You’ll encounter some very bad news if you do some research on the state of the law as it applies to suing people for defective software. All of the things that you’d like to be able to do to a manufacturer of a car whose steering wheel falls off, are things that you would have a very hard time doing to a manufacturer of software, which is not a tangible item, and which is generally covered by a warranty that discharges all these responsibilities.

A great number of things that people in chat rooms “can definitely see” end up sounding awfully ridiculous in court.

Given that the politicians are making a billion dollars on crypto scams, being gifted multimillion-dollar airplanes, and recipients of gold crowns, I’ll eat whatever I want regardless of who is elected.

The truth is that if we weren’t burdened with multi billionaires, we would have plenty of everything.

Then perhaps it would be prudent to act to remove them and seize their capital.

Even if you removed all the billionaires this is unsustainable.

I think it's just something that Jack Welch at GE said so many times while making so much money that people started to believe it / wanted it to be true. I'd be happy to hear other stories about why this nonsense arose.

Generally speaking, there are two fiduciary duties of the officer: do not usurp corporate opportunities and do not act without information.

Your second question is not relevant because you do not have to be the majority shareholder to initiate such an action.

I dunno. If I woke up on a battlefield the first thing I’d probably do is poke my head up to figure out what’s going on and doubtless, I’d be immediately killed.

Americas Army was the most intuitive game I ever played.

No, not all code is constitutionally protected free speech. Generally speaking, code can be considered speech, but it can also be considered defamation, a munition that could not be exported, a dangerous device that a convicted person could not possess, or a number of other Very Bad Things that could get a fella in a jam.

Look to Universal Studios v. Corley for an example of code (speech) that is nonetheless not free, because the government has an interest and can regulate subject to intermediate scrutiny.

> Truly I dare someone to try to take me to court over this. Would be great publicity for our coercion resistant approach.

IANYL but that’s commendable. Ain’t a lot of people got a code to live by anymore. But it’s double the reason you should touch base with an attorney. Remember this: test cases have to know what they’re testing. If you want to move the law forward you have to break it correctly.

> The latter is legitimate, isn't it?

No, arresting people for crimes they haven’t committed is horrifying and bizarre.

We're not talking about some notion of thoughtcrime here.

We're talking about preparation, and the equivalent of reasonable suspicion for a stop or probable cause for an arrest in the USA, where people absolutely are arrested every day for things an officer has seen enough evidence to believe are about to happen.

no one is talking about a Terry stop except you. “Might” is not probable cause.

> This is why restrictive zoning rules are very bad.

Of course, one reason that they are very good is so that you can avoid living in hell. It's a balance.

The zoning rules that say you can't build a steel mill in a residential neighborhood are not the issue. It's the ones that say you can't build anything other than single family homes in >50% of the residential-zoned land area in the municipality, and in many places >90%.

"When you have 15 people, and the 15 within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero, that’s a pretty good job we’re doing."

Anyway good luck