pull down to refresh
@Arceris
112,449 sats stacked
100 sats \ 0 replies \ @Arceris 8h \ parent \ on: Elon Musk's xAI Secretly Dropped its Benefit Corp Status While Fighting OpenAI AI
NRS 78B.040 “General public benefit” defined. “General public benefit” means a material positive impact on society and the environment, taken as a whole, as assessed against a third-party standard, from the business and operations of a benefit corporation.
Delaware doesn’t have the “general public benefit” requirement, and also doesn’t require a third party standard.
While both Nevada and Delaware allow a specific public benefit, it’s the general benefit plus the third party standard that essentially “reads in” and enforces ESG and woke ideology.
In Delaware, you could make your PBC support, or instance, a church or local community. A Delaware PBC could also make the public benefit be support of pro-life or pro-coal organizations. In Nevada that is technically possible, but not if it conflicts with the general public benefit and/or the standards required by the third party (which would kill the above examples).
I did significant research on this a few years ago, when I established a Delaware PBC (which I didn’t use) over a Nevada PBC to take over a Nevada company I used to own. I wanted the PBC to support the local community & tourism to it, which is totally fine in a DE PBC, but not the NV version.
It was a Nevada PBC, which is bullshit. PBC status can be beneficial, but the only PBC law worth a damn is Delaware's... and unfortunately Delaware is pretty shit otherwise right now for corporate formation. Nevada (and all other states with a PBC law, IIRC) uses the Vermont PBC law, which defines "public benefit" as essentially purely anti global-warming. Delaware's PBC law allows the corporation to define the public benefit, as long as it's reasonably a public benefit, not a private one. (So a Delaware PBC could select, for instance, supporting the Second Amendment as the public benefit, and that would be OK).
Oh for fucks sake. The UCC doesn’t work this way. There are plenty of sneaky things one can do, but this is not what you’re looking for.
There's one more issue with the "fire in a crowded theater" analogy that the author doesn't mention:
The analogy is incorrect on its own terms
The full quote, but Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater and causing a panic." Schenk v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). (Incidentally, this is also the "clear and present danger" test).
There are several things on this:
- Falsely shouting "fire";
- in a crowded theater; and
- causing a panic.
If any one of those things is not present, then you can yell fire in a theater.
The reading which has taken to be a restriction on speech is more properly understood as causing a panic under false pretense. The speech is immaterial. If one yelled "banana" (or just "aaaaaa") in a crowded theater and that somehow caused a panic, that is also could potentially be an issue. Alternatively, if there was indeed a fire, then the truthful yelling about it (regardless of the ensuing panic) would not be an issue.
It's the causing of a panic for no good reason that is the issue, not the speech itself.
This is one reason why the Court moved on from Holmes' test and instituted the Brandenburg test, which captures more of this nuance:
[T]he constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.
- Brandenburg v. Ohio, 365 U.S. 444 (1969).
I'd say probably not appreciably so, since my sense is that the issue with LN routing is more limited by delays in having to test paths found, rather than the algo to find potential paths. Also, I believe the LN network doesn't gossip the current channel weights (ie: which side of a channel has how much capacity), so all routes being constructed still need to test for that.
But maybe?
The article doesn’t make this obvious, but does mention that she got her money back.
“After she filed the lawsuit, and about two years post-seizure, the agency returned Martin's cash. But she continued in court in hopes that the judiciary would agree that the FBI was violating people's due process rights by seizing assets with effectively no explanation.”
She lost because she was trying to keep the suit alive to get a precedent. That is very hard to do, and in this case should have been allowed.
Looks like Fitzpatrick was the only republican who voted no on the rules vote. It also looks like they've been at it literally all night. Hakim Jeffries has been going for like 5+ hours.
Could you explain what you mean by "opening up the vote" and how that put pressure on them? Do you mean that he held it open really long and that allowed them to just feel pressure over time to change their vote?
The third party doctrine is bullshit, but it is current law, so it's not at all surprising that this would be the outcome here.
Normally I use the recent posts, however there are a few territories that I like to read everything (and ensure I catch everything), such as ~Politics_And_Law, and I use the drop down to drill down to those.
In case anyone is interested, here are links to the cases:
Malikie v. Core Scientific
Malikie v. MARA
There is no such thing as intrinsic value, except in the limited case of a sapient being. In order for value to be intrinsic, the thing must value itself, which is only possible for a sapient being.
There are intrinsic properties, but value is always and everywhere extrinsic.
Here’s the ungated WSJ article.
Here is the complaint, since the article doesn't link it.