor. One of the jurors that voted for Pao on all counts has to leave the jury on Monday if the trial is extended at which point they will be replaced with an alternate.
> HN's obsession with downmodding legitimate questions
"What does it say about the jury?" is not a legitimate question; it's a patently loaded rhetorical question. Or really, an insinuation disguised as a question. "What does it say that X?" is code for "X is a red flag."
If you want to make an accusation, come out and make one.
Do you start with the presupposition that juries are infallible? Surely their actions must leak information about their constitution?
If a jury cannot follow (what is assumed to be) basic rules, then how can one be assured that they capably analyzed the facts and case issued to them and then appropriately applied matters of the law (written rules) to them?
Edit: Since you edited after my response: I am not making any accusations. Strange that you assume so. I just don't know enough information about the specifics to make any judgments. That's why I asked the question(s) in the first place.
This is why I started with the question, "How difficult is it to understand the rules[?]".
I haven't seen the rules posted anywhere, or any real discussion on the rules or how hard they are to follow. Have you?
Also, I'm not sure what is wrong with the assumption that jury rules should be "basic", as in, understandable to a jury member. Do you assume that jury instruction should be complex, complicated, and not understandable to a jury member?
The way you phrased the question makes it sound rhetorical. "How difficult is it to understand _______?" is almost always a rhetorical question; if you genuinely want to inquire about the difficulty, you kinda have to bend over backwards to make that clear to readers.
P.S. Note that I'm not asserting that the current system is perfect. Just that we (again, as a society; not me and you specifically) decided long ago that the drawbacks of letting 12 schlubs decide a person's fate were exceeded by the drawbacks of letting only the well-educated do so.
> Do you start with the presupposition that juries are infallible?
No; I answered that immediately in my first reply.
> Surely their actions must leak information about their constitution?
That's not actually a question, but even if the answer is yes, that's what I mean about juries being only the least-bad solution we've invented so far.
> If a jury cannot follow (what is assumed to be) basic rules, then how can one be assured that they capably analyzed the facts and case issued to them and then appropriately applied matters of the law (written rules) to them?
I was on a jury once. Many, many people can't follow simple jury instructions, figure out the difference between an argument and a statute (seriously), etc. And most of them had an education level beyond college. It was the most eye opening experience of my life.
The rules may be poorly communicated to the jury. On the one jury that I was on, they were perhaps cryptic, and by the time I figured them out I found an error in the way that we were supposed to address all the counts that we were considering.
Such clerical errors are a part of any sort of human process. It's not the end of the world as long as there are processes in place to correct the errors.
That's what I'm asking. How often does it happen? What makes the rules so difficult to understand? Do most juries understand and this is just a poor jury?
Can we look at the rules in this case? Or do we just have to go off NYT reporting and uninformed HN spectator speculation?
You'd assume a centuries old institution (jury trial) would have worked through what seems like a very basic problem: how do you communicate to the jury (which is the ultimate object of the trial) what exactly they are supposed to do?
How can you judge whether a jury is incompetent (or the judge and/or the lawyer(s))?
(a) one case I sat on in Massachusetts, the statute was written very obtusely and the judge said she was not allowed to give us the statute in writing. The jury literally went back in 3 or 4 times to ask for the instructions and statute to be read again.
There was the statute, which then referred to other places for definitions of 4 or 5 terms, which also had to be read. Keeping a statute and the definitions in your head is not simple. Lawyers don't make their arguments in the absence of being able to reread the written law. Appeals courts can read the law when making judgments. But for some reason, as a jury, we were expected to keep it all in our head.
It is my understanding that juries are empowered to do pretty much anything they please. I'd guess in your case that the judge was operating under a technicality of the language (per usual), he may personally not be able to give you any written thing except for the rules agreed to. However, the jury should be able to request that the actual statutes be delivered to it. If words are not defined in that statute, then the jury can request that the appropriate definitions be delivered to it.
I sat on a California civil jury last year, and we were able to ask witnesses questions. They were heavily filtered and reworded by the judge and attorneys, and asked by the judge. I think it strongly affected the outcome in my case.
> Not sure on this but a few parts of this case are out of the ordinary like the jury asking questions during the case.
AFAIK, jurors asking questions (or, at least, proposing questions which are reviewed by the counsel and actually asked by the judge) is not out of the ordinary anymore in trial courts in California. Certainly the criminal case I served on a jury for included that.
Most of the sources I can find on it are somewhat old (around 2000) and indicate that it was then not legally mandated to be allowed, and that a minority of judges did it but it was growing in popularity (they also indicate that even then, it was mandated in some states that jurors be permitted to submit questions.) It may still not be a majority practice, but I've seen it frequently referenced in news reports of cases, so I don't think its particularly unusual anymore.
> In the first 48 hours of the service going live, Magic co-founder Mike Chen said the service had already seen 17,000 text messages.
If this is the metric being offered as evidence of virality, and was likely given to investors, it's misleading. It implies at face value that 17k unique people tried out Magic, but transactions take many SMS messages, as evidenced by the example conversations given. This is why vanity metrics are a bad thing.
As with Meerkat, I am very skeptical of the short-term-virality-indicates-long-term-success logical fallacy that seems to permeate Silicon Valley nowadays.
I can't wait until every hackathon has endless amounts of poorly-thought-out "Magic for X" clones, as was the case with Yo.
Can anyone explain the logic behind Google Drive's pricing?
Google Drive with 30 TB storage is priced at $300 per month. But then you have Google Drive for Work with unlimited storage and is priced at $10 per user per month. Meaning that you can get 30 users with unlimited storage for the same price. Why in hell would anyone pay that?
It's $0.01/GB, the same price as their nearline cloud storage option. On the work side, they are pooling the capacity at the business level.
In an enterprise environment that I'm familiar with that has 100k users on a shared file store solution... Something like 10% of users use less that 1GB, the 99th percentile user uses 1TB, the 90th percentile users is something like 30GB.
Agreed, but the point still stands. 'Unlimited' does not change definition based on price point. Especially if competitors offer paid-for limits above your 'unlimited', wouldn't that literally be false advertising? (Note: I'm not saying Amazon is, just addressing the above interpretation of 'Power user'
Color has some similar elements, but Viggo is quite different.
With Viggo we are introducing new paradigm where you only see and manage content in the air around you, where air is like an ad hoc shared resource for collaboration. There are no profiles, users and user connections, etc... - only pure content in the air.
Also, Viggo is not just about "videos and photos", we see a greater opportunity in redefining how content is shared in real world interactions. You can share documents, contacts, links, you can create collections ("folders in the air")...
Dropbox's business strategies (Carousel) and acquisitions ("Dropbox for Music", "Dropbox for Documents") make it seem like Dropbox is opting for diversity instead of opting for efficiency, that could be passed down to the end-user with lower prices.
And that's probably wise -- it's not like the markup on S3 is so huge that it's an obvious big win to move off it once you consider the size of the up-front investment to build up a similarly featured, distributed and redundant cloud storage system of their own. Diversification is a good idea for them, I just think it's a very low probability of success.
Yes, I can blame them. My inbox despite Google's spam filtering is full of Indian offshore developers who believe that hustle trumps all. And that's including my right to have people respect my contact page's clear indication that I don't want to outsource web/SEO work.
When that hustle steps on my turf, yes, I blame them.
> Not saying that's never true, but in this specific case there's just no way Twitter went from zero to release with this app since meerkat launched. A company the size of Twitter doesn't do weekend hackathons for important launches like this. Not that I know of, at least.
Periscope had been in a closed beta for months before they were purchased. I'm surprised no media has ever tried the angle of Meerkat being a Periscope clone.
Hey Max, founder here. While we don’t deny that we believe a no interface interface is a delightful way to receive services, we do believe that certain people have use for a immediate technical assistance for everything from SSL installation and word-press tweaks to writing a query for a large data set or quick app debugging
And what happens if there's a server wipe while installing SSL? How can you accurately recommend improvements to query data in a data set if you don't know the schema/scale?
Magic is fine for a no interface interface since no human interaction is necessary. If a random faceless person on the Internet was touching my technical property, there had better be sufficient assurance of liability in play because there is no element of trust.
All fair points, at the moment it’s geared towards empowering the usually the non tech savvy who right now have to beg their friends or break the bank for small things. We’re definitely working on ways to mitigate the risk for the recipient of the assistance. We vet all of the coders, make sure they know what they're doing, and only assign them jobs within their ability.