I was hoping at the bottom of the article it would say that Professor Utonium accidentally added Chemical X.

The fines should be proportional to actual damage caused (ie: 100% coverage of any interest on loans, any extra spending the person needed to do in consequence, loss of compound interest, damage to credit rating along with any additional spending this resulted in, and any medical costs that can reasonably be attributed to stress/anxiety). It would be difficult to get an exact figure per person, but a rough estimate of probable actual damage would be sufficient. Add that to the total direct loss - not the money that went through any individual involved, and THEN double that total. This becomes the minimum, not the maximum. You then allow the jury to factor in emotional costs on top of that.

In such cases as this, the statutary upper limit on fines should not apply. SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that laws and the Constitution can have reasonable exceptions and this would seem to qualify.

If a person has died in the meantime, where the death certificate indicates a cause of death that is medically associated with anxiety or depression, each person invovled should also be charged with manslaughter per such case.

As you can imagine I am 100% against communism and any form of socialism. Bezos and everyone else must have property rights not hindered by government, it is his business to run (or his board) and government must not be in position to dictate how any company hires and fires people, who they hire and fire, why, etc.

I fully expect Amazon to close this warehouse, maybe it will be contaminated with something radioactive for example, to make things easier and then it will shut down. Personally I root for the anarcho capitalist solution and wish Amazon to win this battle for its private property rights.

If you set it to "85th percentile of observed traffic" you are selecting 15% to be targets of fines. Why 15 and not 20, or 10?

States with "reasonable and prudent" rather than "explicit speed limits" do a more logically consistent job here. Reasonable and prudent is what we're really looking for - everyone choose a speed that is safe for the conditions of the road, the vehicle, and the surrounding traffic.

The problem is that it's difficult to fine people for that, because it is partly subjective and different for every driver and weather conditions. It's much easier to set an explicit speed limit and then measure speeds. Explicit speed limits exist for the convenience of the courts, with safety of the road users as a distant secondary objective.

If you want to improve safety, then look into "traffic calming" measures. In particular those that cause drivers to perceive higher risk (and research into conditions where drivers falsely perceive lower risk). Even just drawing the lines narrower on a wide street can have an effect. If you design the road right, drivers will naturally choose the right speed for the environment without any need for a road nanny.

social engineering used in practice by the parent comment, now sitting at +4 Funny. Still waiting for that 1 autistic moderator.

I suggest:

First offence: Have to watch CSPAN for 5 hours a day, for a week, without sleeping through it - evidence to be provided in court

Second offence: Have to sing Miley Cyrus songs and Baby Shark on TikTok - sober

Third offence: License to practice and all memberships of country clubs and golf courses revoked

They tried that with Apollo 13. And.... that actually did work, sorta.

That surprised me, too. TypeScript is a very poorly-congealed ("designed" seems a bit strong) language.

Of the two popular scripting languages - python and ruby - python probably makes more sense as you can compile into actual binaries if you want.

For speed and parallel processing, which I'd assume they'd want, they'd be better off with Tcl or Erlang, both of which are much much better suited to this sort of work.

Then they should have used Tcl.

Assuming it's remotely true (and there's good reason for thinking it isn't), it still means the FBI director was negligent in their choice of personal email provider, that the email provider had incompetent security, and that the government's failure to either have an Internet Czar (the post exists) or to enforce high standards on Internet services are a threat to the security of the nation (since we already know malware can cross airgaps through negligence, the DoD has been hit that way a few times). The FBI director could have copied unknown quantities of malware onto government machines through lax standards, any of which could have delivered classified information over the Internet (we know this because it has also happened to the DoD).

In short, the existence of the hack is a minor concern relative to every single implication that hack has.

Bots and other bad actors thrive in free (as in beer) environments, for reasons that should be obvious. If we want to do anything meaningful about them, sites will need a nominal but real fee to use.

It's not what anyone wanted, but "free" was always inevitably going to lead to the Internet becoming a dump. The free ride is over.

Regulators back then were understood to be particular type of highly accurate clock that was used as a baseline for time keeping: other clocks were set and updated based on the Regulator. The root word was also contemporaneously used in a medical context; e.g. regular bowel movements, regular heart beat. Later, it was applied to devices which control gas pressure.

Does that mean the government, (or the king, since the root of regular is Rex from Latin) had authority over those clocks, or was particularly concerned with his subjects intestinal health, or the pressure of their gas? Of course not.

Addiction is neurological, not chemical. Addiction is the consequence of the rewards centre of the brain becoming dependent on stimulation and that can be from anything.

Do try to make an effort.