Yeah for the people in question (buying ferraris/teslas) that blacklisting part might be deterrence enough. Still, even in that real estate covenant construction you mention, that 'something' they stipulate cannot be unlawful I think.
jwt
joined 1 year ago
If you refuse they simply don't sell you the car.
Sure, question is of course: will they be able to do something about it if you agree to the terms and sell it anyway. I don't think 'breaking' an agreement based on unlawful stipulations is actionable (ianal)
Thanks for sharing!
Isn't base64 purely encoding, not encryption?
I know he has some pretty extreme views, but somehow he always reminds me of a mix of 'His Neutralness', 'Jack Johnson' and 'John Jackson' from Futurama.
100% manilla envelope this guy.
Sure. Then imho if he can't say it definitively, he should not make the first claim (slipping in weasel words like 'could' and 'up to' serve as a lazy catch-all disclaimer in that case.)
"What we found is that consuming high amounts of ultra-processed foods could increase your risk of developing depression by up to 50%"
and
"He said that ... they cannot say highly processed food causes depression"
Those statements sound contradictory (Or do they mean that it 'could' be 50% or 0%? But if so, why say anything at all)
Excellent summation, I'd subscribe to you reviewing dead terrorists' letters.