The whole point of corporations is that they can sue and be sued like a natural person can - they have legal personhood, and can pursue and defend actions in their own name.
I assume the portion of the first link you're referring to is the section that starts
> Courts have also split on whether corporations may be held liable under the ATS.
This is a question about the ATS and its scope specifically; the source is not discussing the nature of corporations generally.
It sounds like the scope of the ATS is fairly ill-defined, and that at various points courts have looked for whatever reasons they could to limit its scope, and whether a corporation was involved has just been one of those reasons.
Romans didn't use chariots, except for chariot racing. For military purposes, they used cavalry and footsoldiers. For domestic transport, they used wagons. And as far as I'm aware, they never constructed "tunnels" for transport - are you referring to mine tunnels?
GP is probably referring to the standard railroad gauge which is alleged [1] to have been derived from the width of roman chariot wheels and which would have driven the train tunnel width in modern times.
What? No, it's a Latin word, and not a distortion of anything. It's a conjugation of the verb 'gero', which has several meanings - but when put next to 'bene', most likely means 'to behave, conduct oneself, comport oneself'. You can see the conjugation table here: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/gero#Latin. And it forms part of the legal Latin phrase 'Quamdiu se bene gesserit', or 'So long as he shall behave himself properly'. (https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/978019...).
We don't know what Herbert actually meant by "Bene Gesserit", or even whether it has strictly one meaning, since he never elaborated on that. Given how syncretic everything else is, it is entirely plausible that there are multiple references encoded in the name. The Latin one is fairly obvious given that they refer to each other as "Reverend Mothers".
But then note that Bene Tleilaxu is clearly not Latin, and makes more sense if you interpret the word "bene" ("bani") in its Arabic meaning - "descendants of", in practice often referring to tribes and similar groupings (as in Bani Quraish or Bani Isra'il) - Tleilax being their home planet. If we apply the same to "Bene Gesserit", it would mean "Daughters of ???". One possibility then would be Arabic "Jazirah", "peninsula".
An even more interesting theory along these lines is that "Gesserit" refers to the mythical demon-slaying hero-king Gesser (aka Geser aka Gesar) of the Mongolian and Tibetan folklore. In Mongolian, "... of Gesar" is "Geseriyn". Gesar is the Chosen Son of the Sky God (head of the pantheon), the first man who descended from Heaven to purge the world of evil demons that menace humanity - it sure does make for some interesting parallels with Kwizats Haderach...
Again, to re-iterate, it's entirely possible that all of these are simultaneously true. Herbert liked referencing obscure (to his culture) folklore, so a play on words like this could well be intentional.
Interestingly enough that ticket is about preserving and/or following - I would be happy with ignoring so it doesn’t end up in an infinite loop - as it stands a self referencing symlink with files in the same directory will result in either your disk filling up, your inodes filling up, or a maximum bested paths error (assuming your FS has such a thing).
Edit: and until the ticket you just linked, I assumed scp and cp were intended to be close equivalents, given the whole ending in ‘cp’ thing.
The Sunk-cost fallacy is when you weight the value of something disproportionately because of effort or expense you've put into it.
But if you've got an OS that's certified for the work you're doing, and it's not costing you extra to work on that OS, then there's no fallacy - you're getting more value out of the cost of certification you've incurred, and shifting to some other OS would presumably require you to incur the expense of certification again.
That said, the skills needed to work with a legacy OS will tend to become rarer, so you ought to factor that into your calculations.
I assume the portion of the first link you're referring to is the section that starts
> Courts have also split on whether corporations may be held liable under the ATS.
This is a question about the ATS and its scope specifically; the source is not discussing the nature of corporations generally.
It sounds like the scope of the ATS is fairly ill-defined, and that at various points courts have looked for whatever reasons they could to limit its scope, and whether a corporation was involved has just been one of those reasons.