Well whatever they call it.. Theoretical disputes or rights another party might attempt to exercise are not properly actionable by a filing in court. You have no standing to sue a trademark holder based on your planned future projects and a personal theory that the company might regard your business as an infringement. Unless the whole thing is a USPTO action claiming the trademark is invalid and should not be granted.

The first time the case goes to court; I suspect they're quite liable to have the judge throw them to the wall with their case -- Disney may very well end up getting an order that this Injury firm pays their attorneys' fees on top of a hefty fine.

The odd question I have.. How is it that massive amount 1000lb explosives is planted with nobody noticing it for so long?

Seeing as it's enough to level everything within a 1 mile radius; that is rather extreme and scary if any of that has been sitting nearby for so long. We could be looking at a surprise disaster any month or day weeks or years from now then...

Surely there would have been an effort to survey the damage after a bombing, and an unexploded thing larger than a car shouldn't have been overlooked by an aerial examination and thorough search of the spaces surrounding populated areas.

everybody who ever spent their lives making weapons wasted their time.

An naive and arrogant point of view at best. We live in a world where a person merely crossing the street is subject to being ambushed by rapist gangs who are impossible to negotiate with, and the international relations between some countries are just as bad, way more complicated, And only well-informed officials and strategists can give an idea on how to keep us free country citizens safe, but one thing is clear: Good Weapons are always necessary. More efficient higher tech weapons allow for a better result most of the time, especially when destroying opposing military equipment with fewer human casualties on both sides. Weapons serve as both a means of destroying equipment, and weapons and weapons manufacturing facilities are also targets to be destroyed. And at least so long as facilities and not people are targeted - the toll of war involves fewer lives and more money being lost in that equation.

  As a person living in a free country and reaping the benefits of living in a free country: You also have a duty in the defense of that society by being a citizen that is an inherent part of the social contract which has allowed and continues to allow free countries to even exist in the first place and not be automatically conquered by whichever conquerer is strongest and most ruthless at the time. If the needs of the defense of our society requires going to war, then the duty of All citizens, even you is to contribute your part. Whether that ends up as by being pressed into military service through drafts, etc, building weapons, contributing special skills if you have any that are demanded by your country, Or by just by paying income taxes.. None of that is a wasted endeavor by those contributing, And you have your very life to thank for the efforts of people making weapons.

Considering many of the weapons people spent their time on making saved countless millions of innocent lives. It's a very real possibility many of us would not have been born if not for the effort in the development of certain weapons. Despite it is true that usage of weapons in war comes at a human cost, and we face a grave risk of demise at the hands of the ultimate weapons of mass destruction. Better tactical weapons in many areas that more accurately accomplish military objectives (Destruction of opposing military infrastructure, As-opposed to people) also reduce collateral loss of life.

However, as mere engineers or tech workers. We are not actually involved in making nor equipped to have a great understanding in the decisions about when and if war on our country's part is an obvious necessity; Nor are we sufficient experts in strategy to know the right path -- that is a matter for our generals, and commander, etc, to debate the complexities of our predicament at a given time.

World War II, and the US involvement in Europe was obviously necessary, and now we can recognize that retrospectively. But at the time that was not obvious whatsoever to the public. Indeed the US entry to WW II was very late and probably cost 40 million lives that could likely have been saved with much earlier preparation and entry to war.

enterprises will move out of the US and then these tariffs will not apply.
Then those enterprises will: (1) Be subject to tax consequences for expatriating.
And (2) Now all the enterprise's products sold to US consumers will be tariffed, so long as their operation is outside the US.
It's just trading a small set of tariffs on remote labor for a much larger tariff expense, and it won't be fiscally responsible for the enterprise to exit the US in that case.

Those 100k$ may become "H1-B loans, to be reimbursed by the employee

How would that work? These are employees, and the application fee is the employer's liability to the government. An Employer generally cannot make an employee assume expenses that are for the employer's benefit. Even those expenses an employer can make the employee pay cannot exceed their wages such that an employee is paid below minimum wage. Any kind of attempt to extract the costs of the fee out of the employee would be fraud.

fill a 100k job with an h1-b worker and only pay them 50k, it's still back to profit after 2 years

That one is actually illegal. The minimum on a H-1B salary is $60,000. But there is an additional requirement that the
salary has to be at or higher than the prevailing wage for the job in question.

But even if they manage to illegally pay only 60k a year... The 100k fee divided by the 3 year term still amounts
to 33k a year. And 33k plus 60k is $93,000.

And that's before thinking of all the other extra compliance costs involved in hiring H-1B.

These guys eventually become employers in our economy and pay a lot of tax.
A H-1B is not the path to that as far as I know. The H-1B lasts for 3 years and can be extended 3 more. After that 6 years the H-1B cannot be renewed, and they're forced back to their own country for a minimum of 1 year anyway.

The only way to stay in the US and become an employer is to get a greencard instead of a H-1B in the first place; or to apply for a permanent residency to change from a H1B to a resident based on major eligibility criteria. The 100K fee is probably not very much for the people who would actually meet that eligibility criteria, and you would still be willing to deal with the fee for the opportunity.

What this will do, is that newly graduated STEM masters and PhD will go back to their home country and we lose out on top talents.
You are assuming newly graduated STEM masters are top talents. I am not sure that has been evidenced. Top talents are people who have demonstrated abilities and expertise in their fields. They don't put you at the top of anything after graduating from a few years' worth of coursework. There is some book knowledge and background you should have to succeed in an engineering field, but skills are acquired on the job, and a classroom is only the starting point.

In theory it could, but Trump is bound to create tariffs for this as well.

If your company or management are in the US, then you are importing labor or services from overseas. Trump can set a tarriff on the fair market value of that work being performed overseas by non-US workers multiplied by the number of hours.

If you move your company overseas to avoid that tariff, then your customers in the US will pay a tariffs on your products or services instead, whatever you are selling.

Well Lottery vs FCFS is the major unique thing there.

The advantage of FCFS is more diligent fans actually get a better chance. With the lottery people who are marginally interested and don't jump on the opportunity Day 1 still have an equal chance: Which sucks for the diligent fans who were waiting for months have a reduced chance, because people who are entirely new to the artist and will hear about them for the first time during the lottery period will be interested and sign-up before it closes.. Thus diluting the chances of the more committed fans.

Another approach that could possibly work is staging the sale with phased pricing - time-based reverse auction. For example: Before ticket sales open hold a public auction for the chance to get the first tickets. Supposing the first tickets sell for the $3000, then. For the first 48 hours all other tickets go on sale generally, and the price starts at $3000 per seat reserved. After 48 hours all unsold tickets go on sale for $1500 per seat reserved for next day after the first 48 hours. Phase 3 ticket price decrease sto $1000 per ticket. Then for each 48 hours thereafter: price decreases by 5% of the original $3000, until the organizer's selected minimum price is reached. This possibly should reduce scalping in theory, because it makes sure everyone who feels it is important enough to pay a higher price to make sure they can attend has many chances to pay a slightly less stepped up price to attend the event then people would be willing to pay the scalpers. I mean that in theory it takes away the market from scalpers, so anyone hoping to resell tickets would have to go in at a much higher investment and risk level.

Non-transferrable tickets already exist and are already common in other industries. Perhaps Musical concerts are actually the outlier and unusual case compared to other events?

For example.. Conferences. You register to an industry conference for example, Blackhat conference, or fan conventions/shows such as DragonCon, Quakecon, PAX, EGX, TwitchCon.. Your registration is by name anyways; depending on their policies they either mail the badge, Or they have a badge pick-up desk where the attendee has to prove their identity to either pick up their pre-printed security badge, Or have it printed at the desk, and noone goes in without their verified name badge.

Each organizer makes that decision on their own about transferrabilty and can even exercise their own discretion at their venue.

Airlines. If for some reason a passenger is sick and won't be able to fly - the passenger cancelling may even surrender the ticket, but they can't transfer it. The ticket gets sold by the original carrier to a Standby passenger. (The person who doesn't or Can't use their ticket Does not keep the right to control the seat they would have had nor who it goes to)

Personally I think it's maybe the only possible solution to this issue. It simply comes down to the fact that concerts are a once-in-a-lifetime type event and will always be limited

There is a solution: Ticketmaster just profit from resale and don't want to do it.

Basically: Make it first come first serve. Each person can register 1 ticket. You have to supply a name and ID after the transaction. The ticket is permanently assigned to that name just like an airline ticket and cannot be transferred.

If you want to bring a significant other or friend. You can get a selector to request to reserve a restricted number of adjacent seats in addition to your primary before choosing the seat for the primary ticket. You have to enter their legal full name and email address, and choose an option to indicate whether you are paying for them, or whether they will submit payment at checkout.

At the gate for the event the Legal name your ticket is registered to will be verified, and you have to bring proof of ID. If you don't have proof of ID, or the name doesn't match, then you cannot use the ticket to enter the venue or take the seat.

especially if there's no reward for doing so.

Even with a reward for doing so your response rates may be skewed towards people who care about the reward enough. A $1 survey recompense means nothing for some people who earn thousands an hour and just don't want the hassle of another random solicitor bothering them, etc. It's tough to make a reward that is enticing to everyone, unless it waives some kind of annoying requirement everyone has.

It is not. We need to ask our legislators to get stronger exceptions for libraries added to the law.

There ALREADY are exceptions, but for some dumb shit reason a lot of digital stuff, such as copying sound recordings to a digital format, or streaming a library copy digitally, is specially excluded from or not covered by the exceptions which are written into the law for libraries that would apply if the library were disseminating the work using an analog medium to someone physically present. The internet archive's very nature is that the patrons of this library are Not physically present. It's a "remote library" -- you visit the library remotely. It seems ridiculous in the 21st century, but there need to be new carveouts in the law to allow for this concept of a physically remote library to exist just like a library you visit in person - and enjoy the same capability to operate. Such as the capability to digitally view or listen to content in the library over an internet connection.

Appears to me as if the record companies were afraid to litigate on this one and establish any additional precedent

Possibly, but it takes two to settle, and the terms are confidential, so we don't know whose paying who or who is conceding what if anything. You have to have the defendant's permission or leave to withdraw a case. If the Archive were so confident about winning and establishing a precendent, then they probably would not have agreed to settle. That means they probably regarded their chances at not significantly more than 50%. An resulting precedent in their favor would be enormously valuable to not only the IA, since they can face other attempts at suit by different music recorders, but also to other libraries throughout the US, and possibly libraries in other countries whose courts may become aware and read about prevailing legal arguments surrounding copyright in other treaty countries..

The AI is fed (and stores) real patient medical data.

That is an irrelevent observation.

New research that only uses existing data is already exempt from review.

You have yet to explain a reasoning why new synthetic data based on previous studies should require a review.

How do you make the synthetic data, dipshit? AI copies real data..

Hey, stupid idiot. AI copies nothing. AI is trained on real data, but the output is new data imputed by a generation algorithm: it is the reverse of a pattern match or categorization, and synthetic data is not a collection of new data from a person. I'd say it is also questionable how they can show the data is truly representative.

In any case: the ethics review is only about data being measured and collected from patients as part of a study. They address issues such as how are you going to make sure the patients are safe and not at risk of physical harm, and are being treated with dignity by your experimental process when you are interfacing with them and collecting their data: for example you aren't collecting samples in a public place allowing them to be seen indecently in public. Once the data has already been collected you could re-use the existing data for as many studies as you want without further review. The review process is about how your experiment uses humans; not how you use the data after the experiment. So it doesn't really matter.. If you aren't physically bringing people in and taking measurements on them or having them directly participate in an experiment, then there is nothing to review.