litchralee

Castle builders

In Anglo-American common law, if a party has previously argued a position in one of their own cases, and later argues a different position in a subsequent case that they've a party to, then the doctrine of equitable estoppel would foreclose on certain claims from that party. As usual, the devil is in the details.

Firstly, they must be a party to both the prior and prospective case. A motorist that is injured in a multi-vehicle pile-up cannot assert different facts when suing each of the participants in the crash. However, an advocacy group that files a petition on behalf of another is, by definition, not the party that is bringing suit. Nor is anyone that offers an amicus (ie "friend of the court") brief that advises the court on how a case ought to be decided.

Secondly, the exact things which are foreclosed will depend. The most common benefit available under equitable estoppel is the loss of a presumption of good faith. So if party A is a corporation and claimed in an earlier employer/employee case that their CEO's crass, sex-pest behavior was a result of substance abuse (in an attempt at a medical defense or a defense about temporary inability to perceive the situation), then that assertion -- irrespective of whether it actually won them that earlier lawsuit -- could be used against them in a later case litigated by the shareholders. If the company is sued for the CEO not conveying accurate business info, the defense that their CEO acted in good faith is not going to carry water, if the events coincided in time.

As you can see, the exact remedy that equitable estoppel provides isn't exactly clear-cut in every instance. But the goal is to prevent the same litigant from abusing the judicial system. One cannot come into court on Monday claiming the sky is blue when it's convenient for them, then claim on Wednesday that the sky is not blue when it's inconvenient for them. Two-face assertions are not allowed.

To be clear, these must be actual assertions. Sometimes a civil case can be won merely by the likely possibility that someone else is at fault, making it impossible to determine fault. And so no assertion may be needed as a defense. If a pedestrian is struck and injured by a hit-and-run motorist driving a red car, and five red cars are identified later, any of those motorists can correctly state that there were four other such cars in the area. Pointing out facts unfavorable to the plaintiff is exactly what the defense is supposed to do. But if a motorist actually says "I didn't injure her", then that's an assertion. And judicial estoppel means they may not later claim, for some reason in a later case, that they did do it.

Predominantly in Texas, Buc-ees is nominally a chain of gasoline stations but they're known for the stores attached to the station, selling all manner of kitsch but also fast food. Ok, they're also known for having 100+ pumps at each location. But that's important because it means they've always been located at the periphery of city boundaries, on huge lots, usually on the highways into or out of town.

When the gasoline business dries up, Buc-ees still has other business interests to keep them going in the road travel market, and they have real estate along major corridors that could be redeveloped. One option is to invite businesses that occupy motorist's time while parked charging their electric cars, like wayside attractions (besides Buc-ees itself, obviously). Another would be to fully entrench themselves: develop a hotel so that visiting business people always stop at the Buc-ees before leaving.

So while neighborhood fuel stations would see a slow demise, Buc-ees can turn their fuel locations into new cash cows. This is why diversification is so important.

Whole sections of the country that are zoned for suburban single family housing would not exist as they are today. Not because they'd be illegal or anything, but they'd be incredibly unpopular if most people didn't own a car, which is needed to basically get to or from a suburban neighborhood.

I understand the question to be something like: what happens if a majority of people are absolutely dead-set unwilling/unable to own a private automobile. And I think the immediate answer is that suburban neighborhoods cease to exist, at least at the current density levels. Either a neighborhood must densify so that transit options make sense, or they must aim to become rural living. This also means that things like suburban schools either turn into walkable urban schools, or into small one-room rural schools.

I don't actually think rural living will go away, because the fact is that the grand majority of people -- USA and abroad -- do not prefer rural living. The 18th, 19th, 20th, and 21st Century trends are that people tend towards urban areas, where services and jobs exist. That said, there will always be people that want to live in the hills on 20 acres, and therefore need an automobile. And it's certainly sounds appealing to some, myself included. But that has never been the majority, so if a majority of people refuse owning an automobile, they will also mostly refuse rural and suburban living.

There is no plausible situation where over 50% of people willingly decide to: 1) not own a car, and 2) live in a suburb or rural area. This is from the fact that all other modes of transport into a suburb or rural area are either: 1) nonexistent (eg metro rail), or 2) ludicrously expensive (eg Lyft, or transit with 15% fairbox recovery) if the cost was borne by the people living there (as opposed to being subsidized heavily by other taxpayers.... Ahem, America).

Edit: some more thoughts: standalone strip malls would also change character, because the smaller ones that aren't on a rail or bus corridor would be undesirable commercial real estate. If they still exist, they'll likely be integrated into housing, so as to become the #1 most convenient option for people living there. Captive audience, indeed.

But larger strip malls and shopping centers actually might florish: they usually have enough stores and services that transit already makes sense. Indeed, shopping malls are actually really good transit center locations. But instead of giant parking lots, there would be housing, because why not? People who reject cars have every reason to live next to, or on top of, a mall: fully pedestrianized, air conditioned, lots of stores and dining options. Some places even put schools and post offices in their shopping malls. I would also expect that dwelling soundproofing to get better, because the paper-thin walls of American homes and apartments are awful.

In this way, malls are no different than casinos, cruise ships, and downtowns: a small island of paradise to visit, and is distinct from home. Malls will still exist after cars, the same way that Las Vegas exists in the middle of a desert: it is a big enough anchor that draws people.

I too have issues with silicone earbuds, and also with them falling out. Which is why I was over the moon when I discovered wireless clip-on earbuds. They meet my criteria of being convenient (because wireless) while also not falling off (because clip-on). The specific ones I bought (Anker Soundcore c30i) are not noise-cancelling, but I found that I can adjust their position up or down my ears to meet conditions. For example, I wear them high up when out in public, to hear wayward automobiles that might run me down.

Fair, though I personally don't let my ISP indirectly dictate what I do with my LAN. If I didn't already have a v6-enabled WAN, I would still manage my LAN using IPv6 private range addresses. There are too many benefits to me, like having VMs and containers be first-class citizens on my LAN, rather than sitting behind yet another layer of NAT. That lets me avoid port forwarding at the border of my home Kubernetes cluster (or formerly, my Docker Swarm), and it means my DNS names correctly resolve to a valid IP address that's usable anywhere on my network (because no NAT when inside the LAN).

I will admit that NAT64 is kinda a drag to access v4-only resources like GitHub, but that's only necessary because they've not lit up support for v6 (despite other parts of their site supporting v6).

This is my idea of being future-ready: when the future comes, I'm already there.

The approach isn't invalid, but seeing as you already have the framework set up to deny all and log for IPv4, the same could be done with IPv6.

That is to say, your router advertises an IPv6 gateway to the global internet, but you then reject it because your VPN doesn't support v6 (sadly). I specifically say reject, rather than drop, because you want that ICMP Unreachable (administratively prohibited) message to get returned to any app trying to use v6. That way, Happy Eyeballs will gracefully and quickly fall back to v6. Unless your containers have some exceptionally weird routing rules, v6 connections will only be attempted once, and will always use the route advertised. So if your router denies this attempt, your containers won't try again in a way that could leak. v6 leaks are more likely when there isn't even a route advertised.

This makes your apps able to use v6, for that day when your VPN supports it, and so it's just a question of when the network itself can be upgraded. IMO, apps should always try for v6 first and the network (if it can't support it) will affirmatively reply that it can't, and then apps will gracefully fall back.

This also benefits you by logging all attempted v6 traffic, to know how much of your stuff is actually v6-capable. And more data is always nice to have.

I'm so confused on what the point of such a hash would be. If the time that an email was sent was so important, would existing DKIM timestamps also work? Is this basically the digital equivalent of including today's newspaper in a ransom note?

Not to say that DKIM as-used is perfect.

For an example of where constant current sources are used -- and IMO, deeply necessary -- we can look to the humble LED driver circuit. LEDs are fickle devices, on account of their very sharp voltage-current curve, which also changes with operating temperature and is not always consistent from the factory. As a practical matter, the current through an LED is what predominantly controls the brightness, so constant current sources will provide very steady illumination. If instead an LED were driven with a constant voltage source, it would need to be exceedingly stable, since even a few tens of millivolts off can destroy some LEDs through over-current and/or over-heating.

For cheap appliances, some designs will use a simple resistor circuit to set the LED current, and this may be acceptable provided that the current is nowhere near overdriving the LED. Thing of small indicator LEDs that aren't that bright anyway. Whereas for expensive industrial LED projectors, it would be foolish to not have an appropriately designed current source, among other protective features.

In a nutshell, voltage incompatibility is generally more damaging than current mismatch, typically in a frightening or energetic manner. Many Americans tourists find this out when they bring their 120v AC hairdryers to an overseas hotel with 230v AC power. If there is only room for one number to be emblazoned on an outlet or plug, it should be the rated voltage, first and foremost.

For current protection, we've had thermal fuses since the 1890s, and thermo-magnetic circuit breakers since the 1940s. There are even more fancy transistor-based current protections available for industrial equipment that can shut off extremely fast. In a sense, protection against over-current has basically been solved, in the scenarios where there's enough of a risk of humans or property.

Whereas voltage mix-ups still happen, although consumer electronics are now moving to automatic voltage detection (eg an 18v electric drill battery charger refuses to charge a 12v battery) and through actively negotiated power parameters (eg USB PD). And even without human error, under- and over voltage transients still happen in residential and commercial environments, leading to either instant damage or long-term product degradation (eg domestic refrigerator motor drive circuits).

It should be noted that a current starvation scenario, such as when an ebike is current-limited per regulations, does not generally cause a spike in voltage. Whereas in a voltage starvation situation, resistive loads will indeed try to draw more current in order to compensate. Hence why current protection is almost always built-in and not left to chance.

Firstly, I wish you the best of luck in your community's journey away from Discord. This may be a good time to assess what your community needs from a new platform, since Discord targeted various use-cases that no single replacement platform can hope to replace in full. Instead, by identifying exactly what your group needs and doesn't need, that will steer you in the right direction.

As for Element, bear in mind that their community and paid versions do not exactly target a hobbyist self-hosting clientele. Instead, Element is apparently geared more for enterprise on-premises deployment (like Slack, Atlassian JIRA, Asterisk PBX) and that's probably why the community version is also based on Kubernetes. This doesn't mean you can't use it, but their assumptions about deployments are that you have an on-premises cloud.

Fortunately, there are other Matrix homeservers available, including one written in Rust that has both bare metal and Docker deployment instructions. Note that I'm not endorsing this implementation, but only know of it through this FOSDEM talk describing how they dealt with malicious actors.

As an aside, I have briefly considered Matrix before as a group communications platform, but was put off by their poor E2EE decisions, for both the main client implementation and in the protocol itself. Odd as it sounds, poor encryption is worse than no encryption, because of the false assurance it gives. If I did use Matrix, I would not enable E2EE because it doesn't offer me many privacy guarantees, compared to say, Signal.

Obligatory mention: !keming@lemmy.world