In my experience, with only rare exceptions, the limit should be three. More than three, and you are likely involving people working on multiple projects who don't really need to know what the people on other projects are doing beyond what an email every few months would provide.

Those rare exceptions are situations where you have a meeting of managers in an org or similar with each other, where everybody is working towards the same goals, and they're planning towards those goals.

Or the way I usually describe it is that the usefulness of a meeting with n participants is one over the square of n minus 2 for all values of n greater than 2.

Depends on what the person was doing at the time. If the person who didn't pull the trigger was holding up a liquor store and the police shot the wrong person, there's at least arguably mens rea, which is how we get things like the felony murder rule. Extending that to involuntary manslaughter when the person didn't actually pull the trigger but directly created a situation where the police did seems like not that much of a stretch to me.

To my knowledge, you are pedantically correct, but that doesn't mean you aren't in legal jeopardy for the death; you just won't face murder charges. You could still very easily be hit with civil wrongful death claims, and maybe negligent homicide or involuntary manslaughter charges for creating the situation that led to that death.

Maybe, but only if you assume that the intent is to share that video with others or whatever.

On the flip side, I can think of a lot of useful reasons to do so, mostly involving use of large amounts of AI to go back and process the data. Imagine losing something and being able to ask, "Where is this," and getting an answer about where you left it. Imagine being able to say, "Was [insert person] part of the conversation where I said [insert subject]" and getting an answer. The potential impact of always-on recording for assisting with memory recall is enormous, assuming adequate storage and processing power.

Also, it completely solves the "You look familiar" problem, both in the "Did I meet this person?" sense and in the "What is his/her name?" sense.

Nope. Not true. You can't use it commercially, but the definition of commercial use excludes a lot of things that you might think are commercial, e.g. any form of artwork, book covers, Facebook posting, etc.

This doesn't give you the right to record someone who has asked you not to record them, though, especially if there is audio and it is a two-party consent state. And if you are deliberately confronting someone in public who asks you not to record them, it could also run afoul of harassment laws.

I have an even more radical proposal. Roll back copyright duration to 28 years, but only for works for hire.

• Works of corporate authorship (movies, etc.): 14 +14 (renewal required).
• Works of individual authorship: 50 years or the life of the author, whichever is longer.

This strikes a balance that acknowledges individuals' lower ability to earn money off of a work, and ensures that individuals are able to continue benefitting from their works for the rest of their lives, while still ensuring that musical works written when my long-deceased grandparents were children are no longer locked away where no one can perform them without expensive licensing and ensuring that people who never contributed anything towards the works' creation (e.g. the grandchildren of a composer, author, or artist) don't get to live off of other people's work for the rest of their lives.

It was broken long before that. Minivans have always been treated as light trucks despite not being trucks in any meaningful sense of the word, and industry interference has prevented light truck standards from keeping up with technological improvements.

As long as we have such a culture of regulatory capture, I don't think these sorts of standards are ever going to do what they are intended to do.

Are there states that don't allow that? I know Tennessee and California both do, though the latter is somewhat more problematic because of emissions control laws.

The "at your own peril" thing is a lot easier to justify when you have high situational awareness because of absolutely no expectation of safety in a low-speed collision (bicycle) than when you do have that expectation (vehicle with a roll cage).

Also, bicycles can't rapidly accelerate, are very small, and generally can't get very fast at all, so they are quick to pass compared with something the size and speed of a low-speed car. This reduces the risk of them causing accidents significantly (both with the bicycle and with oncoming vehicles).

In general, the assumption is that if it looks like a car, it should act like one. When that assumption is violated, bad things happen.

America's pedestrian accident rate is increasing primarily because of pedestrian distraction, not because cars are getting less safe. The fatality rate could be caused by cars getting less safe, but not the rate of accidents, except to the limited extent that touchscreens make driving harder.

If you really want pedestrian accidents to stop happening, you need to do three things:

• Mandate that all intersections have a separate pedestrian cycle with a button to activate it or camera-based pedestrian detection.
• Mandate that all intersections have appropriate light control over right turns on red, such that they are not allowed during the pedestrian cycle.
• Strictly enforce this for both drivers and pedestrians for the first few months, ticketing both pedestrians and drivers when they enter an intersection at the wrong time.

This ensures that A. cars don't have to wait for pedestrians that don't exist, B. cars have to wait for pedestrians only once even if the pedestrians are crossing in multiple directions, and C. no cars are in the intersection at the same time as pedestrians.

It improves road throughput for both pedestrians and drivers *and* makes the intersections safer. There's not much downside to this.

There is a simple (and difficult) solution, but it destroys the illusion that having a college degree is a simple way to determine if someone will be a good employee.

If the degree is meant to show that someone has the knowledge to do the job, it isn't great because they don't teach enough on the job related skills in college.
If the degree is meant to show that someone has the critical thinking skills to do the job, it isn't great because those skills aren't focused on much in most colleges.
If the degree is meant to show they can work and think quickly under pressure, it isn't great because schools will often accommodate for students who struggle in those areas.
If the degree is meant to show they can work hard and follow through with a fairly challenging four year task, it is pretty good at that.
If the degree is meant to show they have enough foundational knowledge to learn to do the job, it is pretty good at that.
If the degree is meant to show they came from an upper middle class socioeconomic background (so they fit in with the corporate culture), or at least had middle class families that worked hard to give their children the benefits of an upper middle class upbringing, it is pretty good at that too.

If you want someone to do a job that is high stress and requires quick thinking, you better assess for that competency yourself instead of assuming a college degree is enough of a hiring filter. But most jobs don't (or shouldn't) require those skills.

I am in corporate strategy, and while I can think on my feet well enough to handle meetings with executives, I do my best thinking after a few hours (or weeks) of contemplation and research. No one should want someone to help advise on critical business decisions just because they are better at coming up with a decent answer in 5 minutes. Different jobs require different skills.

The article itself gets the real point across eventually, but it is very poorly written and the title is intentionally misleading to be provocative. All they are claiming is that ADHD is a collection of diagnoses, not a single ailment. It is an important point, because you can't assume everyone with ADHD has the same problems just because they have that diagnosis, but that fact should never be used to imply those ailments don't exist.

I get the impression that a company like ADP requires that an employer employ at least some minimum number of employees in an area. Otherwise, ADP appears to fall back to printing paper checks for the employer to mail. I don't know the specifics; I just know that I got ADP paper at one job after a bunch of layoffs, and I got ADP paper when I was the only remote worker in a particular state.

In my experience at my last three jobs (in the midwestern USA), small businesses that don't have enough employees in an area have to print and mail paper payroll checks instead of paying their employees through direct deposit.

It seems Warner can't catch a break. Time Warner's financials were in dire straits in 2004 as well with a load of debt from the AOL merger. That time, they paid their debt by selling Dire Straits and the rest of Warner Music Group to Edgar Bronfman Jr.

I thought the garage was where people put their guest bedroom. :-)