• 2 Posts
  • 843 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 14th, 2023

help-circle
  • If they do the form correctly, then it’s just an extra step for you to confirm. One flow I’ve seen that would accomplish this is:

    1. You enter your address into a form that can be auto-filled
    2. You submit the address
    3. If the address validates, the site saves the form and shows you the address in a more readable format. You can click Edit to make changes.
    4. If the address doesn’t validate, the site displays a modal asking you to confirm the address. If another address they were able to look up looks similar, it suggests you use that instead. It’s one click to continue editing, to use the suggested address, or to use what you originally entered.

    That said, if you’re regularly seeing the wrong address pop up it may be worth submitting a request to get your address added to the database they use. That process will differ depending on your location and the address verification service(s) used by the sites that are causing issues. If you’re in the US, a first step is to confirm that the USPS database has your address listed correctly, as their database is used by some downstream address verification services like “Melissa.” I believe that requires a visit to your local post office, but you may be able to fix it by calling your region’s USPS Address Management System office.




  • Good point!

    If OP is hourly, those 3 hours should be billed as work - probably under a generic HR-related category if one is available.

    If OP is salaried exempt, then this would fall under “doing any work at all” (all that’s needed to be paid for the day) and if sick time is tracked by day and not by hour, then OP doesn’t need to use one. If it’s tracked hourly then OP should make sure to only use 5 sick hours (or less, depending on how long the work-related conversations took) and depending on employer policies may not need to use any sick time at all.

    This also cut into the time OP could have been using to rest. It would be very reasonable for OP to need an extra day to recover, as a result.



  • Generally, usage of the term “gentrification” refers to the improvement of neighborhoods - or other places where people live, like apartment complexes - and, due to increased cost of living, the displacement of the people who used to live there. Displacement of less wealthy current residents when gentrification occurs is so common that it’s implied. If it weren’t, people wouldn’t have such low opinions of gentrification.

    If a forest has been gentrified, therefore, then - if you interpret “gentrified” in the same way - it follows that people who have been living there have been displaced. And since those people were living in a forest - not in a cabin in a forest - they’re necessarily homeless. Since OP didn’t say that they were building houses or apartments in the forest, that would mean that the wealthier people who displaced them were also homeless.

    Since the context was another commenter calling “gentrified forest” a cursed phrase, I don’t think I’m alone in thinking that.







  • Further, “Whether another user actually downloaded the content that Meta made available” through torrenting “is irrelevant,” the authors alleged. “Meta ‘reproduced’ the works as soon as it made them available to other peers.”

    Is there existing case law for what making something “available” means? If I say “Alright, I’ll send you this book if you want, just ask,” have I made it available? What if, when someone asks, I don’t actually send them anything?

    I’m thinking outside of contexts of piracy and torrenting, to be clear - like if a software license requires you to make any changed versions available to anyone who uses the software. Can you say it’s available if your distribution platform is configured to prevent downloads?

    If not, then why would it be any different when torrenting?

    Meta ‘reproduced’ the works as soon as it made them available to other peers.

    The argument that a copyrighted work has been reproduced when “made available,” when “made available” has such a low bar is also perplexing. If I post an ad on Craigslist for the sale of the Mona Lisa, have I reproduced it?

    What if it was for a car?

    I’m selling a brand new 2026 Alfa Romeo 4E, DM me your offers. I’ve now “reproduced” a car - come at me, MPAA.



  • Wasn’t the estimated delivery date much sooner when you first placed the order? Per Amazon’s stated policy, you should be eligible for refund three days after that date.

    Obviously it would be preferable for you to get it even sooner, but that’s still a lot better than two months from now.

    If you have an email or any record of the original estimated date, contact Amazon CS and reference that. Don’t even mention the changed delivery - that’s not your problem, as you didn’t agree to a changed delivery date; you were promised delivery three days ago and haven’t received it.