When you see significant risks to the org and its value, and they go completely unaddressed by management, the board is the final step before going to the public. It is the board’s duty to the public owners to make sure management isn’t driving the company into the ground.
It would be interesting to see this raised in the next shareholders meeting as a question of whether the board and exec team are actually competent and doing their work.
A man can dream anyway. When there is this much money on the line, sometimes people actually get held somewhat accountable.
Try this: If you want to train a model, you’re free to write your own books and websites to feed into it. You’re not free to let others do that work for you because they don’t want you to, because it cost them a lot of time and money and secret sauce presumably filtering it for quality and other stuff.
I introspect all the time. I just disagree with you so I have thin skin? Lol.
I think it's transformative. I also think that it's a net positive for society. I lastly think that using freely available, public information is totally fair game. Piracy not so much, but it's water under the bridge.
I hope you introspect some day, too, and realize it's acceptable for people to have different views than you. That's why I don't care; you aren't going to change my mind and I can't change yours either, so it's moot and I don't care to argue about it further.
You had appeared to scuttle off but alas I was wrong (and sorry to imply you are a crab of some sort) however your comment followup on not changing minds might be a tad shell-ish. I'm open minded actually on the issue and these are major issues of our time. I'm personally impacted by this and it does make me wonder "will I write X thing again" and it is a very hard question to answer frankly. When you see your works presented in summary on search and a major decline in traffic you really do think about that. It impacts my ability to make money as I once did prior to 2024 (when it really hit) without doubt. Edit/spelling
I don't buy that it was ever an intended meaning of the joke, but:
Sense 1: "The other side" is... just the other side of the road. The joke is that you were given a joke set-up question (and, if encountering the joke for the first time in your life, perhaps put some thought into trying to puzzle out the correct joke-answer) but then the punch line was the straightest possible non-joke answer.
Sense 2: (the double-meaning) "The other side" is the afterlife. The chicken is courting death by crossing the road. I dunno, maybe a lot more chickens used to get run over on roads or something, but I don't think this is a strong reading. Tons of other common animals would work better here, I think, if it were intended. Even cows, if we want to stick to livestock, as I've seen or heard-of way more cows obliterated on roads than chickens... not sure I've ever seen a dead chicken on a road, in fact, and I've lived years in various parts of farm country before, had a grandmother who kept chickens that ranged rather freely, and keep chickens myself. I expect the most common cause of chicken-roadkill would be from trucks full of chickens crashing or losing some of their cargo, not from a loose chicken crossing a road like a deer or dog (or cow, or fox, or skunk, or armadillo, or various non-chicken birds, or cat, or bobcat, or possum, or any of the other animals I've seen plenty of dead on roads, which animals none of them were chickens). In fact, I'd go a little further and say sense 1 works as well as it does in part because chickens tend not to cross roads so often, preferring familiar lawn-space near their coop, which sets one to wondering what has enticed a chicken to essay such a crossing which, though not unheard-of, does seem like it must have some compelling motivation.
I think the piece is arriving at this reading by a bit of free-association, not seriously advancing it as a sensible way to read the joke.
I mean, sure you can find them if you look hard enough, but a phone that plays videos is not a dumbphone in my book. And I wouldn't hand it to my kid. It's probably worse than handing them a smartphone, because I'm guessing it is just dumb enough to have no parental controls.
I’ve never had a software-based danger on my hardware-based vehicles. As such, there is a whole class of recalls that I never needed: all the ones you tell me I’m missing out on.
I'm impressed that you're daily driving what must be a 30+ year old vehicle. What model? Most enthusiasts have another vehicle to keep the miles down and use when the antique needs maintenance.
1990 AU Ford Falcon family here - still in near showroom condition (well, looks good but has a scratch and a minor ding) with ~ 600,000 km on the clock.
> when the antique needs maintenance.
You're talking about all the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, et al cars, tracks and tractors that litter our district? Yeah - there are a lot of them in this part of the world.
All the farmers love the bleeding edge gear and are getting into AgBot boom sprayers, etc - but they still can't shake a love of keeping the really old stuff going - pimped up rat-trucks abound and we rebuilt an old Alice Chambers tractor ourselves two years back.
"Antique" is a term for any vehicle that meets the local criteria for antique vehicle registration [0], usually older than 25-30 years. Your falcon is in the same club as those older vehicles now.
> Your falcon is in the same club as those older vehicles now.
No, it isn't - you missed:
In Australia, the rules for antique vehicle registration vary between states.
I am well aware that the vehicle I own and drive is normally registered as a normal vehicle and is not treated as an antique.
What we do have, here in W.Australia, is a limited usage "Classics" rego for vehicles 30 years or older.
Reduced rates for enforced (but how??) reduced usage:
The owners must also be a financial member of a Department of Transport (DoT) approved motoring club.
a 1991 Holden Commodore would drop from $867.55 to $171.30 per year
Vehicles in the scheme are only able to be driven on public roads for a maximum of 90 days per annum.
Classics (not antiques!) are beloved cars kept road ready but only occassionally used on public roads.
I own and drive a 2015 and a 2017. Each of them undoubtedly has software onboard. But I've never had a vehicle that had a recall for software reasons. So now you imply I'm (driving) an antique because I haven't turned over every aspect of driving to software, which is the only reason I can imagine needing constant OTA updates to address recalls. I mean, if you enjoy having daily alerts about needing to update your vehicle, random restarts, random bricking after updates, changes to the vehicle without your consent by third parties, etc. then I guess good on you. I still don't feel like I'm missing anything.
I would guess it can end the moment either party wants, unless a length was established. At the end of the month or year you’ve paid for, perhaps with a minimum notice, would make sense. Otherwise the provider can refuse to let you stop paying, citing the contract.
As sibling says, the Court very definitely did not order them to refund anything. They could have, and they didn't. The Court knew from the beginning that this was coming back to them.
You may see other judges rule that the refunds don't have to be paid, for any of several reasons. Whatever your desired outcome is, none of it matters until this gets to the Supreme Court. Given the nature of money, it doesn't even matter if some higher court refuses to give an injunction against the refunds being issued until after the appeal is considered and some set of refunds goes all the way through... no company that gets any money from a pre-SC refund can really use it until the entire matter is resolved at the SC level.
> As sibling says, the Court very definitely did not order them to refund anything.
> You may see other judges rule that the refunds don't have to be paid, for any of several reasons.
I think the government might have a bit of an uphill battle given arguments they have previously made to courts. For example, consider this decision from the US Court of International Trade from 2025-12 [0]:
> However, as the Government notes in its response to Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction here, it “[has] made very clear—both in this case and in related cases—that [it] will not object to the [c]ourt ordering reliquidation of plaintiffs’ entries subject to the challenged IEEPA duties if such duties are found to be unlawful.”
> <snip>
> Judicial estoppel would prevent the Government from taking an inconsistent approach after a final result in V.O.S. [] The Government has emphasized this point itself, citing to Sumecht NA, Inc. v. United States, which holds that “the Government would be judicially estopped from taking a contrary position” regarding a prior representation involving the availability of relief in the form of reliquidation. [] Having convinced this court to accept that importers who paid IEEPA tariffs will be able to receive refunds after reliquidation, and having benefited from the court’s subsequent conclusion that importers will not experience irreparable harm as a consequence of liquidation, the Government cannot later “assume a contrary position” to argue that refunds are not available after liquidation.
> <snip>
> Additionally, the panel in In re Section 301 Cases unanimously agreed—as we do
now—that the USCIT has “the explicit power to order reliquidation and refunds where the government has unlawfully exacted duties.” [] The Government acknowledges that “a decision [to the contrary] would be inconsistent with years of [the court’s] precedent.”
Obviously all this doesn't prevent the government from appealing anyways, but they'll need to get creative to get around their previous representations.
But they didn't say anything about refunding them and you can bet Trump will oppose that and ask the SCOTUS to decide on it. They of course have an option to take their time to render the decision and then just dismiss the case without a comment.
It would be interesting to see this raised in the next shareholders meeting as a question of whether the board and exec team are actually competent and doing their work.
A man can dream anyway. When there is this much money on the line, sometimes people actually get held somewhat accountable.
reply