This is not legal advice, but here's what I would do:
1. Recognize that they have requested exactly four specific actions from you (bullet points, second page)
2. Do not follow the 4th bullet point, affirming in writing any future conduct only opens you up to liability. (By affirming, you'd create some agreement that they could later make hay about you breaching if they're not happy with your future conduct.)
3. Follow the 3rd bullet point rigorously. They do have a claim on Trademark infringement, and that will hold up well enough. Clean it up ASAP.
4. Take a legal position on where you stand vis-a-vis the LinkedIn User Agreement.
- BrowserFlow (or Road to Ramen LLC) is not a party to that agreement, so you can argue that you're not bound by it. The individual person who is using BrowserFlow is, since they have a LinkedIn account.
- If you want to play it safe, remove the LinkedIn examples from your website. (Bullet two.)
- I would not change the existing functionality of BrowserFlow -- my view here is that this is general-purpose tech and BrowserFlow doesn't have an agreement with LinkedIn. Any consequence of misuse of BrowserFlow is on the end-user, not you. (As spelled out by the terms at https://browserflow.app/terms, which contain a limitation of liability section.)
Do prepare for your LinkedIn account to be banned though.
There's a difference between "recruiters reaching out" and "spam that doesn't match my skills or experience at all from recruiters that barely seem to listen when I tell them that and insist on offering me a job that's not even remotely a good fit".
It really depends on how you look at it. If I get a whole bunch of fake AI matches from Tinder, I don't see that as a good thing either. Unless of course, fake AI is your 'thing'...
This is absolutely terrible and irresponsible advice. "Declare bankruptcy immediately and protect your assets" is the worst possible way to handle the situation, since:
1. Losing the court case does exactly what you don't want to happen here;
2. On top of that, you get to go bankrupt! Ruin!
It's much worse than that. You will be on the hook for garnished wages for years to pay off your creditors. And you will have plenty of creditors because the GP's advice says "go lose a civil case". You know what a civil case has? Damages. You know how large the damages are if your strategy is to lose? Big. They have a trademark case so they could get attorney's fees. We're talking about a seven figure bill in fees alone if the case goes to trial. Following this advice could have the OP getting his wages garnished as long as he lives to pay off a multimillion dollar debt. Good luck with that.
Wrong. That is the whole point of declaring bankruptcy, because the debts can't be paid. Nearly all debt, including civil damages, will be wiped clean, and this includes one's own attorneys fees. Why would you say these things when it is abundantly clear you have absolutely no idea? If what you said was true, no one would ever declare bankruptcy. It's the whole point of it, to be free of debt. No one gets their wages garnished after declaring bankruptcy. Never happened, ever.
Depends on the type of bankruptcy and in what jurisdiction. Even in the US with very creditor-favourable bankruptcy laws, you can’t just declare bankruptcy to get out of financial obligations: owing a bunch of people money is not the basis for bankruptcy. Yes, if bankruptcy is approved, wage garnishing will stop, but it can resume depending on the type! Bankruptcy is not a get out of debt free card, it’s the last stop after ruin.
Before ruin, you mean. It prevents ruin, defranchising and homelessness. The worst thing about it is what it does to your credit rating. That's not unbearable.
> I increased my account by 5x since the lows of covid to present with simple large cap tech and etf strategies (...)
You managed to make money on a levered high-beta strategy in a zero interest rate environment? If you don't know who the rube is in a market, it's you. Add a bit of volatility and the smart kids at Jane Street will eat your portfolio. They are on both sides of every trade, taking your money no matter what you do.
The days of the "good track record" traders in the public markets have been over for 15 years. Forget your strategies, park your money in SPX and thank me later.
That's not the right frame of reference to use. Yes, they're a little more pollutive than cycling or walking. However, they're also much faster. Scooters compete with cars, not with walking. And it is obvious that scooters are much more environmentally friendly than people driving or purchasing cars.
It's kind of amazing how we just ignore the massive environmental toll of cars, and then hyper optimize for tiny tiny amounts of smaller emissions that don't mean a thing.
Unfortunately our cultural and political biases prevent us from making the best choices all too often. We have a big discussion about whether it's ok for these small scooters to exist, but never question the far more damaging status quo.
there's history of big business actively promoting that, such as plastic recycling campaigns pushed by big oil. i think it was mark fisher who wrote about capitalism managing its own critique within itself rather than try to defend its own crap as ideal - that it keeps the debate framed away from them or real (revolutionary) solutions, and where you can even now point at your neighbor as one of the climate criminals instead of joining with that neighbor against the real enemy
with the level of organization and resources big business have, meaning years-long organized campaigning and learning what strategies work, it's hard to see how common people who dip in and out of political engagement have a hope against that
Sure, food is a way of sharing cultures and connecting to some common history -- I agree with you that these are all means of self-expression and connection -- but I'm not really interested in this mode of expression.
And for most other parts of life, that's a legitimate position and you're allowed to opt out. Don't like musicals? Don't watch them. There are lots of things from which people derive emotional, cultural, community and individual value -- and where other people choose not to participate, and that's broadly seen as fine.
But food is in a different, much more oppressive position: I'm not allowed to opt out. I am forced to participate, to some extent by cultural forces, and more broadly by the primitive cravings of my body. And the fact that I don't have much choice about participation is a fact that I do not like.
To sum up the weird way that we all watch a ton of porn but don't talk about it, sex spreads disease and risks childbirth.
Reading doesn't.
Because it is so dangerous it becomes a taboo thing, it can't be public and widespread otherwise it would cause huge damage. So it's kept where it is safe, behind closed doors and between relatively small numbers of individuals that you don't end up with is massive web of connections that links all of society together.
> the Department of Homelessness itself applies a multiplier of 2.89 to the PIT count to estimate how many individuals are homeless not just on one day but throughout the entire year.
The PIT number seems like the best single number to use. Unlike the one you quote, PIT is not influenced by the somewhate arbitrary choice of a year as a unit of measure. And even if you include people who are homeless for a single day over the entire year (who are, as the article mentions, also spending time in jail or the hospital, which get their own budget), the difference is less than 3x.
Sorry, I wasn't aware of that. I was under the impression that palliative care is (at least generally) end-of-life comfort for the dying. I wish I had chosen a more appropriate term.
It’s ok, not the first time someone has gotten that impression about palliative care. It’s something that my spouse has to constantly reinforce with her patients and their families. Thanks for sharing the article. The point you’re making is important.
I to tought that it was a branch of medicine dedicated to the relief of the suffering of those who are afflicted with a disease that will eventually kill them. But clearly you indicate that it's more than that so I would like to know.
Her elevator speech definition: Palliative care is a whole person approach to medicine for patients with a terminal diagnosis who are still undergoing active treatment.
FWIW definitions like that didn't help me understand what palliative care means in practice or what it would have done for me as a caregiver, apart from its well-defined subset of hospice. People kept asking me if I had considered "palliative care", but could never define what it was. I don't think that was just a polite way of saying hospice - it was a distinct group at the same VNA. It didn't help that this palliative team I tried talking to was small and there was some administrative weirdness. In the end it didn't matter for me - full on hospice was definitively appropriate, and they did their job very well. But in the interests of helping others in a similar situation, more concrete explanations of the mechanics would help!
Sure, all data is on other people's servers, but the point is that you have tamper-proof, globally distributed, redundant copies of that data. Storing a piece of data on Ethereum is way different from hosting it on a single cloud machine.
Storing data on Ethereum is absurdly expensive, but further, it simply provides a different value proposition than running your own personal server. These ideas aren’t mutually exclusive, nor can they reasonably serve the same needs.
1. Recognize that they have requested exactly four specific actions from you (bullet points, second page)
2. Do not follow the 4th bullet point, affirming in writing any future conduct only opens you up to liability. (By affirming, you'd create some agreement that they could later make hay about you breaching if they're not happy with your future conduct.)
3. Follow the 3rd bullet point rigorously. They do have a claim on Trademark infringement, and that will hold up well enough. Clean it up ASAP.
4. Take a legal position on where you stand vis-a-vis the LinkedIn User Agreement.
- BrowserFlow (or Road to Ramen LLC) is not a party to that agreement, so you can argue that you're not bound by it. The individual person who is using BrowserFlow is, since they have a LinkedIn account.
- If you want to play it safe, remove the LinkedIn examples from your website. (Bullet two.)
- I would not change the existing functionality of BrowserFlow -- my view here is that this is general-purpose tech and BrowserFlow doesn't have an agreement with LinkedIn. Any consequence of misuse of BrowserFlow is on the end-user, not you. (As spelled out by the terms at https://browserflow.app/terms, which contain a limitation of liability section.)
Do prepare for your LinkedIn account to be banned though.