I find that writing with ai is far superior both in terms of results and for my memory. Writers like Neal won’t be competitive for much longer. It’s time to put the pencils down.
Bit late, but since I don’t see any correct answers here - no a jury is not required here. The judge chose to convene an *advisory* jury here — likely to strengthen the factual findings of the court and maybe to save the court itself some time/effort.
Not a lawyer but generally it is as you say: "because the trials suck after a while cuz no one remembers anything". It's not fair to have a trial when the evidence is unreliable because of the flow of time.
Encouraging timely action is another factor. Generally people with real harms will file sooner than later, otherwise why wait?
It's also to grant peace of mind -- so people can stop worrying about potential litigation after some amount of time.
Are you a lawyer? IANAL but my understanding is it would be difficult for an appeal to succeed. Appeals courts only evaluate review matters of law, not of fact. Whether is has been more than the 3 year limit the statute of limitations places is a matter of fact I think. And the advisory jury makes this much harder to appeal. What do you think the grounds for appeal will be?
I'm not saying it will succeed, but what counts as having passed the statue of limitations and various workarounds and modifications of the time period particularly in cases like this where the acts in question weren't necessarily a single event but progressive activity is the kind of question which is the bread and butter of an appeals court.
> particularly in cases like this where the acts in question weren't necessarily a single event but progressive activity is the kind of question which is the bread and butter of an appeals court.
No, findings of disputed fact - like when Musk had reason to know of his injury, are determined by a jury (or a bench judge). Appeals courts examine whether the law was applied correctly, not what the jury's fact finding was. There may be an avenue of appeal that the jury was improperly instructed, but determining questions of fact are exactly -not- the bread and butter of an appeals court.
I wonder if this could be used for doping in aerobic sports? Could this elevate overall oxygen intake in a healthy person?
My vague understanding is that oxygen intake is a big limiting factor in aerobic activities hence measurement of things like vo2max in sports science. ‘Blood doping’ has similar benefits though it’s also about having more blood period.
It seems unlikely that one could take a big enough suppository to help in a meaningful way in a marathon, but in a middle distance race lasting only a few minutes…
It seems unlikely, athletes are consuming liters of oxygen per minute. Plus, the impact is at least partially offset by needing to carry the extra weight with you.
Different story for apnea sports like freediving where a little bit of extra oxygen goes a long way.
Isn't liquid oxygen cryogenic (boils at -183C)? The engineering of keeping that ...there... gets interesting fast, especially when dealing with all the cold (absorbed heat from expanding gas) and containing the pressure while also releasing oxygen slowly.
The oxygen gas is dissolved into a different liquid, some kind of perfluorate in this case. You can put more oxygen molecules in a given volume when dissolved in a liquid than if you just compress the gas.
But oxygen dissolved or otherwise absorbed in a material is fair game. Even without anything fancy, water can contain about 1% free oxygen, which is 8x what you could do with gaseous oxygen (which is in turn 5x what atmospheric mixture has).
And there are a lot of chemical reactions that can produce oxygen much better than 1%. The trick is going to be avoiding heat changes.
In a trained person, the limiting factor as I understand it is the capacity of one’s blood cells to carry oxygen to the muscles. This method does not make more blood cells unlike the common doping methods used for aerobic sports like blood doping, artificial EPO.
Cyclists have been doping by taking transfusions of their own, previously donated blood. The extra blood cells can then carry more oxygen than a non-treated human.
The surface area of your lungs is like a tennis court, there is a significant difference.
This is being talked about in the ballpark of partial assistance during severe respiratory failure so more like delaying organ damage during a crisis than boosting peak athletic performance.
Hyperloglog analyses generally assume access to the full data stream, and so are O(n) at a minimum. Perhaps by running hyperloglog on a sublinear sample of the dataset you'd get an algorithm in this class.
You have it precisely backwards. "Developing scenes in which the reader discovers what kind of people they are" is synonymous with "show" and "being told" is literally a form of "tell."
The two instances of "instead of" have opposing senses. The grammar can't be interpreted without the semantics. Anyway, it seems other people find this OK, which is interesting to me.
Below is the context in TFA, and the quote's form with show/tell placeholders:
she informed one writer that their “story is certainly worth telling,” but they
"[tell] instead of [show], [show] instead of [tell]."
I can read the second part as a directive (I'd use a semi-colon instead of a comma to show this myself). I bet the original letter's connection (instead of "but they" in TFA) supports this.
It feeds into my nascent theory that grammar is not necessary for everyday human communication, and its function is ornamental, like patterns on clothing, signifying social position. (Of course, it is useful in precise technical exposition and argument; though there's still greater precision in numerical quantification and first order logic.)
Grammar is the greatest joy in life, don't you find?
I don’t know English grammar, but I don’t think inverting the position of the show/tell would be against Brazilian Portuguese grammar.
I think a grammar is certainly necessary for everyday communication though. Not the academically decided normative grammar for a whole language. But every verbal communication follows grammatical rules, most of the time different from the written grammar and normative grammar, but rather a grammar agreed among the people that form a group that speaks that local grammar.
My grammatical issue is not the swapping itself, but the introduction of "but they" (indicating a problem with what the author has done) being applied to the swapping. That makes sense for the first part, tell not show, but not for the second part, show not tell (which is what the author should do).
Is grammar necessary? The original "lingua franca", an English pidgin, was a trade language around the Mediterranean, therefore economically very advantageous, yet has minimal grammar.
People can communicate with gestures.
One does need a way to qualify some specific part, e.g. if we negate something, what exactly are we negating? Maybe I have too restricted a definition of "grammar", but I think of the Chomsky Hierarchy, which are all sequential, i.e., with order dependence. I think the target of negation can be indicated without position, e.g. so "not tree" and "tree not" are not a sequential grammar (a commutative grammar?) Negation of a part could also be denoted with inflection, or gestures.
One could argue all this is a kind of grammar; but it's so far from what we normally call grammar that I think it's overstretching the concept.
