JoeSchmuckatelli

Did you blow it up to full size?

You must be on Console. PC users see scatter.

I did that a lot back when PC Gamer was a magazine that came with a floppy / CDROM attached. Did find a couple of gems - but I'd only ever delete the game when I ran out of disk space!

I ALWAYS KNEW YOU WERE SPECIAL! Wait - Did Mila Kunis play you in that movie?

EDIT: We're distracting from the purpose of this thread. Love to continue this if the moderators would move this to the Lounge! @Gargamel - I think we've successfully danced around the political/religious topic ban by focusing on the legal aspects of corporate speech. Any chance of moderating this into the Lounge under a "Corporate Speech" Thread? (Entirely my fault: I started this. Apologies to the OP!)

Actually no. Historically, there were many purposes for creating a legal, fictional entity like a corporation, but within the United States... one legal purpose of organizing a company was to encourage investment by creating an entity that could act, but shield its owners/investors from personal liability for the actions of the company. Thus, a rich person (or a pool of smaller investors) could create a railroad company, fund it, and start building railroads - but when those railroads caused accidental harm - the injured could only seek redress from the company, and NOT reach into the pockets of the investors/owners. The person (investor/owner) could still be liable for their own actions - and thus, have their personal assets subject to the law - but where they were merely a passive investor, no personal liability accrued from the actions of employees acting on behalf of the corporation. A Brief History of the Corporate Form and Why it Matters (fordham.edu) I think we're sort of moving away from my point: For Profit (Taxable) entities should be limited to the kinds of activity relative to their purpose: Commercial. Thus their speech (broadly used term, includes actions) should always be considered commercial, and because Commercial Speech enjoys fewer protections than do Political or Religious Speech, For Profit (Taxable) entities should be limited to that. Not for Profit (Non-Taxable) entities can and should be formed by people for societal purposes other than merely seeking profit. As such, they should enjoy greater freedoms, including the right to express Political or Religious ideas - or act in accordance with Political or Religious Goals. Nothing in this limits a For Profit entity from giving to a Non Profit; but the distinction I would draw is that a For Profit entity cannot directly use its Commercial Speech right to limit the rights of its employees (where such rights are held exclusive of the employment relationship), whereas a Not for Profit Entity can require its employees comply with its goals, including limiting otherwise legal rights the individual might hold outside of the employment relationship.

I think we're using the terms in similar ways.

I don't generally disagree with you; but I will point out something that should be bright-line. The legal purpose of a For-Profit company is to make profits. That is notably distinct from a 'Corporate Mission Statement' ("Do no Evil") - which has zero legally binding effects. The corporate mission statement should not be allowed to interfere with another person's legal rights.

The classification of the company for taxation purposes. (Sorry - the originally quoted piece has a weird behavior when trying to cite it... but I like the concise explanation. Here's a parallel citation: For-Profit vs. Nonprofit: 9 Key Differences | Indeed.com) Further, the First Amendment does distinguish forms of speech: Commercial Speech is allowed to be regulated more stringently than others. Case Categories | The First Amendment Encyclopedia (mtsu.edu) also: Corporate Speech | The First Amendment Encyclopedia (mtsu.edu) This could have been / should have been extended to precluding the officers of a for-profit entity from enforcing their privately held beliefs upon employees or others. The problem is that a subsequent, activist Court made bad law (yes, the Supremes do get it wrong): Corporate Speech | The First Amendment Encyclopedia (mtsu.edu) Were I on the Court - I would acknowledge the right of Non-Profit entities that have other-than-profit purposes to engage in Political and Religious speech under the First Amendment no different from a human person's: thus preserving the rights of Religious-based groups to form companies, hospitals, advocacy groups, etc. to further their goals, perform 'activities for aiding or advancement of society' and enjoy the protections of 'incorporation' (used broadly) but limit a For-Profit entity's speech to being prima-facia 'Commercial Speech' in every instance, meaning that they can be limited in their influence. This would, in no way, limit the officers of a Corporation / For-Profit entity from forming a Non-Profit Subsidiary (or similar/ independent) and funding it and utilizing it to further their political / religious goals. Employees of that separate/sub-entity could be constrained in their rights/access to act in accordance with the belief structures imposed by the founders... but that is notably distinct from what would occur with the rest of the organization. With a For-Profit entity, the employees' fundamental relationship to the company is profit-based. They're trading their time and talents for money. Their efforts, in turn, are to help the company make money. They cannot use the company's assets (or the time they've sold) to further their own political / religious / independent financial aims. Why then, should this be different for the owners/officers of a company? When the officers of the company impose personally held beliefs (whether political or religious) upon their employees, effectively forcing them to comply with another person's personally held beliefs or be restricted from lawful rights they might otherwise enjoy - the 'speech' of the company is no longer 'commercial'. Therin lies the logical fallacy. The simplest thing is to say a For-Profit company is presumed to always and exclusively engage in Commercial Speech, and then carve out exceptions following the 'undue-burden' analysis I outline above.

I'm revisiting this: appreciate your thoughts. When I first wrote this, I wasn't thinking about the fact that the KSP2 team has said they're planning n-body physics for Rask and Rusk... but stated they'd be unique ("bespoke solution developed specifically for Rask and Rusk"). (Timestamped) While the idea of DebDeb being a binary did not come up in this... If DebDeb is a binary star system - can the patched conics system be sufficient for this? I'm assuming, yes. Based on the fact that no-one would reasonably expect to land on one of the stars, n-body physics won't be needed for this system. Is this assumption correct? (I.e. a perhaps-overlapping SOI system could probably do the job, just fine. Any planets of the system would just orbit an arbitrarily (or rather specifically) placed barycenter of the two stars, and until you get below a critical distance to one of the stars, your ship would be in orbit/fall around the barycenter - until you hit the closest star's SOI. Is this a reasonable understanding of the likely solution?)

That does not restrict. It classifies. Also, the purchaser can use cash, debit, check, crypto, etc. Not an 'undue burden'. Simply having the company identify a class of purchases does not go anywhere near as far as preventing a person from exercising a right.

That's been covered in the law for a long time; when a person is acting in her capacity as a leader/manager/employee of the company, the company can be liable for the person's actions/decisions. When the person is acting solely in his individual capacity - no liability accrues. Thus, if I am driving the company truck delivering widgets and smash into a Kindergarten, both I and the company are on the hook. If I am wearing the company uniform while driving my POV during my lunch break and crash into the Kindergarten; no liability accrues to the company. Similarly, If I have a personal belief, I can act in accordance with that personal belief; but I don't get to take that personal belief, and tell the employees of my company that they all have to abide by my personal belief in order to stay employed - presuming said employee has a legal right to choose to act in accordance with my belief or in conflict with it. IOW - the person's actions in accordance with their capacity as a leader/manager/employee of the company should be limited to actions that support the company's purpose (if a for-profit company, then the business-purpose of the company) - but not impose my beliefs on employees nor limit their access to things they have a right to... simply because another person's accessing such a right goes counter to my own personal beliefs. Edit: to add... Do we have to allow employees to proselytize or use religious expressions/greetings? (shrm.org) People do have a right to express their personally held religious beliefs at work; but only so long as doing so does not place an undue burden on other employees, customers or others engaging with the person as an employee/representative of the company. What constitutes 'an undue burden' is not always a bright-line rule. Rod Tanner - Religious Expression and Proselytizing in the Workplace.pdf (laborlaw.org)

When you form a for profit entity, its sole purpose is profit, its sole method of speech is Commercial Speech. You as an individual working for said company retain your religious freedom under the Constitution. But you should not be able to use a for-profit corporation to force your religious, personal beliefs on people with whom you have a financial (employment) relationship. It is an absurd farce that the legal fiction of 'personhood' (created to prevent companies from claiming they are not subject to statutes or laws that say "no person shall" or "it is illegal for a person to..." by dent of not being 'persons.' * ) also grants a company a religious persona; the religiously minded can certainly form a non-profit company dedicated to their religious goals (the purpose of the legal entity is thus religious, not profit). But to claim that a For Profit corporation is for anything other than profit is absurd. *The legal fiction of 'personhood' for a company was a convenience to keep from having to rewrite literally thousands of laws

I love how you *nerds* are arguing about the physics of a legal fiction. ...although, tbh, I live in a country where the Supreme Court said a For Profit Corporation (Legal Fiction Entity) can have a religious exemption from certain laws. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/history-corporate-personhood#:~:text=It all goes back to,a child%2C or to vote.

8o

Can you stage the nose off and have it do a reentry +parachute landing and reuse it... Or is that something cheap enough to just 'reef' it?

According to current events - one team's generals are getting their brains rifled... From both sides

I forget that is a distinction - but the deliberateness and choice of flowers seems symbolic to me on the surface. I do understand a bit of professional caution in the declaration of one or the other (professionals have to support contentions with proof, and are subject to criticism that said evidence doesn't support the conclusion) However the article does go on to state: It seems to me that the making and keeping of things is not a far step from decoration and other forms of symbolic expression. Other tool users like crows and chimpanzees find and use tools of opportunity - and discard them once the task is done. Neanderthals knapped flint, made use of worked wood and created art. https://www.earth.com/news/neanderthal-tools-hunt-distance/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/api.nationalgeographic.com/distribution/public/amp/science/article/neanderthals-cave-art-humans-evolution-science Why then is it still a matter of debate whether there was any ceremonial or symbolic relevance to the acknowledged 'deliberate burial?' It seems to me that such reservations are bending over backwards to satisfy those who want to sever any link between 'humans' and those who don't look like us.

Rolling, rolling, rolling Want to stir some hype? Show those rovers rolling! . https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/208746-developer-insights-14-part-creation/&do=findComment&comment=4149203

Usually true... Except I remember WG completely changed the flight model for WoWP at the end of Beta/launch. Wasn't worth playing after. (not that the game was ever great - WASD flying game - but offered to illustrate that Alpha Beta and Gold standards of yesteryear are not always followed.)

Surely. I mean, it's not like hydrogen is difficult to work with, or anything; you'd think professional rocket scientists, chemists and engineers would have solved this years ago. rite?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-super-earth-planet-lp-890-9c-may-be-suitable-for-life/ Two 'super-earth' (large rocky) planets around a Red Dwarf - insolation (inLP890-9ation?) could allow for surface water... And thus, life?

The more I look at these, the more fascinated I get. I think the criticism is misplaced - because there is definitely a fusion between the ai generated image and the human artist who curates the image(s). Some of the compilations I've seen are better than others. This is good This is meh Maybe I'm just drawn to the art style of one more so than another (first is Mind journey, second is StableDiffusion) - but I think the first Hotel California video is more evocative. I would not limit the folks who are doing this to being merely curators. Just as you can call an animator or videographer an artist - the art is in selection of the image and using it/them in telling a story. This shows a bit of the process - b/c the artist chose to present multiple images rather than selecting only one. @tater - this is a fascinating rabbit hole!

@SunlitZelkova - that's Bonkers!