Highlights
•186 Li-ion batteries cycled across 62 formation protocols but with the same aging test
•High-formation charge current on the first cycle extends battery cycle life by up to 70%
•Substantial Li loss during fast formation shifts the electrode utilization range
It is definitely the plan for the .com to continue as a commercial enterprise.
The .org is a new organization, a US 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation. There's minority company representation on our Board, and we have all the official governance things like by-laws set up. The .com has funded the establishment of the .org to date, for which we are profoundly grateful, and we all expect and hope to diversify the .org revenue from now on.
Both parties are aware of, and working to ensure, that the .org can also be independent of the .com if and when it needs to be. We would like to avoid the risk of a new CEO coming in and shutting it all down, as we are witnessing now in other arenas!
In the spirit of joining in on breaking HN guidelines, the page is broken with ublock origin blocking some shitty cookie popup. I could only read it in firefox reader mode, else it just dims out and locks the scroll with 'Hello World'.
Thanks, but there's clearly more to it than that. They reference the full Flickr corpus in a number of places on the foundation's site and blog. e.g.:
>Flickr has grown into one of the biggest photo collections on Earth. It contains tens of billions of images from people all over the world, and keeps growing every day.
That’s why we’ve created the Flickr Foundation—an independent, community-focused organization. We’re committed to stewarding this cultural treasure for future generations, and fostering a visual commons we can all enjoy. [1]
And
>Today, the Flickr holds “tens of billions of images” documenting our planet from the first days of photography to just a moment ago. What if—should the ship go down—we had an archival copy of your Flickr presence ready? Simply admitting this might happen and preparing for it is a form of preservation. We call it a data lifeboat.
You have probably been affected by web services that go dark or disappear, often with little or no warning. We think that’s not good enough, especially for an archive as precious as Flickr (and your photos), so we want to design a better way.
It’s all at risk—though not in imminent danger—and that’s why the foundation has been set up. SmugMug has acknowledged the risk and set us the task of imagining and determining how to make sure this huge piece of human history doesn’t sink.
We will work initially with the smaller and openly-licensed subset of imagery held within the Flickr Commons. Using this collection as our baseline, we will explore the edges of what’s required to create a data lifeboat that’s transportable, buoyant, and robust.[2]
But that doesn't really clear anything up. I see that there is a 501c that has been created, but it seems contrived to add value to flickr.com by offering some assurances that your photo collection doesn't slide into the abyss while offloading the storage costs. None of it seems
very charitable to me.
>"As you can see above it’s a work in progress: MapMetrics flags, in red, Colorado ski areas and the Denver Airport. Neither of these are bad per se, but ski run and taxiway routing isn’t a thing yet! Over time, MapMetrics will filter these out to focus on just the roads."
Joining the chorus of those asking for a trackpoint equivalent and a larger gamut screen option. Love what you're doing and would buy today if those two issues were addressed.
Before anyone says this doesn't expose anything that's not already public:
>The system did not simply automate the manual process of one user looking up the name of another participant on LinkedIn during a Zoom meeting. In tests conducted last week, The Times found that even when a reporter signed in to a Zoom meeting under pseudonyms — “Anonymous” and “I am not here” — the data-mining tool was able to instantly match him to his LinkedIn profile. In doing so, Zoom disclosed the reporter’s real name to another user, overriding his efforts to keep it private.
Sleezy as this is you wouldn't be able to show damages since you didn't sign the contract. The other lawyer can claim error and the burden of proof would be on you.
If you did accept, then you have a lengthy court battle ahead where a jury could very well rule "abide by the contract you signed you reneging moocher."
The real world isn't a school playground. Calling a teacher over is time consuming and expensive and far from a guarantee of justice. It is up to you to keep yourself safe from assholes like this by always doing your due diligence. Someone who pulls this kind of shit constantly will eventually lose their license, but many years down the road and after many victims.
ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 8.4: Misconduct: "It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: [...] (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation..."
If it really was intentional, this very clearly meets the standard, and there's absolutely no requirement that there be damages for the lawyer to be disciplined. I'm not talking about a fraud or malpractice claim, so there's no reason this would involve a lengthy court battle, etc.
Further, Rule 8.3: "(a) A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, shall inform the appropriate professional authority."
> The ABA is not a lawyer disciplinary agency and has no authority to investigate or act upon complaints filed against lawyers. Each state has its own agency that performs that function in regard to lawyers practicing in that state. Locate your state agency from the Directory of State Disciplinary Agencies.
So you're not dealing with the ABA, but the underfunded and understaffed state board.
Of course you're dealing with your local licensing authority, but they'll all have a rule substantially the same as the model rule cited.
California's state bar even has a formal opinion calling out this or similar behavior:
"Had Seller’s Attorney intentionally created a defective “redline” to surreptitiously conceal the change to the
covenant not to compete, his conduct would constitute deceit, active concealment and possibly fraud, in
violation of Seller’s Attorney’s ethical obligations."
