A public company is duty bound to its shareholders.

Which shareholders?

The ones that hold shares with voting rights. This is that difficult of a concept for you?

Again, which shareholders? At this point, it seems that the SEC needs to recuse itself on this topic.

The SEC needs to recuse itself because it believes that in general shareholders should be able to put up and vote upon shareholder initiatives rather than merely be slaves to executive management?

Have you ever been a shareholder of a company involved in a hostile takeover? Half a dozen phone calls a day from activists is nothing. Wait until the threats start.

Chicken little building strawmen is a reason to relieve shareholders of the burden of voting in your world. Nice.

Based on a quick web search, the cars that have outlets are (a) mostly pickups and minivans and (b) often rated for 100W or 150W max supply. You'll be waiting a long time to charge an EV for even a few miles of travel at 150W. Some pickup trucks have heavy-duty outlets (up to 2400W), but they're the exception.

Amongst others. Although I suppose an EV6 is an "SUV."

1. There is no world in which 2/3rds is "near universal".

You're confusing membership (70%) with coverage (>90%), and you still haven't defined "near universal," not have you?

The unions trying to force themselves into a workplace where the workers are against it is literally what they're doing right now.

You've offered no evidence that "the workers are against it." Try again.

3. "Supermajority" - lol, you want to talk ill-defined terms? And last the poll I saw on the topic was something like 56% to 30%.

67% is a supermajority everywhere.

But - again, back to my original point - that 56% was unlikely to be in the market for a Tesla anyway, and 30% is a way bigger number than 6 1/2%.

Repeating an irrelevant metric does not explain how you believe that it is relevant, nor make it relevant.

4. ... which is literally the topic of the discussion you're replying to (blowback).

The topic of the discussion is whether the number of Swedes supporting Tesla exceeds the number of Swedish owners of Tesla? I don't think so.

5. " Something about the CEO being a flaming asshole" - Oh, give it a rest. If your standard is "if assholes own under 12% of a company then I'll devote my life to trashing it online", then you better start trashing almost every company out there.

My standard is "if assholes control a company then I'll point that fact out when it's relevant," as here. No silent ownership stakes or devotion of my life required. However, you've been devoted to propping up Elon's bullshit for years, so that's a rather rich comment coming from you.

Is this where we pretend that the actual number - 59% of blue-collar workers, 73% of white-collar workers, and declining - is "near universal membership"?

Since you don't offer any definition of "near universal" and your own facts say 7 out of 10 are union members, no pretending is required.

Are we also pretending that in a place where unions cooperate to force themselves into any workplace even if the workers are against it, that "membership" = "being loved"?

You're pretending your premise, so I guess, yes?

Yes, a majority according to polls support the unions over Tesla in this conflict. But that's not even close to "near universal".

Supermajority.

The percentage of people in Sweden who support Tesla over the unions in this conflict is way higher than the percentage of Swedish car sales that are Teslas.

So what? Even if true, how is that fact relevant to the discussion?

And furthermore, most of the anti-Tesla people wouldn't have bought Teslas anyway.

  Something about the CEO being a flaming asshole makes a good portion of the potential customer base decide that they won't offer their custom. That would be a big reason that I own two BEVs that are not Teslas. And again, even if true, how is that fact relevant to the discussion?

Tesla is only 6 1/2% of Swedish car sales, but the unions are making a hero out of them to anyone who doesn't like the unions...

So a minority of delorables are cheering on Tesla. Nothing new or different in 2024 from 2023.

You realize that the legislative power is the power to make *new* laws and amend existing ones don't you? The Senate does not have and cannot grant the power to make new laws or amend existing ones to an international body. It can ratify duly negotiated treaties not grant dictatorial powers to international bodies. No new laws, no new treaties or modifications to existing treaties of any kind without the consent of the Senate.

So you've taken a really circuitous route to get right back to my initial proposition: the United States joined the UNFCC with the advice and consent of the Senate, which makes it a treaty - a real one - "ratified by the Senate" as you colloquially put it, with a 2/3 vote, and the Executive branch can agree to anything consistent with that treaty and implement it using existing laws.

That doesn't mean for example that treaties can suspend the constitution. Don't be ridiculous.

Well since even laws passed by Congress cannot suspend the Constitution, yes, it does not mean that. Yet it does mean that self-executing treaties can constitute and even amend Federal law.

There is nothing more ridiculously unconstitutional - i.e. not within the power of the Senate to grant - than an agreement to surrender the legislative power to an international body.

Then why does the Constitution expressly permit it?

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

You can whine about it all you like, but even the originalists will rule against you, because this was known solution to a known problem at the time of the founding.

As a general rule, conventions are called conventions for a reason...

What reason would that be?

and require legislation to implement any actual mandate

Only if the international agreement is not self-executing. It can be.

The UN is not a super-legislature that can just tell the United States or any other country what to do, occasional pretense notwithstanding.

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 says differently, provided that there's the consent of the Senate. And there's nothing to stop the Executive branch from using existing law to implement international agreements that it agrees with as a matter of policy. NEPA and the CAA can be used to stop new coal plants as readily as a new legal ban.

Sorry for the double post. I figured out a way for an individual, I think, to do this.

Expert Witness Time:

Q: Are all works treated equally when fed into the trainer? That is, do you believe there was something special done to the exposed copyrighted works that was not done to my client's works?

A: My expert is going to say No, there was nothing different done between the exposed copyrighted works and your client's works. Perhaps we can have an expert war over this but I doubt it very much.

I'm sure you can see where I'm going. What do you think of this line?

That's just reversing the burden of proof. "Prove that my client's work is not in the training model." Except that the burden of proof is not on the defendant to prove that the injury didn't happen to the plaintiff. You can't cherry pick rare instances in which others' information was incorporated into the model weights and then claim "well of course then it must have happened that way to mine" without showing that it did happen. Again, that'd be rather difficult when the model weights are so much smaller than the volume of data in the training set. A whole bunch of data was excluded -- why not theirs?

Class action. There.

Same problem. Key requirements for class certification are:

* the representative has suffered the same harm or injuries as members of the proposed class
* the class can be defined clearly enough to determine who is and is not a member

So now you not only have to prove that the representative's work was copied into the model, you need to do almost the same thing for each of the members of your class. Which will be rather difficult when the model weights are so much smaller than the volume of data in the training set. A whole bunch of data was excluded -- why not theirs?

There is a reason why treaties - real ones - have to be ratified by the Senate, and with a 2/3 vote at that. Less serious changes may only require Congress to pass a law, which under the Constitution the President lacks the power to unilaterally enact.

Good thing the United States joined the UNFCC with the advice and consent of the Senate then, isn't it.

I wouldn't want to be the defense lawyer on the AI team's side in front of a jury trying to convince the court that the AI didn't reaaaaalllly make a copy. It just sort of "looked at" the copyrighted work but didn't actually store a copy anywhere.

I would. I'd serve you your own ass on a platter with this:

"Sure, you can show that the model has incorporated fragmentary portions of other information scraped from the internet, but you haven't shown that the model incorporated fragmentary portions of your information scraped from the internet. You're claim is that copies were made of your work. So where are they?"

This is like a bunch of record companies screaming "see, see, they put up one of Sony's songs on Napster, so they must have been sharing stuff out of my catalog too!" You wouldn't accept that sort of evidence then, and you shouldn't be making those sorts of arguments now.

Hell at this point...ANYTHING that gets this un-elected Kerry fuck out of the picture, and stop him from obligating the US to anything worldwide would be a big plus for me.

My dude, I hate to tell you this, but the Executive branch, which is given authority over foreign relations and treaties by the Constitution, has exactly two elected individuals. There's an entire Department of State set up to conduct foreign relations, full of unelected people working under the authority of the Office of the President of the United States, because we don't have the President and Vice-President running around doing it personally. When Orange Mussolini was in office, it wasn't any different. When the next President is in office, it won't be any different.

I don't think you get the scope of the issue. Say half the parents of students in a given class enforce such a rule. Their kids will be looked down on by their classmates for not being on the 'right' app, just as happened with not wearing the right clothes, the right makeup, having the right phone, having the right gaming console, etc. School-age kids are RUTHLESS in creating an out-group the in-group can band together about disliking.

So what happens then? Either the kids are ruthlessly bullied, or they install the app without their parents' knowledge and make sure to wipe its existence regularly so the parents won't find out. You've now taught your kids to keep secrets from you, great job.

Chuckle. Oh, wait, you're serious?! BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

This is the most left-wing thing that I've seen a right-wing nutjob write on Slashdot. Ever.

We have to ban something because unless all the kids are equal, some of the kids won't have the thing and their feelings will be hurt, or even worse they might disobey their parents?

Are we going to be banning fashion, makeup, smartphones, and gaming consoles as well, or are you going to half-ass this just like the rest of the grievance-o-verse?

I'll tell you what, the parental rights crowd getting all up in my face about overriding my right not only to let my kids use an app, but my own right to use an app, shows just what a farce that whole movement has become.

But there are no immediate alternatives to those refrigerants.

Where's the immediate alternatives to manufacture those battery separators?

But there are no immediate alternatives to those refrigerants.

Swamp coolers, window fans, dressing appropriately, ammonia-based systems for industry...

It's an interesting double standard that you've created for which technologies have existing widely deployed alternatives and which do not, that's for sure.