don't use passive voice

It depends on the material - technical documents are a bit different to marketing material so sometimes you are stuck with it.

If the advice has a chance of being wrong it's not a good situation to insist it's perfect.

Or set policy and do it in the open. Sometimes arbitrary rules get in the way of everyone apart from the person that has set them without thinking of the consequences.

So here's another one - don't work for a place large enough to have a legal department that can get you sacked :)
I'm in the resource exploration sector, and things can move slooowly. Ten year old emails do get dragged out at times when the client wants to have a bit more done on a project. Data tapes from the 1970s even get dragged out of storage at times when the client has lost the original. So sometimes business convenience outweighs the risk of negative outcomes from legal discovery.

That's an interesting answer kids, pretend to be self-reliant by sponging off others and start a business when you have little experience on how to do anything involved with it. Why would we want the kids to have their attitude adjusted to that?
A different answer is to get some skills together so you have something to sell first. If you can't keep it in your pants long enough to get that far before having kids then why do you think you have enough self discipline to run your own business anyway?
This "get your attitude adjusted" shit is condescending and hilarious in this suggestion where an "entrepreneurial type" is supposed to sponge off their parents. It sounds more childish than entrepreneurial to me.

I don't play office politics, but I do document everything

Now that's a good tip, a related one is you are responsible for stuff that other people use make sure you have excellent logging/records/snapshots/real backups/etc. There really are "dog ate my homework" people out there that will try to get you sacked for losing emails/documents/etc that never existed as a distraction from them not doing the work in the first place. It won't cure them but you will no longer be the path of least resistance so they'll try their tricks out on others instead.

In large places maybe, but in smaller ones you can't afford to be so timid and you have to be the person that is stupid enough to tackle it.

The link doesn't answer the question as to whether that 55% and 70% is from the total of people who were interviewed or the total of people who got the job. If it's the latter then that's bad news for people who do negotiate.
Also it's going to depend on the position and past experience. A recent graduation with no work history doesn't have much to negotiate with and it could be a race to the bottom if the employer considers all recent graduates to be equivalent. In other situations there is a lot more room to negotiate.

With respect, many newbies don't even have remotely as much as what you suggest as the low end. Six months living expenses in the bank before that first job? Only if Daddy can gift it to you.

Most people are terrible at salary negotiation. Based on various studies with some degree of variance, overall they suggest about 55% of men do not negotiate their wages, and about 70% of women do not negotiate their wages. That is NO NEGOTIATION AT ALL.

It's age old and about positions of power. When unemployed there's a strong desire not to risk rejection of a chance to get scraps from the Lord's table by asking for more scraps or better quality scraps.
Risk takers can get that higher salary or they can get shown the door. The outcome is not always obvious. It seems to be easier to negotiate terms for a job you don't want since you are not so worried about pushing things too far and losing the chance.

That's fine but it doesn't really help with "what-do-you-wish-youd-known-starting-your-first-real-job".
Negotiating salary for that first job is an exercise in trying to get screwed over as little as possible since a typical line taken is that the applicant is worthless due to no employment history in that field, and some utter bastards will really push that view on the kids who are just starting out. Then they say something about being "generous" to the "worthless" applicant and offer as low as they can.
It is of course all lies to trick the applicants into a race to the bottom - if they thought the applicants were "worthless" they wouldn't have made it to the interview.

Sadly the even worse loser is the one that doesn't play their game and gets shown the door.
In a lot of places they only employ recent grads because they can screw them over for salary, but where else is a recent grad going to get a job? If you have part time work doing something unrelated to your study that can keep you going long enough to be able to refuse those that want to screw you over more than most or the dead end posts where they chew through recent grads and offer no chance for advancement.
That first job is probably going to be very disappointing but you need something on the C.V. to show that you are capable of working in your field of study a living.

This also isn't a win for him, yet... It's getting remanded back to the appeals court (and possibly, eventually back to the trial court), and so his fight isn't over. On retrial, a jury could still convict him by finding that he actually did intend to threaten his ex when he sent her a facebook post saying that her restraining order wouldn't protect her from a bullet, rather than just that a reasonable person would interpret it to be a threat.

If they did that, the provisional application would never be published or open to public inspection, so it would be useless to prevent a troll from getting a patent on the same technology.

Looking at the people here calling for blood, do you think such an announcement would be taken without a grain of salt? There's nothing binding in an announcement.

They did file in the name of the actual inventors. If you click the links, they're by John Resig and Joel Burget.

That's not true at all. The only thing that "first to file" changes from "first to invent" is interference practices: previously, if Alice and Bob both filed patent applications for the same exact invention, they would go onto an interference, which is like a mini-litigation, to determine which of them actually conceived of the invention first. They cost between $20-50k for each party, and there were on average about 20 per year... out of over half a million patent applications filed each year. Under the new system, it's just a question of who filed their application first.

First to file has literally nothing to do with prior art. And prior art that was never patented absolutely matters - white papers, scientific journals, product literature, etc. can be and are all used as prior art, even under the first to file system.

Claim 1 has legal weight, unlike the abstract. You can tell it's a claim because it starts with a number, is a single sentence, and is in the section that starts "I claim" or "we claim" or "what is claimed is", rather than the section that says "Abstract".