I looked at the rules for dissolving an HOA in lived in. There were a couple of procedural barriers, but the biggest one was that it required 75% of homeowners to sign a petition within a 3 month period. That’s a pretty high bar and lets a minority perpetuate the HOA.
I’m 20 years in. I don’t publish that much code because I’ve traditionally been in roles that discourage open source, but after 20 years in I’ve accrued a portfolio on GitHub of personal projects. No one has ever commented on any of it.
On internal projects it’s different- my code is the teams code. It’s never actually been mine. My colleagues comment on it, provide feedback and help me improve. After all, we are all supporting it. I’ve had almost exclusively positive experiences doing this, even if sometimes I had to change some of my priorities or opinions on things.
At this point I have a fancy enough title that, in the rare cases I get to write code or docs, people lower in level are willing to give me feedback and everyone higher in level is too busy. I miss it- it’s hard to improve without feedback and genuine collaboration is fun.
So I say publish it. Most likely no one will say anything. Maybe you’ll get some feedback and you’ll normalize managing it. Maybe you’ll find a collaborator. Maybe you’ll get flamed by a troll and you’ll learn there are idiots on the Internet. But most likely a few people will just look and say nothing.
An aside, this assumes you are not in some toxic subculture. Your mention other students- if you are in some form of university environment where there is a culture of belittling others you might want to wait. I promise that’s abnormal.
For mandatory T&Cs I'll put in the signature box "Decline", including updating the HTML page to say "decline" instead of "OK" and screenshotting it or modifying the HTTP response sent back to include riders.
I know it probably won't matter, but it's kind of fun for me.
And keep in mind that (at least in the US) the opposite of "I accept the terms and conditions" is not "I get to do whatever I want," it's "I am accessing this service without authorization, which is a crime under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act."
Are you implying that if a US "service" consists of e.g. publicly accessible HTTP endpoints, it is illegal to use these endpoints in the US without "accepting" some terms and conditions that the provider of these endpoints requires its users to accept before using them?
I do not understand how such a requirement would be legally enforceable for public endpoints.
You can reasonably assume that if no terms and conditions were offered, then your use of a publicly accessible endpoint is authorized.
But if terms and conditions ARE offered to you, and you bypass acceptance somehow, then you're knowingly accessing the system without being authorized.
I really doubt this would be prosecuted except as part of some much larger misbehavior, but it is there.
If I use wget to mirror a site and there are terms and conditions that I never see then I'm "using a public facing API while being unaware of terms and conditions".
I mean, the CFAA being discussed is a notoriously broad law that's far too easy to run afoul of without realizing it.It's totally possible a court could seem that illegal.
Simply violating a TOS is not a federal crime, as long as it doesn't circumvent a technical barrier like a subscription wall. This is a new SCOTUS interpretation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act as of 2021, in Van Buren v. United States.
That's a different situation. Those urls weren't meant for public use, and provided private information on user devices.
Furthermore, on reading the wikipedia page, his conviction was vacated.
> On April 11, 2014, the Third Circuit issued an opinion vacating Auernheimer's conviction, on the basis that the New Jersey venue was improper,[60] since neither Auernheimer, his co-conspirators, nor AT&T's servers were in New Jersey at the time of the data breach.
> While the judges did not address the substantive question on the legality of the site access, they were skeptical of the original conviction, observing that no circumvention of passwords had occurred and that only publicly accessible information was obtained
The only valid agreements require the party seeking the agreement to make efforts in that pursuit. Did a human view the signed agreement afterward? Do they store that signed agreement in such a way as to be able to retrieve it if they need to contest the terms later?
Then no agreement was made.
And as for the CFAA provisions, if they put those resources on the public internet, then the public has the right to interact with them. You can't fence off the sidewalk and claim that someone trespasses when they walk on it.
It’s not like fencing off part of the sidewalk. It’s like having a building next to that sidewalk with a door. The fact that the door is easily accessible doesn’t mean everyone is welcome to come in. If the door is open that’s generally how it is. If it’s locked, even badly, entering would be trespassing. If it’s locked with a button that unlocks it, and the button says “by pushing this button you agree to the following terms,” well, that’s hard to say.
I haven't been summoned yet. If they're digging through my 10 yr old HN posts during voire dire though, I think we're in some sort of trouble that a verdict can't fix.
I think we're already there, at least regarding the trouble part :(
Semi-seriously, though, billions are being poured into the correlation of social media posts with real identities, it could be offered as an automated process for a fee that any lawyer would be happy to pay.
> You can't fence off the sidewalk and claim that someone trespasses when they walk on it.
Perhaps a better analogy would be:
If you go out into a public space, you have to accept that by doing so you lose a certain portion of your privacy. You cannot expect that other people will agree to your "terms and conditions" before being allowed to talk to you. They will just talk to you if they so like.
>No chance that would hold up in court. Clickwraps have been tested in courts and are fully enforceable.
there may be no chance it would hold up in court, but not for the reason you say. it would have be be because "any words on on a modified document "signature" line would be taken as a signature" or "subverting a clickwrap license is theft of services" or whatever.
that "agreed" clickwrap licenses have been found enforceable is a separate fact about a separate issue.
I envy the rigor and time investment, but I'm inclined to agree: there are unenforceable contracts, but I'm not aware of any case in which denying t&c's while using a service deliberately was successfully defended as compatible?
I'm not a lawyer though, I'm not even that well-informed about everyday law stuff for laymen.
That might be technically true, but the F35 and F16 are both single engine aircraft and IIRC constitute the bulk of at least the US air force’s combat aircraft.
B2, F117, B52, P9, F22, F14, F18, C130, C17, C5, CH47, AH-64, SR71, U2, A10, and on and on just to give some recent examples.
There are a few single engine aircraft roles (including the F104), but they are not and have never been the bulk of active serving aircraft. It isn’t just ‘technically’ true.
Be that as it may, the workhorse combat aircraft of most NATO air forces and the USAF itself is the F-16, a single-engine fighter, and its nominal replacement, the F-35 is also single engine. You can try to make your point by comparing those vs the numbers of F-15s, F/A-18s, F-Fs, Rafales, Eurofighters and so on in service vs the F-16 and F-35, but bringing C130s and C17s into it is irrelevant, those are not "combat aircraft".
edit: ah but they are "military aircraft", sure. fine.
I flew over Greenland coming back from Europe recently. From the air, the fjords and glacial snowscapes there and in northern Canada are profoundly beautiful and completely devoid of signs of humans in a way you don’t see even in some of the remotest parts of the US.
Definitely worth opening the shade for if you have the opportunity
Since the government (federal or state/local) authorizes those organizations to certify physicians and restricts medical care to only those who have been certified, it is.
I tried this but I'm also hopelessly superstitious so I could only do it once. But I think it was I who ruined Arsenal's chance to win the prem when Leicester took it
reply