The government's not getting involved, oh you mean the fact that a judge is going to be involved?
Civil courts exist to provide monetary damages if damages can be proved to exist. Yes, they can also compel arbitrary behavior as a part of governing body.
This is independent of any stance on Zillow and a state licensing regime. If the plaintiff can convince that the tool is making her lose money, the judge will award her money.
"but that means < cue completely uninformed legal analogy >" yes you can make a career out of litigation, many people have.
It cant just be the plaintiff proving that Zillow's tool makes her lose money, can it? If that argument was true then you could get sued and lose for reporting on facts that put the company in a bad light, like poor hygiene in a restaurant, or for competing with another company with a better product.
many summary judgements on flaky arguments are made just because the defendant didn't respond. the judgements are collected from you bank in any jurisdiction that will reciprocate
You're right, I shouldn't have phrased it that way. I meant to say I don't think the government should be involved.
Although, I'm not sure why the plaintiff should be awarded anything, even if Zillow causes her to "lose money". Unless Zillow is doing something specifically to her home estimate, then it's merely offering a differing opinion on what they think the home is worth.
"Eyyy buddy, you wanna buy this car? Classic 1991 Honda Civic, only 100k miles on it, and most of the doors still open. I'll give you a deal, $10 000."
"Yeah, I don't think it's worth that much. A hundred dollars, tops."
"Did you just appraise this car? Oh, you done messed up."
muffled sound of approaching police sirens
EDIT: Hah, didn't see you'd used the exact same analogy elsewhere.
Nonsense. For the judge to award your money to a complainant, they need to have a loss and you need to be legally liable for the loss. The fact that they have a loss is not itself a cause of action. The fact that you caused the loss is still not a cause of action.
> Civil courts exist to provide monetary damages if damages can be proved to exist.
Civil courts exist to provide remedy for non-criminal violation of the law; award of damages (actual, statutory, punitive, or otherwise) is one form of civil remedy, but not the only one available.
There is no lose scenario for LTT re:Float Plane, just a less monumental one.
They've released early-access subscription-based material before through the defunct Vessel platform (which exited successfully via buy-out). Now they're building that platform themselves for their audience.
Whether they can expand it successfully to other creators is another question, but I see no reason why they wouldn't...
I didn't violate any comment guidelines, which one did I violate?
I think I added to the conversation and this is a also a reality I live in. Kickback and relax, emphasis on kickback, is way more effective in creating favorable political situations for me and everyone I know, than a popular vote. Some jurisdictions formalize it with synonyms, others don't. Do I have to write massive disclaimers and sources for accepted reality just to avoid being shadowbanned?
But you didn't say that. Your comment was unsubstantive (like many of your previous ones) and inflammatory. I don't know exactly what you meant by "welfare clones" but it does give the suspicion of incivility.
I don't think the US constitution would allow for that tax, written that way anyway.
To pass a court challenge, the laws as written and the discussions around them have to apply to everyone otherwise it would be too discriminatory (5th amendment equal liberty clause, & 14th amendment equal protection clause). Maybe you could write it as all homebuyers in that jurisdiction being subject to the tax, and then its tiered for certain variables.
Protection under US laws to non-citizens including 5th amendment applies only if you are physically on US soil (excluding space before immigration at port of entry). So if you are non-citizen US house owner living in foreign country, it would be tricky to file lawsuit seeking such protection.
One of the marriages was in a traditional culture (where I have family roots; not _entirely_ what you've got in mind), so I'm the first to say that's not a magic solution. But at least the problem there was framed more explicitly and recognised for what it was. Here in America, it gets lost in a fog of individualistic "nonjudgmental" received truth.
They aimed to help poor and disenfranchised groups get into their specialized public schools, by forcing a meritocracy, as disproportionately wealthy and white families were accepted because admittance was previously too discretionary and lots of excuses were made about why (hm sounds familiar).
After the meritocracy was established it became disproportionately asian by a huuuuuge margin (stuyvesant high school being ~75% asian with the city having a ~10% asian population) while poor and disenfranchised groups are still poor and disenfranchised. Just even more apparently now.
This is no comment about meritocracies, it is about illuminating how far off base a governing body will be at promoting a particular outcome.
Just vocal ones. Not being on Facebook is met with bewilderment usually, so online its easier to find other people that are relatable by speaking up. Many people that are tied to Facebook share the same woes and may be looking for more inspiration about how to simply live without Facebook.
So there's simply value in saying that you aren't on it, when these kind of threads or sound boxes pop up.
Aligning the economic incentives to promote an outcome is much more effective at getting that outcome
WE ALREADY KNOW THIS