So, I had to double check myself on this one, and my original answer wasn’t entirely correct.

If it is found that the destruction of evidence was intentional then yes, the jury can be instructed to view the missing information in the least favorable light, or a case can simply be outright dismissed or a default judgement entered.

However even in the case of “accidental” (ie, not provably intentional) deletion the court can still take various measures to redress the balance in some way.

I am not a lawyer but this guy is - https://joneskell.com/how-spoliation-of-evidence-impacts-litigation/

Seafile store data in its own proprietary format. There’s no way to just go into the disk and browse the data. You need a proper backup solution.

In my case, I sync all my Seafile data between my server, laptop and desktop, so in the worst case I only lose the file history. A better option, if you have space, is to backup the Seafile storage volumes as well.

Seafile provides ready made compose files, with a detailed guide - https://manual.seafile.com/11.0/docker/deploy_seafile_with_docker/

Also, note that if you make an account on their site, you can get a free pro license for up to three accounts.

“SINDRIIII”

“… And that is why Sir Isaac Newton is the deadliest son of a bitch in space!”

AFAIK that is, in fact, how juries are generally instructed to regard destruction of evidence.

The problem is that they won’t.

Yes, AI tools, in the hands of skilled people, can be very helpful.

But “AI” in capitalism doesn’t mean “more effective workers”, it means “fewer workers.” The issue isn’t technological so much as cultural. You fundamentally cannot convince an MBA not to try to automate away jobs.

(It’s not even a money thing; it’s about getting rid of all those pesky “workers rights” that workers like to bring with us)

Cool, so it was nice having From Soft games while they were a thing. Guess they went out on a high note with Elden Ring at least.

If only scifi authors had ever thought to warn us that megacorps are bad.

Sure, but again the amount of actual player to player interaction involved in that is minimal. Like I said, I’m in a clan, and outside of obtaining my initial invite (which basically went “Clan plz” in chat followed by clicking accept) I’ve had literally zero social interaction with my current clan. Trading has been effectively automated by Warframe market. You copy and paste something into chat, and the rest of the interaction consists of a pro forma exchange of "ty"s. Also, you don’t actually need a clan to trade, because anyone you’re trading with will inevitably invite you to theirs, so they’re only really important when selling.

This is absolutely nothing like the way that raiding and guilds are core to World of Warcraft. Clans play an almost purely mechanical role in Warframe, they’re not remotely the same thing, and do not have remotely the same requirement of social interaction.

A lot of the game is built around guilds and player to player interactions.

For a while that was true. But that entire design direction has basically been abandoned. Clans are more or less a vestigial organ at this point. Literally the only interaction I have ever had with a member of my clan was when I asked for an invite.

The core story content is single player only. The rest is multiplayer, but unlike Destiny there’s nothing that requires you to form your own group outside of the game, and all the gameplay is designed in such a way that you really don’t need to communicate. You can basically just turn on public matchmaking and get a bunch of humans who might as well be bots for all you’ll have to actually interact with them.

You can play all the content solo if you want to, but the difficulty might get a bit much, especially starting out (there are also certain game modes / mission types that really lean on having a full group).

If you’re a Destiny refugee, the most obvious answer is Warframe, which just keeps on getting better and better.

I want to point out that even if they are, the incentive is still having the desired effect, because in that scenario it makes it much more profitable to sell an EV than to sell an ICE vehicle, meaning the manufacturers are going to push the EV’s more. And given that incentive, they would still be strongly incentivized to price the EV’s in a, way that compares will with their ICE offerings, even if they could theoretically sell them cheaper.

A big part of getting results is understanding how to turn greed to your advantage.

“Don’t eat five all at once because you will see the devil, and he will rip your heart out through your kneecaps.”

I genuinely don’t know how they plan to make a parody of InfoWars that will not be indistinguishable from the original thing.

You’re missing the fact that a flatscreen TV will still often represent - as a portion of someone’s wealth - a far greater cost than a private jet would to a billionaire. Consider that most low income people are getting their cell phones on payment plans, whereas a multimillionaire can afford to buy a Lamborghini Gellardo out of pocket. On top of that, high end purchases like cars, yachts, houses, fine art, etc, often retain a lot of their resale value, turning them into investments in many cases, often reselling for more than their purchase price. So yes, I absolutely did account for the tax exemptions on “essentials”, and even when you factor those your sales tax only model still ends up being less onerous the more wealthy someone is.

I also want to call out the unspoken implication that is often present with these theories - not accusing you of doing this, but it needs to be said - that items like phones, computers and TVs are extraneous luxuries that no poor person should ever own, as if enjoying a fulfilling life or engaging in relaxation are things that only the wealthy should be allowed to have access to.

No

An investment contract exists if there is an “investment of money in a common enterprise with a reasonable expectation of profits to be derived from the efforts of others.”

And just to be absolutely clear, many cryptocurrencies do not qualify as investments, and the government agrees. However there are numerous other regulations that the crypto industry apparently cannot handle, such as “Know Your Client” laws, which all financial institutions have to abide by, and which exist to prevent money laundering (Binance’s internal emails revealed that they knew perfectly well that their clients were using their service to facilitate crime, and they were perfectly happy with that).

These are not bad faith regulations. They exist for good reasons, and there is absolute no good reason why the crypto industry shouldn’t also be subject to them. If these are currencies they should be regulated like currencies. If they are investments they should be regulated like investments.

That’s not what’s happening here. Microsoft management are well aware that AI isn’t making them any money, but the company made a multi billion dollar bet on the idea that it would, and now they have to convince shareholders that they didn’t epicly fuck up. Shoving AI into stuff like notepad is basically about artificially inflating “consumer uptake” numbers that they can then show to credulous investors to suggest that any day now this whole thing is going to explode into an absolute tidal wave of growth, so you’d better buy more stock right now, better not miss out.

There wasn’t a need to “define a new regulatory framework that actually fits” because, funnily enough, the existing regulatory framework already fits. It turns out, inventing new words doesn’t actually change the fundamental nature of the thing you’re describing. Refusing to call something an “investment” doesn’t change the fact that you’re selling an investment, refusing to call something a “security” doesn’t prevent it from being a security if it meets the definition.

Edit: Sorry, let me address that ridiculous point about Coinbase “asking for clarity” directly. Yes, Coinbase repeatedly “asked for clarity” in the same manner as a dude in a girl’s DMs repeatedly asking for nudes while being told in the bluntest of terms to fuck off. They were given perfectly clear answers, they just didn’t like them, so they kept claiming, with zero fucking basis, that these will laid out rules that every financial institution has been following for decades were somehow “unclear” to them. It was a conversation not unlike a Sovereign Citizen trying to get out of a speeding ticket by claiming that they don’t understand where the officer’s authority comes from. The law is prefectly clear. If you don’t understand the law, you hire a lawyer who does. That’s a cost of doing business. Sticking “smart” in front the of the word “contract” doesn’t suddenly invent a whole new field of law. I can’t suddenly get away with murder because I call it “crypto murder”. The law is based on what you do, not what you call it.

Lower income people spend - as a proportion of their income - far more of their income than higher income people. This makes the “nothing but sales taxes” approach much more regressive than it initially seems, despite often being touted by economists as a progressive approach to taxation.

Coiners: “We want to be taken seriously and treated as legitimate businesses!”

Biden Government: “OK. We’ll treat you as legitimate businesses in your respective fields and expect you to comply with the same regulations everyone else has to.”

Coiners: “Oh shit wait no this sucks, our whole business model only works because of crime, quick everyone vote for a fascist conman!”