| ▲ | dataflow 4 hours ago |
| I have a feeling they're going to be very disappointed with the actual answers they'll receive to these questions. |
|
| ▲ | Telaneo 3 hours ago | parent [-] |
| On the one hand, I'd love a judge to respond 'yes' to all of these, if only to confirm how ridiculous they are and that a reasonable implementation is impossible. On the other hand, I'd hate for a judge to respond 'yes', because then the enforcement of said ridiculousness becomes vindicated. |
| |
| ▲ | dataflow 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | These aren't all yes/no questions. And what I'm saying is I think anyone who thinks there's some sort of paradox in answering these will be in for a rude awakening. E.g., "How do you fine someone per child affected?" Idk, maybe the parents that become aware of their children being affected would join a lawsuit, and others would not be parties to the suit? | | |
| ▲ | akdev1l 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | so many people start asking random questions like these acting as if judges are drooling baboons or something “What’s even an operating system will this apply to my toaster?” - probably not, a judge would ultimately decide. | | |
| ▲ | bee_rider 14 minutes ago | parent [-] | | That seems pretty annoying for people who sell computing appliances like smart toasters, routers, and televisions, and videogame consoles—do they preemptively start implementing in case a judge decides they are covered? Why not write an easy-to-interpret law in the first place? |
|
|
|
