The point others are making is that it appears to be a zero-sum game, i.e., we're paying one way or the other, so the more compassionate option with better outcomes should win out. As I have seen it stated, the options appear to be to pay for: (i) criminalization and its effects/expenses, e.g., court system burden, incarceration, etc.; (ii) de-criminalization (potentially with legalization/taxation) to offset the cost of keeping cities livable by mitigating its effects/expenses, e.g., treatment and housing for addicts that may become homeless; or (iii) de-criminalization without paying for mitigations, leading to unlivable cities. Your comment reads like you see some way of simply not paying to deal with addicts, while also not having the consequences of a bunch of (potentially homeless) addicts living in society. If that's an accurate description of your point, how does that work? If it's not, then what do you mean?
You can't get addicted to a substance that you don't have the ability to obtain in the first place, or that you could obtain but choose not to because you're afraid of punishment. That's the whole theory behind criminalization: that it's not a zero sum game!
I think you're probably right that the criminal justice system isn't the most effective way of dealing with people who are already addicted, but how do you propose we stop people from getting addicted in the first place if hard drugs are perfectly legal, and the government is actively working to minimize the personal downsides of being addicted to them? Why not become an addict if the only consequence is that it means you get free food and housing for the rest of your life?
> how do you propose we stop people from getting addicted in the first place if hard drugs are perfectly legal
There are shades of legal and illegal. There's "We're going to lock you up for years for simple possession" and there's "We're giving it away free to kids at the corner store!", and in between those extremes lies a whole multidimensional landscape we could explore.
With harder drugs like opiates, most people are not talking about them being available at the liquor store, but solutions like removing criminal penalties for possession while providing support services, maintenance doses and counselling for those who are addicted.
> Why not become an addict
Is that a life you want? Queuing up outside the medical centre every morning for a shot that keeps the pain at bay?
> You can't get addicted to a substance that you don't have the ability to obtain in the first place
If you're saying you can't acquire heroine, given 24 hours, I'm afraid I've lost faith in everything else you've said because it's just based on a flawed perception of what world we live in.
Honestly you're making my point. We (as in civilization) tried criminalization, and it is more expensive (and has other added downsides) compared with decriminalization/legalization + taxation and treatment. How do I propose to get people not to think drugs are their best option? Ha. Okay sure, in response to that straw man here's my stab at fixing human society to help reduce the number of people that go that route (since that's what it would take). UBI + free healthcare (including all procedures that may be used to either assisting with a miscarriage or causing an abortion) + free contraceptives + free childcare + additional assistance for parents + free school lunches + free higher ed + strong labor protections / unions (+ -- US specific -- constitutional amendments to allow for regulation of firearms, getting monied interests out of politics, lessening the influence of extremists in politics including ranked choice voting or similar, making public money available to third-parties, I'm sure there's more). I'm sure what I've missed could fill an encyclopedia. My point is that the problem isn't simple, so if you're going to try to "solve" it, you're wasting time debating whether incarceration is better than legalization.
> My point is that the problem isn't simple, so if you're going to try to "solve" it, you're wasting time debating whether incarceration is better than legalization.
Okay, but that debate is what this entire thread is about. I don't think it's a waste of time. We don't have to fix all the world's problems at once.
> We (as in civilization) tried criminalization, and it is more expensive (and has other added downsides) compared with decriminalization/legalization + taxation and treatment
Personally I think the jury's still out on that one, particularly once you ask yourself whether legalization is likely to result in less drug addiction overall, or more. But time will tell.
So is your theory is that the drug war was a success, and nobody could get drugs when they were illegal? How do you propose to make them go away? That way was tried, and failed.
Regardless of whether or not any party has a registration for a particular trademark/service mark identifying certain goods/services, the question about whether the marks should be allowed to co-exist depends on whether there is a likelihood that there will be confusion between the 2 marks in the marketplace (defining the appropriate marketplace is part of the test for any given likelihood of confusion analysis). There are some other concerns, such as dilution with respect to famous marks that may or may not come into play, but likelihood of [consumer] confusion is the root of it.
Meta and Microsoft may have registered those trademarks but I haven't seen them using them, so they might struggle to actually defend them in court against someone who is very clearly actually using "X".
Honestly Apple probably has the best shot, as they do use "X" prominently. Mac OS X, iPhone X, etc.
Apple does use X a lot in product names, but (i) the use is never on its own, so the comparison of the marks is, e.g., X vs Mac OS X, and (ii) Apple generally uses X to denote "10" so that portion of the mark is arguably descriptive or generic as a version number (see https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/print?version=current&href=...).
But those aren't "X", they're "Xbox" and "XCloud". It has to just be the "X". And yes there's an Xbox logo that's just an X, but it's stylized quite differently than Elon's dumb X, and it's a different thing (gaming).
IANYL, but the registration by Threads for THREADS is in Class 42: "Platform as a service (PAAS) featuring computer software platforms for use in project management and collaboration for the technology and media industries that allows organizations and users to create, upload, share, discuss, store, and search content meant for users of the platform; none of the foregoing specifically targeting decision support among healthcare professionals and facilities"
It covers (in Class 42): "Platform as a service (PAAS) featuring computer software platforms for use in project management and collaboration for the technology and media industries that allows organizations and users to create, upload, share, discuss, store, and search content meant for users of the platform; none of the foregoing specifically targeting decision support among healthcare professionals and facilities"
The services the registration covers (in Class 42) are: "Platform as a service (PAAS) featuring computer software platforms for use in project management and collaboration for the technology and media industries that allows organizations and users to create, upload, share, discuss, store, and search content meant for users of the platform; none of the foregoing specifically targeting decision support among healthcare professionals and facilities"
The services this registration covers (in Class 42) are: "Platform as a service (PAAS) featuring computer software platforms for use in project management and collaboration for the technology and media industries that allows organizations and users to create, upload, share, discuss, store, and search content meant for users of the platform; none of the foregoing specifically targeting decision support among healthcare professionals and facilities"
This blog post was written by a lawyer that writes shell-scripts to automate presumably job related tasks, but it reads like he didn't even read the article he's critiquing (https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/practice/profession-sitting-on-...) because he hates that he’s lumped in with lawyers that don’t embrace technology. Despite being a lawyer that lurks on Hacker News, I can admit that I’ve found the article's point mostly true.
The clear thrust of the article Neil is critiquing, right at the top:
- "A study of attitudes to lawtech carried out by The University of Manchester, University College London and the Law Society finds that a lack of understanding by, and encouragement from, senior managers is proving a barrier to the uptake of technologies such as artificial intelligence."
Neil's framing:
- "Pretty much every day, I read something to the effect of 'lawyers are clueless when it comes to tech lol' ... sigh"
From the article:
- "less than a third (32%) use even basic lawtech, such as legal databases and contract review software."
From Neil:
- What on earth is "lawtech"?
From the article:
- "'The legal profession is at a crossroads, with new technologies that promise to transform virtually every aspect of the legal services sector starting to gather pace,' she said. 'However, our report suggests that this transformation might not be as rapid as some would think. It is clear that there is a business case for adopting lawtech, but people are not necessarily equating this to how it will benefit them personallySenior managers and leaders within law firms need to think about creating a clear connection between the benefits to the organisation and the benefits to the individual, if they want to get the buy-in they need from their professional colleagues.'"
There are some lawyers that get tech, but many more have only a very surface level understanding, if that. Especially the “senior managers” the article is directed towards. I understand this article is directed at the UK, but my favorite example of this is SCOTUS justices learning that text messages are routed through, and stored on, intermediary servers. Chief Justice John Roberts, during oral argument in Ontario v. Quon (https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcr...): “I thought, you know, you push a button; it goes right to the other thing” followed by Justice Scalia: “You mean it doesn't go right to the other thing?”
The concept of less than a third of lawyers using legal databases kind of beggars belief. Lexis and West, to say nothing of newer upstarts, were pretty much totally widespread in my view. How much the situation is different in the UK though, I don't have any idea.
Is it really surprising? Solos can't always afford what more established firms can. Also, this: https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/27/business/chat-gpt-avianca-mat.... The lawyer asked ChatGPT if the case was real, but did NOT check any legal databases. Also consider, many lawyers are not litigators. They handle the same types of matters all the time, and likely lean heavily on one or a few treatises, in addition to their own experience.
