|
Canine Blues Arooo posted:In any situation that doesn't deal with explicit sig figs, zeros are implied. 5 is 5.0000.., 12.058 is 12.05800000.. 4cm is 4.0000.. cm. 6.5 kilos is 6.500000.. kilos and 5:00pm is 5:00:00.000000.. pm You seem to be forgetting that tomatoes are vegetables as far as the government is concerned. The law cares not for the ways of science.
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2020 20:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 16:06 |
|
|
Which is exactly why you need to stop using PM.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2020 20:27
|
|
|
Canine Blues Arooo posted:In any situation that doesn't deal with explicit sig figs, zeros are implied. 5 is 5.0000.., 12.058 is 12.05800000.. 4cm is 4.0000.. cm. 6.5 kilos is 6.500000.. kilos and 5:00pm is 5:00:00.000000.. pm Not entirely accurate when it comes to deadlines. I've personally seen multiple systems that ask for something to be submitted online "by 11:59pm" which will happily accept something submitted at 11:59:59.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2020 20:49
|
|
|
Anonymous Zebra posted:Not entirely accurate when it comes to deadlines. I've personally seen multiple systems that ask for something to be submitted online "by 11:59pm" which will happily accept something submitted at 11:59:59. You're describing a system based in computer code, essentially a wildly convoluted mess of yes/no & and/or, which doesn't really seem directly comparable to real world legal application.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2020 20:56
|
|
|
pentyne posted:You're describing a system based in computer code, essentially a wildly convoluted mess of yes/no & and/or, which doesn't really seem directly comparable to real world legal application. 11:59PM is a good way of protecting clock-illiterate people from themselves who don't know what 12AM means
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2020 21:00
|
|
|
DaveSauce posted:You seem to be forgetting that tomatoes are vegetables as far as the government is concerned.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2020 21:36
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Which is exactly why you need to stop using PM. I’m...not sure you understand the purpose or meaning of PM in regards to time. It literally has no impact here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2020 21:42
|
|
|
Devor posted:11:59PM is a good way of protecting clock-illiterate people from themselves who don't know what 12AM means It's a good way of not having severe confusion about what day it is, when it is precisely midnight. E.g., if I tell you something is due "by midnight Wednesday" do you think that means the divider between Tuesday and Wednesday, or the divider between Wednesday and Thursday? Which, now that it's come up: what does the law say?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2020 21:53
|
|
|
What is the federal filing deadline. How is it stated? It’s by day so you can file at 11:59:59 Another good way to state it is “by the close of business” on a particular day It’s great and subtle
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2020 00:34
|
|
|
pentyne posted:You're describing a system based in computer code, essentially a wildly convoluted mess of yes/no & and/or, which doesn't really seem directly comparable to real world legal application. Ah, but how do they know Kayne filed 14 seconds late if it wasn't a computer doing the recording? Was a clerk starring at a clock to discern that it was 14 seconds late? Could a case be made that if said clerk was not starring at a clock that 15 seconds could have been saved in filing? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2020 09:03
|
|
|
DaveSauce posted:You seem to be forgetting that tomatoes are vegetables as far as the government is concerned. I agree with this but the post you quoted is talking about essentially legal definitions rather than scientific ones (aside from the bridge one). Weight limits are just rules same as time limits. Having said that, 2.2oz of something feels more like 5.20pm (I don't really know imperial though tbh). If you had 2.001oz of something with a 2oz limit you would presumably be fine? At it's heart this is a question of how granular measurements should be, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2020 09:17
|
|
|
Organza Quiz posted:I agree with this but the post you quoted is talking about essentially legal definitions rather than scientific ones (aside from the bridge one). Weight limits are just rules same as time limits. I would disagree, the discussion was regarding significant digits and how they impact measurement, not necessarily the definition of a limit. The definition of the limit seems pretty clear: "No later than 5:00" implies that it is inclusive of the 5:00 deadline. For it to have been late, it would have to say, "earlier than 5:00," which would exclude the deadline. It's basically an argument between "less than" or "less than or equal to." They are different statements, and they are clear as to what they mean. The question here is whether 5:00:14 is "no later than 5:00" or not. The law appears to be treating the extra seconds as insignificant digits such that 5:00:00 is equal to 5:00:14. In a scientific context where 5:00 was the extent of the significant digits, this would be correct. Being that the statement in question is, "no later than 5:00," it would be reasonable to say that 5:00:xx is no later than 5:00 since the xx are insignificant digits and are thus ignored. But the argument put forward is that when significant digits are not explicit, then the number is presumed to be exact. So in the case of 5:00:xx, the xx is important because it was not otherwise stated that they are not. I was never very good at significant digits so I don't agree or disagree with this assessment, but it's moot because, to my and your point, the law seems to use its own mechanisms to define this rather than rely on established scientific methods. Organza Quiz posted:If you had 2.001oz of something with a 2oz limit you would presumably be fine? This is actually the heart of the argument, not the definition of the limit. In a scientific setting, when the rules say you can have no more than 2.00 oz of a thing, and you have 2.001oz of a thing, you'd be fine. If the rules say you can have no more than 2.000 oz of a thing, then you would NOT be fine. The presence of that last 0 to the right of the decimal is critical.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2020 12:16
|
|
|
That just means that scientific language has a convention to make it clear what a particular written amount means. It looks like the jurisdiction in question doesn't have such a convention, but will develop one as a result of this case.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2020 12:33
|
|
|
Organza Quiz posted:That just means that scientific language has a convention to make it clear what a particular written amount means. It looks like the jurisdiction in question doesn't have such a convention, but will develop one as a result of this case. Right, that's exactly what I'm saying. The law doesn't use established scientific norms, it uses its own mechanisms.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2020 12:38
|
|
|
Devor posted:11:59PM is a good way of protecting clock-illiterate people from themselves who don't know what 12AM means I know what 12 A.M. and 12 P.M. are by convention, but by god, they should never be used. Noon isn’t post meridiem. It is the very definition of midday. 12:00:00.000001 P.M. is fine. The microsecond before is just “noon”. Leperflesh posted:It's a good way of not having severe confusion about what day it is, when it is precisely midnight. E.g., if I tell you something is due "by midnight Wednesday" do you think that means the divider between Tuesday and Wednesday, or the divider between Wednesday and Thursday? This isn’t a legal answer, but historically, days weren’t broken at midnight. It’s an inconvenient time to measure before the advent of mechanical clocks. There were cultures where a new day began at dusk, and there were cultures where the day began at noon. Either leads to the conclusion that “midnight on the eighth of August” is preceded by 11:59 P.M. on the eighth of August. Or it could be interpreted as ambiguous against whichever party drafted the contract. I suspect that’s not actually the legal answer, but it would amuse me. Platystemon fucked around with this message at 13:11 on Aug 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2020 12:58
|
|
|
pentyne posted:essentially a wildly convoluted mess of yes/no & and/or what do you think law is
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2020 13:02
|
|
|
JesustheDarkLord posted:what do you think law is I wildly convoluted mess of caprice,maybe, in most situations (but not this one), the totality of circumstances, the judge had scrambled instead of hard-boiled eggs for breakfast, ipse dixit, gently caress you poor, arbitrariness, and money, with just enough of a whiff of justice to make you try it again tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2020 14:25
|
|
|
Dear God
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2020 14:42
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:I know what 12 A.M. and 12 P.M. are by convention, but by god, they should never be used. Yes, exactly. Don't say PM if you don't mean PM, in fact don't use PM at all and you avoid all the confusion. And don't even get me started on AM.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2020 14:57
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2020 17:03
|
|
|
Anonymous Zebra posted:Ah, but how do they know Kayne filed 14 seconds late if it wasn't a computer doing the recording? Was a clerk starring at a clock to discern that it was 14 seconds late? Could a case be made that if said clerk was not starring at a clock that 15 seconds could have been saved in filing? This is actually one of the contentions of the Kanye team's filing: quote:17. As an initial matter, even as far is counsel is aware, there is no official timekeeping mechanism for the filing of nomination papers with the Wisconsin Elections Commission (the “Commission”). There is no official paperwork or timestamp demonstrating that the nomination paperwork was filed late. See Aff. of Ruhland. While a Commission staffer stated that it was 14 seconds after 5 p.m., there was nothing provided by the Commission’s staff to verify that information. Id. Again, there was no timestamp provided and the Commission accepted the documents for filing. Id. Furthermore, given that seconds were obviously critical in this situation, it is vital to be able to know and evaluate the precise timepiece used by Commission staff in accepting the filing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2020 20:46
|
|
|
The reporting isn’t hearsay . Terrible drafting !!
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2020 22:08
|
|
|
I have a question on whether or not it is worth it for my wife to sue her former employer. We are in New York. My wife is currently 9 weeks pregnant. She informed HR of this about two weeks ago. She called out on Thursday for being too nauseous to drive, called her doctor, and her doctor said to take a specific medication and take off Friday for some extra rest while it takes effect. She tells the appropriate parties this. On Friday, the next day, she is told to call HR, and when she does they tell her she is fired. They say in the termination letter that she didn't finish a project on time that was due today, and also claim she didn't do a project on the 5th, when she went to her OBGYN for an ultrasound. She works for a lab where everyone does eachothers' work when the other ones aren't there. Technically speaking she is the lowest ranked, and the projects they say she didn't complete aren't even her position's responsibility or in her job description. Frankly I'm absolutely furious that they would do this to her and I cannot believe they would put this kind of stress on someone in this stage of pregnancy but, even though pregnancy is supposed to be a protected class, will anything really meaningfully happen if she sues for discrimination and wrongful termination? As long as the lab makes any kind of excuse that isn't lierally 'yeah we fired her because she's pregnant', will they get away with this? Yawgmoft fucked around with this message at 03:46 on Aug 15, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2020 03:35
|
|
|
Your wife should call an employment ( not labor) law attorney immediately
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2020 03:56
|
|
|
She did, and she talked to a paralegal about the facts of the case, they told her they will call back Monday with their thoughts. I was just wondering the general thoughts on whether this would be worth it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2020 04:16
|
|
|
The kneejerk response at least for non-employment lawyers will be hard yes, specifically for violations of the Family Medical Leave Act and Pregnancy Discrimination Act, but the employment lawyer will be able to assess the extent to which those apply along with state-specific remedies.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2020 04:56
|
|
|
Minnesota. I'm an electronic technician. We have a new product line that requires networking support. At the other branches, this is handled by the IT department. We do not have an IT department at my branch, so the logic is, "Skunkduster is the service guy, he will do it". My manager doesn't understand that fixing electronic equipment and computer networking are not the same thing at all. I feel like it is no different than them telling me that I am going to take on the additional duties of marketing or accounting or some other position that I am not trained nor qualified to do. Is my only option to take on the additional responsibilities (with no increase in pay) or find a new job?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2020 18:13
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:Minnesota. I'm an electronic technician. We have a new product line that requires networking support. At the other branches, this is handled by the IT department. We do not have an IT department at my branch, so the logic is, "Skunkduster is the service guy, he will do it". My manager doesn't understand that fixing electronic equipment and computer networking are not the same thing at all. I feel like it is no different than them telling me that I am going to take on the additional duties of marketing or accounting or some other position that I am not trained nor qualified to do. Is my only option to take on the additional responsibilities (with no increase in pay) or find a new job? Practically yes, but you should be putting out a very definitive 'I'm not qualified or competent to perform these specialist duties, even attempting to do them will put *things skunkduster does as his actual job* at risk, I'll do what I'm directed to but I want to be sure you are aware I think this is a very bad idea that will result in angry customers" email to your manager and possibly HR. Talk to your manager about this email before you write it. If the real problem is that higher up won't stump up the cash for an IT department then this might be useful leverage for both of you. e: yeah there's a legal answer depending on your employment contract and local law, but it's not a path that's realistically likely to get you anywhere other than a long detour to 'find a new job'. Alchenar fucked around with this message at 18:36 on Aug 15, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2020 18:33
|
|
|
That's what I figured, but it's good to get some professional confirmation. Maybe I can use it as leverage to get a raise, but I'm right back to either accepting whatever they want to pay me or find a new job. I haven't seen anything better on Indeed for months, so I'm pretty much bluffing with nothing in my hand.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2020 18:46
|
|
|
This is a very common thing to file a grievance on... if you have a union and a union contract.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2020 12:48
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:That's what I figured, but it's good to get some professional confirmation. Maybe I can use it as leverage to get a raise, but I'm right back to either accepting whatever they want to pay me or find a new job. I haven't seen anything better on Indeed for months, so I'm pretty much bluffing with nothing in my hand. The other angle you can take, coming from an IT worker but not that kind of IT, is that in networking there's absolutely such a thing as enough knowledge to be dangerous. A system can seem totally functional while actually exposing proprietary data to the whole world. Depending on what data is being communicated and how, there may even be legal requirements on how you secure it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2020 15:44
|
|
|
Hypothetical question on Firearms. In New Hampshire you don't need a concealed carry permit anymore. Assume a motorist in NH keeps a pistol in his glove box, gets pulled over, reaches for his driver's license and registration the same glove box. The police officer sees the pistol, pulls out his handgun, and yell for the driver to put his hands up. The driver, startled, pulls his hands out of the glove box, knocking the pistol out and it falls on the passenger seat. The Cop then shoots the motorist. Does the cop have a reasonable cause to shoot the driver? Does anyone go to jail?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2020 16:20
|
|
|
Is the motorist white? Then there’s a tiny chance the cop goes to jail. Otherwise, not a chance in hell.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2020 16:23
|
|
|
Aren't there generally rules about immediately telling the officer you have a weapon in the vehicle? Anyhow, what Kalman said, with the addition that they'll find drugs on the black guy as needed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2020 17:16
|
|
|
daslog posted:Hypothetical question on Firearms. If the motorist survives they might go to jail for resisting arrest. The cop might get a few weeks of paid vacation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2020 17:52
|
|
|
Bad Munki posted:Aren't there generally rules about immediately telling the officer you have a weapon in the vehicle? you should probably announce it. I think people used to hang their hands out the window when they pulled over, but I'm basing that on what a high school teacher told me while drinking "apple juice"
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2020 18:51
|
|
|
Bad Munki posted:Aren't there generally rules about immediately telling the officer you have a weapon in the vehicle? Ask Philando Castile’s widow how announcing he had a weapon worked out. (And what happened to the officer who shot him.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2020 19:12
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Ask Philando Castile’s widow how announcing he had a weapon worked out. (And what happened to the officer who shot him.) Was about to post this. Again, if you're white, it's alright. If you're black, it's gonna be whack.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2020 19:19
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Ask Philando Castile’s widow how announcing he had a weapon worked out. (And what happened to the officer who shot him.) Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those "just follow the rules and you'll be fine!" types.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2020 20:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 16:06 |
|
|
My office has been getting slammed with requests for money from photographers who we improperly credited 5+ years ago, and I'm assuming this is ramping up right now as people are stuck at home. So I searched for my own work and found a few images being used on news sites that I definitely didn't authorize and that I still have full copyright over. What's the best way to reach out to try to get some cash from this?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2020 20:56
|
|
