> The US district court judge Brian Morris said […] deter anyone else from trying to “change the genetic makeup of the creatures”.
Why does this judge feel entitled to be the arbiter of the genetic makeup of creatures on Earth?
> They are protected under international convention as a threatened species and outlawed for import into Montana to protect native sheep from disease and hybridization.
These are reasonable concerns, you generally shouldn't move plants or animals across international (or U.S. state) boundaries, but the if the species is threatened then wouldn't people breeding more of them be a good thing? This seems like a weird case where I think it's illegal under the Lacey Act because they're endangered but by importing them he's making them less endangered.
This article seems outraged about this calling it an "audacious scheme" (as opposed to a technicality) while Humans have been breeding sheep for size and other characteristics for thousands of years.
> When speaking with law enforcement, the jailhouse informant provided information about the crime that was not publicly available, yet consistent with crime scene evidence and Williams’ involvement.
This is hard to fake and seems like pretty compelling evidence that the informant is telling the truth.
Meta has been good about releasing their NLO work open source for a long time. Most of the open source datasets for foreign language translation were created by Facebook.
> In a release, the Senate Health Committee said it would cost the U.S. $411 billion per year if half of all Americans took weight loss drugs from Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly. That’s $5 billion more than what Americans spent on all prescription drugs in 2022.
If these drugs are effective as they seem to be they might still be worth it at this price. Giving most Americans Ozempic would probably improve people's health more per $ than the current medical system is.
> A recent report released by the Milken Institute shows that the annual cost and the economic impact of obesity in the United States exceeds $1.4 trillion.[1]
My understanding was that a lot of courtroom document standards originated as "...like WordPerfect does it." For example, before word processing, no one expected documents to include word counts. When word processing came along, judges wanted to know much much they were going to be expected to read, so they started requiring the cover sheet to include the number of words. And because WP came along at the right time, its algorithm for counting words (do you include footnotes? Headers/footers? The word "page" on "page 23"? Section titles?) became the de facto way to do it, and judges being judges, some were persnickety about the numbers matching exactly and would throw a hissy if they didn't.
What's the difference between a catfish and a lawyer?
One's a scum sucking bottom dweller and the other's a fish.
(Stopping with this one. It's fun trading these with attorney buddies but I don't want someone to take them out of context as an opportunity to start lawyer bashing.)
I think the pay package probably isn't in shareholders value at this point. It's a very large dilution and they've already gotten the value of Musk working for free for years.
However, it's totally unreasonable that his options compensation package is getting cancelled after he already fulfilled his end of the contract. I guess the takeaway is be careful incorporating in Delaware.
Even if the compensation package is very large it seems totally unreasonable to cancel it after the fact. Shareholders agreed to pay Musk with what are effectively out of the money options, a reasonable and well understood financial contract. Then the contract gets cancelled after Musk has worked for free for years and dramatically increased the stock price because one of the Tesla board members went on vacation with Musk?
Why does this judge feel entitled to be the arbiter of the genetic makeup of creatures on Earth?
> They are protected under international convention as a threatened species and outlawed for import into Montana to protect native sheep from disease and hybridization.
These are reasonable concerns, you generally shouldn't move plants or animals across international (or U.S. state) boundaries, but the if the species is threatened then wouldn't people breeding more of them be a good thing? This seems like a weird case where I think it's illegal under the Lacey Act because they're endangered but by importing them he's making them less endangered.
This article seems outraged about this calling it an "audacious scheme" (as opposed to a technicality) while Humans have been breeding sheep for size and other characteristics for thousands of years.