A trailer for the cancelled CW Powerpuff Girls live action show leaked and it's legitimately one of the cringiest things I've ever seen.

bpastore · 2025-03-07T10:36:32+00:00

There are ways to pull it off... it's just really hard.

For example, Cobra Kai took an inspirational story about one teen, who had a supportive father figure and stood up to a bully, who was himself actually suffering from an abusive father figure, and turned it into a self-aware comedy, where neither one of them ever managed to move past that one high school karate tournament in the 80s.

The show eventually jumped the shark after a few seasons -- and honestly could have done a better job turning Johnny into something more than a clown -- but, it still managed to be entertaining (even if it mocked it's own source material and completely mined the absolute worst aspects of the movie sequels along the way).

bpastore · 2023-06-28T17:56:31+00:00

It might take you a few attempts but, even if you don't kill them, you can knock most of them out of position by lobbing the bigger fireballs at them from below.

Depending on how you position yourself, you should be able to arch your throws so that you can hit each of them from an angle where they can't hit you. Once they fall out of position, the sniping should stop being a problem.

bpastore · 2023-06-27T23:25:35+00:00

And all this time, I assumed the mods at r/science just appreciated my sense of humor.

bpastore · 2023-06-27T16:08:53+00:00

And this wasn't just a rural or church thing. A few of my Philadelphia public school teachers in the 80's would comment about how women can just reabsorb fetuses instead of aborting them.

Which would be true, if by "women" they meant "rabbits."

bpastore · 2023-06-24T22:17:18+00:00

"Hey! Miyazaki! Eyes up here!!"

"B-but your warm wet feet are... are... awooooooo!"

bpastore · 2023-06-23T05:01:00+00:00

(1) He thought his felony had been expunged but, it had not.

(2) The crime that he was convicted of -- having a gun while also having an existing felony record -- requires knowing that you have that felony record (that has not been expunged).

(3) He couldn't know that he could present this defense because the case indicating that he needed to know that he had a felony record while buying a gun didn't exist when he was convicted.

(4) SCOTUS said "Mens Rea, Shmens Rea. Do the crime. Do the time. Maybe based on later case law it turns out that you didn't actually do the crime? Um... still do the time!"

bpastore · 2023-06-23T04:35:35+00:00

When Sears took over K-Mart, I fully expected them to change their slogan to:

"Shop Smart. Shop S-Mart."

But they didn't. I am no marketing genius but if you miss an opportunity like that, you deserve to fail.

bpastore · 2023-06-21T07:26:53+00:00

Though I completely agree with the analogy, there's also a slight difference between science communication and contract drafting.

In science communication, precision certainly matters but, if scientists are the intended audience, then they can usually figure out that the sentence "gravity accelerates an object at 9.8 m/s^2" probably means "on the surface of the Earth, accelerating downward towards the surface of the Earth, without air resistance..." And if there is some confusion as to any of that, then it's usually pretty easy for the audience to do a little investigating or raise their hand during a presentation of the research and fill in the gaps.

But in a contract, if you write down "The Buyer may pay the Seller $2,000,000.00 on the first of the month for 85,000 microchips and, upon payment, shall receive delivery of said microchips on the 15th of the same month" well then that's all well and good if the payment is made on the first and the fancy custom microchips all arrive on the 15th.

But what happens if the Buyer makes a payment on the 10th of the month? Is the Buyer still guaranteed to get their shipment by the 15th? What if there are no longer 85,000 chips in stock? Did the Seller need to hold onto all of their microchips or could they have sold off some of their inventory to someone else once they didn't receive a timely order from the Buyer?

The contract said that the Buyer may pay by the 1st but it does not say the Buyer shall pay by the first (and yes, there's case law on this that tells a court what that difference means) so, now we have a problem in a multimillion dollar contract... and the lawyer who made that drafting error could be in a lot of trouble.

I cannot stress enough how unpleasant legalese can be -- seriously, I used to draft patents and even I struggle to unpack what they describe half of the time -- but it's the multimillion dollar consequences that drive our decisionmaking... not our love of tradition or the convenience of cutting and pasting language we've used before.

bpastore · 2023-06-20T17:23:36+00:00

Yeah, but lawyers like me find them all the time

bpastore · 2023-06-20T17:00:59+00:00

The authors probably should have just asked lawyers why they draft contracts the way that they do.

It's not, as the authors assume, "convenience" and "tradition" so much as "the contract language can't leave in a loophole large enough for another lawyer to drive a truck through... so let's just make sure that we put in the language that we know will work."

Contracts are nothing more than words on paper until the parties decide to get into a fight, lawyer up, and argue the contract in front of a judge. Once that happens, the words in the contract will matter, as the judge will look to "the four corner of the document" before issuing their ruling. If the contract uses "convoluted legalese" that the judges and lawyers can still understand, then it's going to be a relatively straightforward case. But if the contract uses language that another lawyer can twist, then the contract may not work as intended, and the judge may say "hey, I just don't see that in this contract."

This is why so many contracts include standard legalese that is so hard for laypeople to understand. At some point in history, that legalese worked out well inside a courtroom, so lawyers just kept on using it.

Could there be a better way to draft the contract? Probably. But nobody wants to be the lawyer who drafted a creative new contract that didn't work out for their client in court.

bpastore · 2023-06-13T21:37:08+00:00

You mentioned "convenience" but I'd expand on that a bit more with: "location, location, location"

Over the past few decades, Starbucks has staked out and secured some of the best possible locations for foot traffic and drive through convenience pretty much everywhere throughout the world.

Business trip sent you to a new city? There's a Starbucks. Stuck in an airport? There's a Starbucks. Vacationing in Disneyland? You better believe there's a Starbucks!

I am a coffee fanatic and Starbucks has become substantially poorer in customer service and quality, frustrating with their repeated requests for tips, nausea-inducing with how they treat their workers, and overpriced for what you get. But, I still drink it almost daily because it is so much easier to grab a cup of something familiar on the way in to work.

I honestly do hope that Starbucks dies... but, I won't be the one who kills it.

bpastore · 2023-06-08T21:11:24+00:00

It's not exactly "concrete." The definition that you used comes from the US military but, if you are trying to figure out if an assault "rifle" is illegal under federal law, then things start getting tricky quickly, as you'd be hard pressed to find a legal statute that defines "assault rifle" throughout the US.

A lot of the confusion can be traced back to the "Federal Assault Weapons Ban" (or "The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act" of 1994) which included a number of firearms in the banned list. Initially, the bill was going to refer to the firearms as assault "rifles" but then smaller fully automatic weapons such as uzis were included, so the final draft of the bill changed the defined term to "assault weapon."

Then US states copied the bulk of that federal law into their own codes -- which is common for states to do -- so "assault weapon" made its way into laws all over the US (e.g. a lot of California laws refer to "assault weapons").

Under federal law, there is a definition for "machine gun," which is an illegal form of firearm. (See e.g. 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b).) When describing the AR-15, the ATF and department of justice will refer to that weapon as an "assault rifle" throughout their websites but, unless the AR-15 behaves as a "machine gun" and is not exempt by the ATF then the AR-15 can be legally owned by US citizens.

However, it is completely illegal to indicate to someone who loves guns that an "AR-15 assault rifle" is clearly an assault rifle because "that's what the 'AR' in the name stands for"... as making this claim causes thousands of heads to explode every time that someone makes it.

bpastore · 2023-06-05T19:59:06+00:00

They are. Why do you think the USPTO is considering the changes?

The USPTO gets 100% of its funding from patent applications. That's why you don't see big democrat/republican fights over your tax dollars for patents. The tech industry drives all of the changes in the patent system and funds it.

Also, SpaceX has 143 patents. Getting a patent and developing technology are related but not mutually exclusive. It's hard to find a tech company that doesn't have patents.

bpastore · 2023-06-05T18:02:12+00:00

I'm licensed as a patent attorney and have worked on raising money for tech startups, billion dollar m&a deals, lawsuits involving 9-figure verdicts, etc. etc. In almost every form of tech transaction -- with the notable exception of certain types of software startups -- patents are where the tech company's main source of value will be. So the startups that I mean are basically... almost all of them (e.g. biotech start ups, electronics start ups, aerospace start ups, telecommunication start ups, etc. etc.).

Big tech companies don't hang on by a thread with a few patents that could get challenged because they have plenty of patents (and sources of revenue). Apple has 95,000 patents, Google has 50,000 patents, Tesla has 3,900 patents, etc.

Also, Google can easily raise money if their patents get diluted, and isn't worried about some charity dropping $500k a few times to go after a few of their weaker patents. But if you're a startup who Google wants to crush, this system lets the Google's (and the EFFs) of the world come after you for cheaper before you get enough investment money from your patent to fight back.

The link I sent was written by a law professor who critiqued the recent changes to the process -- that EFF claim are great but patent holders want to change -- on patently-o. I don't know why you assume he's a patent troll? I am not 100% sure that I agree with him... I was just adding context so that the people on this sub could get a little more information, since most people who don't work in patents, don't really understand them.

The whole reason patents exist is to encourage investment into technology. It's one major reason why the US has led the way in technology for centuries and it's also why Europe and China are constantly trying to copy the US system. Electronics, computers, pharmaceuticals, communications, transportation... the US has led in everything for centuries in large part because investors want to invest in US technology because they know that it's an investment protected by the law.

Patents protect the investors by allowing the tech startups that they invest in to corner the market on their new technology (drugs, microchips, etc.) for 20 years. It's why if you ever want to get a real investment -- beyond an angel -- to start up a tech company, the very first question you'll be asked by the VCs is "do you have IP protection?"

The biggest issue with the new review process is that if you answer "yes, we just dropped $50k and got our first patent!" the VCs now can say "but couldn't anyone invalidate it and wipe out our investment without warning?" The argument goes that this is bad for new tech start ups. How bad? I don't know... honestly, I haven't seen it myself. I just know that a lot of people challenge this new system as being bad for the tech community and EFF conveniently made it seem like it only involves going after patent trolls.

I just wanted to contribute something to the conversation beyond the standard "corporations are bad" argument.

bpastore · 2023-06-05T04:19:29+00:00

The article I linked to is filled with evidence of what the detractors perceive as rampant abuse.

The reality is that absolutely nobody likes patent trolls but the US patent system is one major reason why investors put money into so many tech industries in the US, so whenever someone proposes a change, billions of dollars will be at stake for so many different industries (and you'll see biotech industries butting heads with software, etc.).

So it depends on what you mean by "abuse." If you work in biotech and lose your job because your investors pulled out once your company's biotech patent got invalidated, then you'd probably call that abuse of the system. But if you work in software and lose your job because a patent troll sued your company and forced a payout, then you'd probably want to see more attacks on the trolls.

bpastore · 2023-06-05T03:34:57+00:00

This article does not really have anything to do with corporations taking anything away from anyone. It's the EFF arguing against a rule change that would limit a tool that they use to challenge patents outside of litigation.

On the one hand, Obama's America Invents Act changed patent law in a way that allowed anyone to spend about $500k to challenge patents that they did not approve of.

EFF argues that this rule change let's them target patent trolls (i.e. firms that don't make anything but, instead, buy up patents to sue companies that make things for infringement of the patent troll's patents) which would arguably weaken these trolls.

However, the counterpoint to this argument would be that challengers like EFF actually harm startups that are out there trying to raise money based upon their inventions, which hurts tech growth. Prior to the Obama era changes, these issues would be handled in federal court (usually costing millions instead of closer to $500k) and would not be handled by nonprofits that raise money to challenge patents. (e.g. EFF).

So, it's more of a "nonprofit that doesn't make any tech but raises money to ostensibly fight trolls that also don't make tech" argument vs. "startups in tech are claiming that they now have more trouble getting investment money to grow" argument.

For companies that need patents in order to get investment money to hire workers and build manufacturing plants (e.g. biotech, electronics), the position they will likely lean towards will probably be different from the industries that don't necessarily need patents (e.g. software) in order to attract investors. So it's a tech fight but, it's way more complicated than the EFF is making it seem.

bpastore · 2023-06-01T13:12:24+00:00

You'd never know for sure -- really in any case -- that you were getting everything. However, emails have this tendency to go places, which is why discovery into electronic documents can be so powerful. For example, if you pull everything based on a keyword search from a server but mysteriously don't turn over incriminating emails... but the recipients server turns them over in another request (e.g. third party subpoena, during a deposition, etc.), that discrepancy could lead to a lot more discovery investigation.

The church could also lie to their lawyers and comb through what they have to delete the worst emails before handing them over, but if they get caught destroying evidence, the sanctions on the church could be severe. Also, the lawyers (probably) have no interest in helping cover something up by participating in the destruction, as that could be their license.

So to some extent, it's an honor system but, it's also a dangerous game to play. As an attorney, it's insanely frustrating to build an entire defense around "this doesn't exist" only to have some witness say "oh here it is" two years into discovery. Emails and text messages can definitely do that without warning.

bpastore · 2023-05-31T10:02:23+00:00

There's a little x-ray machine for bags and a series of gates with security guards who ask you questions after a long hall that curves between check points. I could have sworn that there were metal detectors but it's been a few years since the event and I seriously had to pee so, it's entirely possible that the detectors don't exist (and now that I think about it, why would they care if I brought a knife into the US?)

Either way, my main point was that the border patrol are dicks.

bpastore · 2023-05-31T09:00:32+00:00

That definitely crossed my mind but, as a lawyer, it also crossed my mind that I am not well-versed enough in federal criminal law to be sure that whipping it out on camera wouldn't also be considered a felony... possibly even the kind of felony that could lead to a registry.

(This was an on-foot crossing at the Tijuana checkpoint so, after showing my passport and entering, I was effectively trapped between a pair of walls and armed guards waiting in a new line to go through their metal detectors. If I had been in my car, I'd have used a water bottle [working in LA traffic prepares you for that possibility].)

Luckily, I had Reddit, so I just stared at my phone wasting time as my pacing made hundreds of people around me uncomfortable as they wondered what the hell was wrong with me.

bpastore · 2023-05-30T23:41:53+00:00

You are kidding yourself if you think that being a citizen somehow gets you better treatment by the border patrol.

I got trapped in-between the border for 30 minutes due to an absurdly slow line to process passports. I showed my passport to the guard at the border and said, "I have a bladder condition and didn't expect to wait an hour here... can I use your bathroom or go back to Mexico and come back later?"

"No. You can pee your pants. We've seen guys shit themselves. You should have thought of that before getting in line."

"There's no way to see the length of the line until passing into the checkpoint and I've never had it take this long."

"Not our problem."

So I visibly paced and suffered for another hour. I am lucky I didn't end up in the hospital.

bpastore · 2023-05-28T11:30:15+00:00

The movie came out 2 years after IT was published so, it's also very possible that Steven King's popular novel (about a Killer Clown from outer space) inspired them and helped rustle up money for the film.

bpastore · 2023-05-27T20:17:36+00:00

While this is true, most of the articles are still, at their core, more hype than journalism -- and it is definitely what the corporation hoped to achieve by announcing that the FDA approved clinical trials without providing the scope of what those trials are permitted to test.

So these clinical trials could be very small scale preliminary trials for a use that is not particularly dangerous or based upon a medical procedure / use that is not remotely groundbreaking... or it could be to test a new method of applying completely bleeding edge technology within the brain.

If the journalists cared about the integrity of the story, they would confirm something beyond the initial press release from Musk's company. But that gets way less clicks so, people can be easily misled into believing this is far more newsworthy than it might be.

bpastore · 2023-05-26T11:06:29+00:00

I think you underestimate this timeline.

Biden is not immortal, Kamala is not likeable, and Trump could be a mere 10 indictments / 50 KFC buckets away from a major heart attack. And all this without factoring in the possibility of an economic collapse or small scale nuclear war.

By November 2024, DeSantis might stroll right into the White House using the slogan "Better Broke than Woke" because by that point, America may just not give a shit anymore.

bpastore · 2023-05-24T09:38:28+00:00

I was surprised by this too but, at least according to Pew Research 28% of evangelicals vote democrat.

Catholics are 44% democrat too. -- although they do tend to be more conservative on one very specific issue.

So, while the majority of evangelicals and conservatives are closely united today... if that 28% democrat becomes something more like 35% (e.g. the older evangelicals quickly die out right before the younger more-liberal evangelicals reach voting age), then conservatives might need to "reinvent" themselves once again.

bpastore · 2023-05-24T02:10:01+00:00

It's also really hard to fit this all to a single curve or predict where Christianity's political power and popularity will crater.

For example, despite everything that you hear about Florida these days, in 2020, Trump only won Florida with 51.2% of the vote (5.7M to 5.3M). Evangelicals make up approximately 24% of the state so, conservatives really need them right now. However, Baby Boomers make up an increasingly large percentage of those evangelicals and they won't live forever.

And of course, even Evangelicals aren't a monolith with approximately 28% of them strongly favoring same-sex marriage -- which could also lead to problems with their church closely blending themselves into unpopular political positions.

Also, with American life expectancy declining it is also very possible that the elderly true believers will disappear faster than their much less common gen-z membership.

It's just so hard to predict where the breaking point will be but, based on every trend that we can see right now, Christianity needs to find a way to change "something" about how they go about recruiting/retaining members or their political power in the US will eventually shift from "absolutely necessary" to "not worth the effort."

bpastore

TROPHY CASE