Andrew North & The Rangers - Full Show 1/20/2023
EXPECTATIONS
No title available

Janaina Medeiros
YOU ARE THE REASON
Cosmic Funnies
đ
cherry valley forever
Monterey Bay Aquarium
sheepfilms
todays bird
Peter Solarz
Today's Document
noise dept.
One Nice Bug Per Day
trying on a metaphor
đ©” avery cochrane đ©”

Kiana Khansmith
Claire Keane
Not today Justin
Misplaced Lens Cap

seen from Brazil
seen from United Arab Emirates
seen from United Arab Emirates
seen from Egypt

seen from United Kingdom

seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from TĂŒrkiye
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from TĂŒrkiye

seen from Malaysia
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from TĂŒrkiye
@andrewgrosvenor
Andrew North & The Rangers - Full Show 1/20/2023
Hopefully youâre already familiar with the basics of forming a B-Corp. The fun really begins when you take the next step and conduct a B-Corp Assessment.There are two facets to becoming a B-Corp: First, you can form your company as a legal Benefit Corporation, which requires you to integrate a general benefit purpose into your corporate DNA. This corporate form is available in many, but not all states. Second, regardless of your companyâs status as a Benefit Corporation, you can seek certification as a B-Corp from B-Labs (yes, itâs confusing!). B-Labs is the nonprofit that c
Hopefully youâre already familiar with the basics of forming a B-Corp. The fun really begins when you take the next step and conduct a B-Corp Assessment.
There are two facets to becoming a B-Corp: First, you can form your company as a legal Benefit Corporation, which requires you to integrate a general benefit purpose into your corporate DNA. This corporate form is available in many, but not all states. Second, regardless of your companyâs status as a Benefit Corporation, you can seek certification as a B-Corp from B-Labs (yes, itâs confusing!). B-Labs is the nonprofit that creates B-Corp standards and model legislation. To become certified, you must score at least 80 or above on the assessment (scores range from 0 to 200). The assessment evaluates companies in five broad categories: Worker Impact, Community Impact, Environmental Impact, Long-Term Impact, and Core Impact...
Using technology based on the blockchain, he wants to move the stock-loan market onto the Internet.
Many players benefit from this little-discussed market. Sure, the borrowers can make some extra money. But the same goes for those who lend the securities out, including retirement funds and other large stock holders. They charge a fee for that loaned stock. And, yes, middlemen take a cut too, including prime brokers such as Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley and dedicated lending houses, or âagent lenders,â like BNY Melon and State Street. The agent lenders alone make about $19.2 million a day helping organizations lend out their stock, and the prime brokers likely make even more.
Itâs an enormously lucrative market. And itâs a market controlled by a relatively small group of players, most notably the prime brokers. âSecurities lending has historically been a closed network,â says Josh Galper, who runs a financial consulting firm, Finadium, that closely tracks stock loans. âIn order to lend or borrow securities, you need to be one of the players in this market.â
Patrick Byrne, the iconoclastic CEO of e-commerce site Overstock.com and an unwavering voice for reform on Wall Street, wants to bust this market open. Using technology based on the blockchainâthe technology that underpins the bitcoin digital currencyâhe wants to move the stock-loan market onto the Internet and put it in the hands of, well, everyone. He wants to break the hold of the agent lenders and prime brokers, arguing that, as it stands, they make untold amounts of money from the loan market without giving stock holders their proper share. âWeâre taking a market thatâs in the dark,â Byrne says, âand weâre putting it on an exchange.â
This is really cool.
For the first time in US history, a judge has decreed that a pair of chimpanzees held at a university research facility are covered by the same laws that govern the detention of humans, effectively rendering the animals as legal "people" in the eyes of the law. New York Supreme Court Justice Barbara Jaffe said that the apes, held at Stony Brook University for research purposes, are covered by a writ of habeas corpus â a basic legal principle that lets people challenge the validity of their detention.
This is a big deal.
Now the complex has more than 140 reviews, with 77 recommended reviews and 67 reviews that aren't recommended. (The numbers keep changing, of course.) On Yelp, filtered reviews aren't visible unless users specifically click to see them. Nearly all, if not all, of the reviews are from non-residents complaining about, or simply mocking, the building's Social Media Addendum. The addendum threatens tenants with fines of $10,000 if they write negative reviews. It also assigns copyright of tenants' writings and photos about the building. After being contacted by Ars, the building manager said the contract had been "voided for all residents."
I just have this sinking feeling that a lawyer came up with this idea...
B-Corps, a corporate form for the do-gooders
Shareholdersâ meetings are generally tame, scripted affairs, but Apple's 2014 meeting was memorable for CEO Tim Cook's well-publicized chastising of a shareholder who questioned whether the company's environmental efforts came at the expense of investor profits. The incident resonated with many who have become disillusioned by modern corporate culture. Surely companies can "do good" beyond solely generating profits. Apple has no legal obligation to do environmental or social goodâin fact, many law professors would argue that its only obligation is to create profit for its shareholders. Many consumers and investors are frustrated by this narrow view of corporate obligations, and in response 27 states have passed legislation creating a new corporate formâthe Benefit Corporation, or B-Corp. While it's unlikely that Apple would convert to a B-Corp, many household names have taken advantage of the new business form, such as Patagonia, Seventh Generation, and Warby Parker. Social responsibility is already a big part of the brand identity of each company, so B-Corp status seems a natural fit. The social missions of these companies do not appear to have hindered their profitability; all three are consumer favorites and enormously successful. New Hampshire passed its own B-Corp legislation, effective January 1, 2015, and if you own (or are starting) a socially-minded company the B-Corp form may help you achieve your goals. New companies may form as B-Corps, and existing companies may convert. Here's what's involved from a legal perspective: A B-Corp must have a corporate purpose of creating a "general public benefit" integrated into its governing documents. The law defines this benefit as "a material positive effect on society and the environment, taken as a whole, assessed against a third-party standard, from the business and operations of a benefit corporation.â B-Corps may also elect to pursue "specific public benefits" such as serving low-income populations or improving the environment. These public benefit purposes are memorialized in the company's controlling agreements and included in the required state filings. Redefining the corporate purpose broadens the fiduciary duties of corporate directors. B-Corp directors must consider the effects that company actions will have on: corporate profits; the company's employees; the interests of customers; the community (including communities where the company's offices, subsidiaries, and suppliers are located); the local and global environment; and the short and long-term interests of the company. Directors have considerable discretion in weighing these interests, and the law protects them from personal liability for money damages if the company fails to pursue public benefits. The law does not create any fiduciary duty of directors to the general public for general or specific public benefitsâin other words, a member of the public cannot sue the Directors for the companyâs failure to achieve its intended public benefits. The law sets out a special cause of action, called a benefit enforcement proceeding ("BEP"), to enforce the public benefit purposes. A BEP may be brought by the company itself or by its shareholders against the company, its directors, or its officers. A BEP serves to enforce the company's public benefit obligations, or to enforce the obligations of officers and directors under the B-Corp law. If a Company has failed to serve its public benefit purposes, the Secretary of State may revoke its status as a B-Corp. B-Corps must foster transparency by publishing an annual benefit report. This report must set out the ways in which the B-Corp has pursued its public benefit goals, the results of those efforts, and any circumstances that hindered those efforts. The report must also measure public benefit against some third-party standard, which the company may choose. The report must be filed with the Secretary of State, distributed to shareholders, and posted to the company's public website. Publicly traded B-Corps must also designate a benefit director, who is responsible for preparing the annual report. The B-Corp statute creates an additional layer of accountability for a company and provides a mechanism to enforce that accountability. Those interested primarily in social benefit may be best served by creating a non-profit, but for the new breed of socially-conscious entrepreneur out there, the B-Corp may be the ideal vehicle to generate profit and do some good at the same time. To learn more, visit bcorporation.net.
That's right lawyers - you do need to be marketing on twitter.
"Delhi Uber passenger who alleges driver rape sues in U.S.," from Reuters:
In a statement, Uber did not directly address the lawsuit but said it is cooperating fully with the authorities to ensure the perpetrator is brought to justice. "Our deepest sympathies remain with the victim of this horrific crime," the company said. India is Uber's largest market outside the United States by the number of cities covered, and the country's radio taxi market is estimated to be worth $6 billion to $9 billion. The rape allegation triggered protests and reignited a debate about the safety of women in Asia's third-largest economy, especially in New Delhi, which has been dubbed India's rape capital. India banned Uber in New Delhi last month following the allegations and arrest of the driver. But the company restarted services there last week and applied for a radio taxi license. The San Francisco-based company said it would not take any commission from its drivers in New Delhi until uncertainty over how it can operate in the country's capital city is cleared up. The woman, who reported being raped and beaten in early December after hailing a ride with the Uber driver, asks for an overhaul of Uber's safety practices, including localized 24-hour customer-support centers and in-car video cameras. She is also seeking unspecified damages from the U.S.-based company. Her attorney, Douglas Wigdor, has represented high-profile plaintiffs, including a hotel maid who accused former International Monetary Fund chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn of sexual assault. Uber, valued at $40 billion last month, said last week it would introduce additional safety measures including more stringent driver checks and an in-app emergency button. The Delhi case is one of several around the world, including one earlier this month in Chicago, in which passengers have accused their drivers of assault. The case in U.S. District Court, Northern District of California is Doe vs. Uber Technologies Inc, 15-424.
I would wager that Uber has the busiest legal team in tech today.
"AOL is shutting down its Apple blog TUAW" from the Verge:
AOL is also reorganizing its sales organization, according to sources familiar with the situation, and first reported by Recode. Currently, AOLâs most profitable division is its Membership Group, which includes its dial-up internet offerings (yes, it still exists) and pulled in $139.2 million in adjusted income in the third quarter.
AOL still makes $140M per quarter selling memberships for dial-up internet!? Wow...
One consequence of the thousands of breweries that have sprung up? Just about all the beer names you can imagine have been snapped up. That's making it harder for newcomers to name that brew.
Columbia? Taken. Mississippi? Taken. Sacramento? El Niño? Marlin? Grizzly? Sorry, they're all taken.
Virtually every large city, notable landscape feature, creature and weather pattern of North America â as well as myriad other words, concepts and images â has been snapped up and trademarked as the name of either a brewery or a beer. For newcomers to the increasingly crowded industry of more than 3,000 breweries, finding names for beers, or even themselves, is increasingly hard to do without risking a legal fight.
Sounds about right! This is one of the tricky aspects of the craft beer boom.
Traditionally, privacy worries for consumers and tech companies have been limited to keeping information secure from third parties or hackers. But a series of internal abuses show that tech company employees often have universal access to user information, as well as reason â be it pure voyeuristic curiosity or, in the worst cases, a vendetta â to look at our whereabouts, spending, and of the most private corners of our lives.
Fears of employee data abuse are founded, from the highest levels of government intelligence down to car-sharing apps. In 2013, reports revealed over a dozen instances in the past 10 years in which National Security Agency employees abused NSA surveillance to collect data on love interests, referred to internally as âLoveint.â At tech companies, where security measures and training are largely more relaxed, employees surveilling the location histories of ex-lovers, real-time tracking roommates, and looking at activity logs of friends of friends, is not only a plausible fear, but a new reality. Just last month, a New York Uber executive was investigated and reprimanded for tracking the whereabouts of a BuzzFeed News reporter without her permission.
For all the careful consideration and legal maneuvering of tech company terms of service and privacy policies, those documents rarely mention the weakest point in any companyâs security infrastructure: its employees. Clear, plainspoken explanations of employee access to user data are rarely, if ever, present in a privacy policy. But the reality is that thousands of tech company employees across the world now have unfettered access to our most personal data.
This is serious (and scary) stuff. Lawyers should be mindful of the ethical ramifications of using these services. What counts as confidential information? Is it limited to documents? What about your web history? Your calendar? Your location?Â
Lawyers are required to take reasonable steps to protect the confidentiality of lawyer-client communications. Is it possible to meet this standard if we know that information is open to all employees of the service provider?Â
As more stories like these surface, lawyers can no longer reasonably assume that companies are taking proper actions to protect the confidentiality of the information entrusted to them.Â
This is a serious problem for lawyers who see the benefits of using technology. Unfortunately, we're only just beginning to grapple with this...
It used to be that when the U.S. economy grew, workers up and down the economic ladder saw their incomes increase grow, too. But over the past 25 years, the economy has grown 83 percent, after adjusting for inflation â and the typical familyâs income hasnât budged. In that time, corporate profits doubled as a share of the economy. Workers today produce nearly twice as many goods and services per hour on the job as they did in 1989, but as a group, they get less of the nationâs economic pie. In 81 percent of Americaâs counties, the median income is lower today than it was 15 years ago.
Like the green wire-mesh cage that confines him, Tommy the chimpanzee is deemed âproperty,â not a person. A New York State appeals court made that clear last week when the five-judge panel denied a 26-year-old ape personhood and release from his enclosure.
The ruling is the latest setback for the animal rights group, Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP), in its battle to grant Tommy a writ of habeas corpus. Attorney Steven Wise, founder of the NhRP, has argued that chimpanzees qualify for legal personhood because they are autonomous, intelligent, and self-aware. âBoth as a matter of liberty and a matter of equality, you canât say that an autonomous person doesnât have any rights simply because he is a chimpanzee,â Wise told  Wired. âHe is remarkably like us, and he suffers like us.â
But to Wise's dismay, the court argued that because chimpanzees cannot bear legal duties or be held accountable for their actions, they couldnât receive personhood. Unlike humans and corporations, which can recognize the law and choose whether or not to abide by it, chimpanzees cannot know the law and cannot choose to follow or go against it. As such, chimpanzees cannot be held responsible for their actions under the law, and they cannot be given personhood.
âIn our view, it is this incapability to bear any legal responsibilities and societal duties that renders it inappropriate to confer upon chimpanzees the legal rightâ such as the fundamental right to liberty protected by the writ of habeas corpusâthat have been afforded to human beings,â Judge Karen Peters wrote in a statement.
Not sure that legal personhood is the right solution to these animal rights issues, but the Court has been forced to draw a very murky line here. How does this apply to infants? To the mentally disabled? The comatose? To dogs that serve as police officers? To artificial intelligence?Â
At some point, we will need to rethink our approach to this.
Heather Jarvis, a lawyer, hires herself out to law schools as a debt adviser. She argues that loan-relief programs should be expanded - and simplified. They're "so complicated and convoluted," says the North Carolina-based consultant, that it's hard for borrowers to figure out their best repayment option because it depends on their future earnings, career choices, and personal situation. "If you knew everything [about the terms for each choice], you still wouldn't be able to make the definitely perfect decision because it depends on all of these future situations that no one can predict, that haven't happened yet."
Recent grads' top complaint is that high interest rates make it impossible for most to keep their balances from growing. In Congress, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has proposed letting students refinance their school loans at somewhat lower rates (still higher than market rates for secured debt). Another idea, proposed by Rep. Tom Petri (R-Wis.), is to cap the amount of interest that student loans can accrue if a borrower agrees to pay off the full balance in monthly payments set for affordability. In June Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), chair of the Senate's Education Committee, proposed reinstating the ability to discharge private student debt in bankruptcy proceedings. But there's precious little political will to address the situation. Krinsky, the State Bar trustee, counts about 80 proposals pending at the state and federal levels.
Even before a penny of interest accrues, loan-origination fees typically put the borrower behind by more than 1 percent of the original balance. "It's money taken out before a loan is disbursed," UC Hastings Assistant Dean of Financial Aid Linda Bisesi told a State Bar committee in August. By allowing lenders to charge those fees, she says, "It seems to me that Congress is giving and taking away at the same time." Bisesi would like to see the Department of Education counsel students about managing debt both before and after their course of study. The true fix, though, is "to figure out a way that the cost of educating attorneys doesn't exceed the market value of attorneys."
Simply put, our elected representatives have completely failed to represent the interests of the students these loan programs supposedly help. The only option for many young attorneys is to watch their loan balance grow for 2 decades and then receive an enormous tax bill when the remaining balance is forgiven. This is unsustainable, but it's typical of our nation's failed approach to higher education.
Even when itâs not all about us, the pressure to keep working full-tilt can be intense. As one successful consultant friend told me, âThere are a lot of people that depend on me â the people who report to me, the people I mentor, and my clients. Itâs very hard to turn away from them and let them down.â Indeed, when he recently cut back his travel schedule due to several family health crises, he got significant pushback from his colleagues. âI get emails and phone calls every day:Â we missed you at the meeting.â Grappling with divided loyalties can be challenging. âIt hurts because some of them can sound scolding,â he says, âbut I have to stick to my plan.â
Even when we know working to excess isnât good for us, itâs hard to cut back. Most of us arenât as extreme as the investment bank intern who died in London after allegedly working 72 hours straight to impress his bosses. But according to Christensen, we may not be that different, either: itâs a matter of degree, and timing. Overwork may not kill us tomorrow, but â  if left unaddressed â it may kill our most important relationships in 10 or 20 years.
How do we strike a balance, particularly when work itself can be so gratifying? (My consultant friend says his intense schedule is the result of his desire to âmake a difference in peopleâs lives, and I am good at it. That is very hard to give up and it keeps a lot of people happy.â) True success means recognizing our real, individual priorities and, as best we can, living them out today instead of pinning our hopes on some mythical future state of âIâll be happy whenâŠâ
That last line just about sums it all up. Focusing on happiness now, rather than in the future, is the one change that can transform your life.
With this in mind, they conducted a final experiment, again turning to politics. This time, they explored 174 peopleâs stance on same-sex marriage. All participants read a passage comparing the success of children raised by same-sex and opposite-sex parents. One version of the passage stated that both groups turned out equally well, while the other version stated that children of opposite-sex parents have better outcomes. Participants then rated whether the legality of same-sex marriage and the outcomes for children of same-sex parents are entirely matters of opinion, or entirely matters of fact.
As the researchers predicted, people who supported same-sex marriage, and read the âworse outcomesâ passage contradicting their position, answered that these questions were matters purely of opinion. People who were against same-sex marriage and read the âsame outcomesâ passage also emphasized opinion. Meanwhile, people who had read a passage confirming their viewpoint emphasized fact. This means that people with both viewpoints retreated to unfalsifiable ideas when their position was threatened by facts.
This is super-interesting.
"I think maybe the better title of this project would be Reductio ad Absurdum," says Hovden. Technically, what heâs made is a traditional sort of reproduction. Each piece "is not digitized or encrypted like information on your hard drive," he insists. "This is a real replica in normal interpretable space, and it's been hung on the wall for public display." And since the standard copyright term lasts 70 years after the creatorâs death, those reproductions wonât be legal for decades. But no human eye will ever see any of them, and just figuring out where they are on the disc would be like "finding a parked car in the state of New York." And if virtually no one can tell what it is, who would hold him accountable for copying?
Now this is a story at the intersection of IP law and tech (my favorite kind of story!). I would think that a copyright "infringement" in this case is transformative and falls under fair use. Would make for a very interesting trial though...