Thank you for your kind words!

I had an inkling that was the case. But I figured that, for my own benefit, I’d elucidate my position a bit more. If it falls on deaf bot ears, then that’s just how it is. There’s not much else I was going to say anyway.

I agree that requiring certain industries to be based domestically is the best route

This isn’t what I said at all. What I meant was, for service businesses (eg car dealerships, warehouses, restaurants) and heavy industry (eg oil refineries, plastics and chemicals, composites like wind turbine blades or aircraft fuselages) which practically must remain within the country, support those endeavors by making it easier or cheaper to operate, so that an internal economy for those products develops locally. Trying to force stronger internal ties would inevitably lead to resources and incentives spent where they’re not most needed.

If you don’t tariff everyone, how does that bring manufacturing back? They’ll just move to the next cheapest country, and then you’re playing whack-a-mole.

I’m not sure if you saw my Mexico example or not, or purposely chose to ignore it, but manufacturing that moves from China to Mexico would still further a USA policy of reduced economic dependency on China. It doesn’t matter so much that it’s not “Made in USA” so much that it’s not “Made in China”, if that’s the desired economic policy.

And that doesn’t even include the knock-on effects that anchoring the Mexican economy would create: economic migration – when people move from a place of poorer economic condition to a richer economic place – would naturally abate if the Mexican economy grew. Economic opportunity also displaces gang warfare and drug distribution, in part.

The alternative is to apply huge subsidies for manufactures to ignore Mexico and set up shop in the USA, but then the cost of land, labor, and capital is substantially higher, and the products less affordable because they must be higher priced to pay for those means of production. Why do all this when Mexico or Canada are right next door?

If you don’t support tariffs to bring back manufacturing jobs domestically, how do you think we could make it through a war with our manufacturing partners?

I express no position here about China nor Taiwan, but the false dichotomy presented is between: 1) enforce trade barriers indiscriminately against every country, territory, and uninhabitable island in the world without regard for allies nor enemies, or 2) diversify economic dependency away from one particular country.

The former is rooted in lunacy and harkens back to the mercantilism era, where every country sought to bring more gold back home and export more stuff and reducing imports. The latter is pragmatic and diplomatic, creating new allies (economically and probably militarily) and is compatible with modern global economic notions like comparative advantage, where some countries are simply better at producing a given product (eg Swiss watches) so that other countries can focus on their own specialization (eg American-educated computer scientists).

As a specific example, see Mexico, which under NAFTA and USMCA stood to be America’s new and rising manufacturing comrade. Mexico has the necessary geographical connectivity and transportation links to the mainland USA, its own diverse economy, relatively cheap labor, timezones and culture that make for easier business dealings than cross-Pacific, and overall was very receptive to the idea of taking a share of the pie from China.

Long-term thinking would be to commit to this strategic position, this changing the domestic focus to: 1) replace China with North America suppliers for certain manufactured goods, 2) continue to foster industries which are “offshore-proof”, such as small businesses that simply have to exist locally or industries whose products remain super-expensive or hazrdous to ship (eg lithium ion batteries). Sadly, the USA has not done this.

It is sheer arrogance to believe that the economic tide for industries of yore (eg plastic goods, combustion motor vehicles, call centers) can be substantially turned around in even a decade, when that transition away from domestic manufacturing took decades to occur. Further egoism is expressed by unilateral tarrif decisions that don’t pass muster logically nor arithmetically.

This 100%. The other comments addressed the “should I withdraw?” aspect of OP’s question, but this comment deals with “should I stop contributing?”. The answer to the latter is: no.

The mantra in investing has always been “buy low, sell high”. If the stock market is down, continuing your 401k contributions is doing the “buy low” part.

I can understand the pessimism in some of the answers given so far, especially with regards to the poor state of American public transit. But ending a discussion with “they guess” is unsatisfactory to me, and doesn’t get to the meat of the question, which I understand to be: what processes might be used to identify candidate bus stop locations.

And while it does often look like stops are placed by throwing darts at a map, there’s at least some order and method to it. So that’s what I’ll try to describe, at least from the perspective of a random citizen in California that has attended open houses for my town’s recently-revamped bus network.

In a lot of ways, planning bus networks is akin to engineering problems, in that there’s almost never a “clean slate” to start with. It’s not like Cities Skylines where the town/city is built out by a single person, and even master planned developments can’t predict what human traffic patterns will be in two or three decades. Instead, planning is done with regards to: what infrastructure already exists, where people already go, and what needs aren’t presently being met by transit.

Those are the big-picture factors, so we’ll start with existing infrastructure. Infra is expensive and hard to retrofit. We’re talking about the vehicle fleet, dedicated bus lanes, bus bulbs or curb extensions, overhead wires for trolleybuses, bus shelters, full-on BRT stops, and even the sidewalk leading up to a bus stop. If all these things need to be built out for a bus network, then that gets expensive. Instead, municipalities with some modicum of foresight will attach provisos to adjacent developments so that these things can be built at the same time in anticipation, or at least reserve the land or right-of-way for future construction. For this reason, many suburbs in the western USA will have a bulb-out for a bus to stop, even if there are no buses yet.

A bus network will try to utilize these pieces of infrastructure when they make sense. Sometimes they don’t make total sense, but the alternative of building it right-sized could be an outlandish expense. For example, many towns have a central bus depot in the middle of downtown. But if suburban sprawl means that the “center of population” has moved to somewhere else, then perhaps a second bus depot elsewhere is warranted to make bus-to-bus connections. But two depots cost more to operate than one, and that money could be used to run more frequent buses instead, if they already have those vehicles and drivers. Tradeoffs, tradeoffs.

Also to consider are that buses tend to run on existing streets and roads. That alone will constrain which way the bus routes can operate, especially if there are one-way streets involved. In this case, circular loops can make sense, although patrons would need to know that they’ll depart at one stop and return at another. Sometimes bus-only routes and bridges are built, ideally crossing orthogonal to the street grid to gain an edge over automobile traffic. In the worst case, buses get caught up in the same traffic as all the other automobiles, which sadly is the norm in America.

I can only briefly speak of the inter-stop spacing, but it’s broadly a function of the service frequency desired, end-to-end speed, and how distributed the riders are. A commuter bus from a suburb into the core city might have lots of stops in the suburb and in the city, but zero stops in between, since the goal is to pick people up around the suburb and take them somewhere into town. For a local bus in town, the goal is to be faster than walking, so with 15 minute frequencies, stops have to be no closer than 400-800 meters or so, or else people will just walk. But too far and it’s a challenge for wheelchair users who need the bus. Whereas for a bus service which is purely meant to connect between two bus depots, it would prefer to make a few more stops in between that make sense, like a mall, but maybe not if it can travel exclusively on a freeway or in dedicated bus lanes. So many things to consider.

As for existing human traffic patterns, the new innovation in the past decade or so has been to look at anonymized phone location data. Now, I’m glossing over the privacy concern of using people’s coarse location data, but the large mobile carriers in the USA have always had this info, and this is a scenario where surveying people about which places they commute or travel to is imprecise, so using data collected in the background is fairly reliable. What this should hopefully show is where the “traffic centers” are (eg malls, regional parks, major employers, transit stations), how people are currently getting there (identifying travel mode based on speed, route, and time of day), and the intensity of such travel in relationship to everyone else (eg morning/evening rush hour, game days).

I mentioned surveys earlier, which while imprecise for all the places that people go to, it’s quite helpful for identifying the existing hurdles that current riders face. This is the third factor, identifying unmet needs. As in, difficulties with paying the fare, transfers that are too tight, or confusing bus depot layouts. But asking existing riders will not yield a recipe for growing ridership with new riders, people who won’t even consider riding the existing service, if one exists at all. Then there’s the matter of planning for ridership in the future, as a form of induced demand: a housing development that is built adjacent to an active bus line is more likely to create habitual riders from day 1.

As an aside, here in California, transit operators are obliged to undergo regular analysis of how the service can be improved, using a procedure called Unmet Transit Needs. The reason for this procedure is that some state funds are earmarked for transit only, while others are marked for transit first and if no unmet needs exist, then those funds can be applied to general transport needs, often funding road maintenance.

This process is, IMO, horrifically abused to funnel more money towards road maintenance, because the bar for what constitutes an Unmet Transit Need includes a proviso that if the need is too financially burdensome to meet, they can just not do it. That’s about as wishy-washy as it gets, and that’s before we consider the other provisio that requires an unmet need to also satisfy an expectation of a certain minimum ridership… which is near impossible to predict in advance for a new bus route or service. As a result, transit operators – under pressure by road engineers to spend less – can basically select whichever outside consultant will give them the “this unmet transit need is unreasonable” stamp of disapproval that they want. /rant

But I digress. A sensible bus route moves lots of people from places they’re already at to places they want to go, ideally directly or maybe through a connection. The service needs to be reliable even if the road isn’t, quick when it can be, and priced correctly to keep the lights on but maybe reduced to spur new ridership. To then build out a network of interlinking bus routes is even harder, as the network effect means people have more choices on where to go, but this adds pressure on wayfinding and fare structures. And even more involved is interconnecting a bus network to a train/tram/LRT system or an adjacent town’s bus network.

When they’re doing their job properly, bus routing is not at all trivial for planners, and that’s before citizens are writing in with their complaints and conservatives keep trying to cut funding.

Also, what if things that require very little data transmission used something lower than 2.4Ghz for longer range? (1Ghz or something?)

No one seemed to touch upon this part, so I’ll chime in. The range and throughput of a transmission depends on a lot of factors, but the most prominent are: peak and avg output power, modulation (the pattern of radio waves sent) and frequency, background noise, and bandwidth (in Hz; how much spectrum width the transmission will occupy), in no particular order.

If all else were equal, changing the frequency to a lower band wouldn’t impact range or throughput. But that’s hardly ever the case, since reducing the frequency imposes limitations to the usable modulations, which means trying to send the same payload either takes longer or uses more spectral bandwidth. Those two approaches have the side-effect that slower transmissions are more easily recovered from farther away, and using more bandwidth means partial interference from noise has a lesser impact, as well as lower risk of interception. So in practice, a lower frequency could improve range, but the other factors would have to take up the slack to keep the same throughput.

Indeed, actual radio systems manipulate some or all of those factors when longer distance reception is the goal. Some systems are clever with their modulation, such as FT8 used by amateur radio operators, in order to use low-power transmitters in noisy radio bands. On the flip side, sometimes raw power can overcome all obstacles. Or maybe just send very infrequent, impeccably narrow messages, using an atomic clock for frequency accuracy.

To answer the question concretely though, there are LoRa devices which prefer to use the ISM band centered on 915 MHz in The Americas, as the objective is indeed long range (a few hundred km) and small payload (maybe <100 Bytes), and that means the comparatively wider (and noisier) 2.4 GHz band is unneeded and unwanted. But this is just one example, and LoRa has many implementations that change the base parameters. Like how MeshCore and Meshtastic might use the same physical radios but the former implements actual mesh routing, while the latter floods to all nodes (a bad thing).

But some systems like WiFi or GSM can be tuned for longer range while still using their customary frequencies, by turning those other aforementioned knobs. Custom networks could indeed be dedicated to only sending very small amounts of data, like for telemetry (see SCADA). That said, GSM does have a hard cap of 35 km, for reasons having to do with how it handles multiple devices at once.

Radio engineering, like all other disciplines of engineering, centers upon balancing competing requirements and limitations in elegant ways. Radio range is the product of intensely optimizing all factors for the desired objective.

I don’t think I was? As a rule, I always remove the automatic +1 for my own comment, since I prefer to start the count from zero.

@jayemar already gave a valid counterpoint, about how to select the technocrats in the first place. But let’s suppose we did somehow select the best and brightest of their fields. The next problem is that life is messy, and there often isn’t a single answer or criteria which determines what is in the public interest.

Btw, for everyone’s benefit, J-PAL is the Jameel Poverty Action Lab at MIT, with branches covering different parts of the world, since policies on addressing poverty necessarily differ depending on local circumstances. They might be described as a research institute or maybe a think tank, as they advocate for more-effective solutions to poverty and give advice on how to do that.

Poverty, as an objective, can be roughly distilled into bringing everyone above some numerical economic figure. There may be different methods that bring people out of poverty, but it’s fairly straightforward to assess the effectiveness of those solutions, by seeing how many people exit poverty and how much the solution costs.

Now take something like – to stay with economics – management of the central bank. The USA central bank (The Federal Reserve) was created with a dual mandate, which means they manage the currency with care to: 1) not let inflation run amok, and 2) keep USA unemployment low. The dual mandate is tricky because one tends to begat the other. So when both strike, what should a technocrat do? Sacrifice one goal short-term to achieve the other long-term? Try attacking both but perhaps fail at either?

Such choices are not straight yes/no or go/no-go questions, but are rightfully questions of policy and judgement. Is it fine to sell 10% of parkland for resource extraction if it will iron-clad guarantee the remaining 90% is protected as wilderness for time immemorial? How about 25%? 60%?

Subject matter experts (SMEs) are excellent at their craft, but asking them to write public policy – even with help from other SMEs – won’t address the fuzzy dilemmas that absolutely arise in governance.

In a democratic republic, voters choose not only the politician with views they agree with, but also are subscribing to that politician’s sense of judgement for all of life’s unknowns. Sometimes this goes well, sometimes that trust is misplaced. Although it’s imperfect, this system can answer the fuzzy dilemmas which technocracies cannot.

To be clear, this is about exterior mounted warning lights, and not like a caution lamp on a control panel, right?

I’m not sure how hard you’re rotating a 3.5 mm cable, but yes, that sound is the sudden making and breaking of the contacts, which it’s not meant to do. It will wear down the surfaces, even if the 3.5 mm tip is gold plated, since the gold is for anti-corrosion not for anti-friction.

But, the notion of cylinder housings for connectors has not died. After all, large cylinders are easy to grasp. Here is one very beefy example, often called the California Standard connector due to its use for Hollywood movie productions. This is a waterproof, twist-lock connector that also suppresses arcs if you unplug it while it’s still on. It can only connect in one orientation, so you keep rotating around the center pin until it slots in. It’s heavy enough to probably also double as a blackjack for self-defense lol

A cylindrical connector would be fine for connecting one or two conductors. But more than that and it starts to become a nightmare to design, and even worse to build and use reliably. Classic examples include the venerable RCA connector, the BNC connector for radio signals, and IMO the worst connector to ever exist, the F-type connector used for TV coaxial cable.

With just two conductors, a cylinder can have have a concentric shape, where the inside is a pin and the outside is a shell. But you’ll notice that although all these connectors are circular, they’re hardly designed to rotate while attached. You generally have to remove or at least loosen them before trying to turn them. Or you still try it and the TV picture might flicker a bit. The problem is one of electrical contact.

The engineers that make connectors go through painstaking efforts to get the conductive surfaces to align – or “mate” as they say – because if they don’t, the signal quality drops like a rock. It’s already hard enough to get cheap connectors to reliably align, but now you want them to move relative to each other? That’s tough to build, and moving surfaces will eventually wear down.

Even worse is that circular shapes tend to have poorer mating, because manufacturing tolerances for curves is wider than tolerances for flat surfaces. We actually don’t want to make round contacts, if a rectangular shape would suffice. Flat contacts are simpler to produce and generally more reliable [citation needed].

But even more intractable is the matter of matching the pinouts. Here is the pinout when looking at the connector of a USB C cord:

Even without understanding what each pin does, it’s noticeable that certain pins are the same whether you flip the connector over. In fact, they even label them that way: pin A12 on the top-right is also B12 on the bottom-left. The most damaging scenario is if USB 5v power was sent down the wrong pin, but it’s very clear that the VBUS pins – which are the 5v power – will always be in the same place no matter the cord orientation.

The only pins which are different upon inversion are the data lines – anything with a + or - in the name – or certain control signals which are intentionally paired with their opposite signal (eg CC1 and CC2). The USB C designers could have packed way more data pins if they didn’t have to duplicate half the pins to allow flipping the connector over. But that design choice has made USB C easier to use. A fair tradeoff.

And that’s the crux of it: in engineering, we are always dealing with tradeoffs, either for performance, cost to produce, ease of use, future compatibility, and a host of other concerns. Wanting a cylindrical connector could certainly be a design goal. But once it starts causing problems with alignment or manufacturing, there will inevitably be pushback. And it’s clear that of all the popular connectors used today, few are cylindrical.

Heck, even for DC power, the barrel connector has given way to more popular designs, like the Anderson PowerPole or the XT family of connectors, because the market needed high-current connectors for drones and Li-po batteries. Granted, the XT connectors are basically two cylindrical connectors side-by-side haha.

Starting with the title question, US States are bound by the federal constitution, which explicitly denies certain powers to the States, found mostly in Article I Section 10. The first clause even starts with foreign policy:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

In this context, the terms “treaty, alliance, or confederation” are understood to mean some organization which would compete with the union that is the United States of America. That is to say, a US State cannot join the United Kingdom as a fifth country, for example. Whereas agreements between states – the normal meaning of “treaty” – is controlled by the third clause, which refers to such agreements as “compacts”.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Compacts are only allowed if the US Congress also approves. This is what allows the western US States, the federal government, and Mexico to all agree on how to (badly) divide the water of the Colorado River.

So if foreign policy is meant to include diplomatic relationships, military exercises, setting tariffs, and things like that, then no, the US States are severely constrained in doing foreign policy. The diplomatic relations part is doable, where state-elected officials can go to foreign countries to advocate for trade and tourism. But those officials must not violate the federal Logan Act, which prohibits mediating an active dispute involving the USA, since that’s the US Secretary of State’s job. For example, it would be unlawful if a US State governor tried to mediate a prisoner exchange with a country that the USA has engaged the military against.

For your other question about what US States are, the answer to the question changed significantly in the 1860s. During that decade, the federal constitution gained three amendments, with the 14th Amendment being the most significantly for the notion of statehood. That Amendment’s Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses gave life to the notion of “incorporation”, which is that the US Constitution’s limits on the federal government also applied to the several States.

Before the 1860s, US States were indeed closer to countries in a trading, monetary, and foreign policy alliance. Some US States even had official religions, since the First Amendment’s prohibition on endorsing religion only applied to the federal government. But post 1860s, it was firmly established that the federal government isn’t just some economic committee, but an actual representative body, one whose laws will trounce state laws.

The best example I can point to is how broad the federal government exercises its “interstate commerce” powers. Basically, if something has anything remotely to do with crossing a state border, the feds can write laws on that topic. That was extremely rare pre 1860s, and now it’s basically the norm. The postal service is one such activity which is explicitly and wholly a federal matter, written into the initial Constitution. But now, airspace, telecoms, and railroads are all matters which the federal government asserts its authority via the “interstate commerce” powers, and if US States were countries, they might object to the feds. But they’re not countries, so they don’t wield that power.

Setting aside the question of data availability, do job offers even have a strong association to post codes or even specific cities or regions anymore? On one end, some jobs are definitely location-based, such as in-home hospice work. In the middle would be jobs open to an entire area, such as construction worker. And at the opposite end are remote jobs which anyone in the country can apply for, and that’s only due to HR not wanting to deal with employment laws in foreign countries; fully-remote software jobs can be like this.

This is essentially a quick rundown of open-source software licensing. The notice is saying that the TikTok app uses some software that is owned by Facebook, but that Facebook has irrevocably licensed the software such that anyone (including you or TikTok) can use and distribute that software for free, provided they follow the few rules in the BSD 3-clause license, which has three clauses: 1) include these three clauses with any source code copy of Facebook’s software, 2) include these three clauses in the docs bundled with any compiled app that uses Facebook’s software, and 3) do not use Facebook’s name in a way that implies an endorsement or affiliation with Facebook.

TikTok can continue using that particular version of Facebook’s software until the heat death of the universe, and Facebook can never come back later and demand payment from TikTok or you or anyone for that software. But Facebook is still considered the owner, because they retain the right to relicense the software under different terms, perhaps with a license that doesn’t require including the copyright notice, for example. Likewise, Facebook has the right to sue to enforce the BSD 3-clause terms against anyone who isn’t abiding by those terms. But it looks like TikTok is abiding, since they posted the full BSD 3-clause terms, so Facebook can’t complain.

Note: Facebook could change the license for later versions of the software, but any versions prior would be unaffected. Integrating any software commercially always requires checking the license terms, and while open-source software has fairly standardized terms, diligence is still important and licenses do occasionally change.

As you correctly observed, English is tricky and there aren’t too many hard rules with the language, which is aggravating for English learners but also highlights its flexibility, which is an important quality for the de facto language of science, aviation, international trade, etc. So to answer the question, I think there are multiple aspects which make a combined word more likely, including: 1) the constituent words are different parts-of-speech being combined into a new part-of-speech, 2) a contraction whose spelling happens to be very similar to an existing word but is still mostly unambiguous, and 3) how likely the combined word appears in colloquial or subject-matter specific speech and writing.

Even a combo word that meets all three of those points is not guaranteed to be universally accepted as a new word, but some combo words get accepted even if they don’t meet most of those points. Starting with your examples, “greenhouse” certainly meets point #1, since “green” is an adjective and “house” is a noun, which combined form the new noun “greenhouse”. “login” does the same, although it also meets point #2, since it’s a contraction of “log in” (v.), meaning to sign into a web service. The same goes for “work out” (v) and workout (n, an exercise program for each day of week).

I personally always write “log in” when I mean the verb, and “login” (n.) to refer to the credentials needed to sign in. But that’s my CS degree showing. As such, I’m of the opinion that “login” as a verb is a typo, since it’s the wrong part-of-speech (a noun when a verb is needed). Same goes for “alot” (IMO, a typo) and “allot” (v, to allocate). Whether such typos are permissible depends on the quality of the writing, as “takecare” and “ofcourse” would be unacceptable in a dissertation but perfectly fine for an IRC chatroom for die-hard fans of British cooking shows. But I think most people in the latter group, if asked, would probably agree that “ofcourse” is a typo. Basic English literacy means we’re not going to hapazardly throwawaythewhitespace andtryto pretendthatitdoesnt matter.

Finally, prevalence, which is considered by many linguists to be the ultimate test of neologisms: if people use it and it’s understood, then it’s a word. But that rule needs to be viewed from the lens of the intended audience. For example, years and years ago, I understood the legal term “housecar” in the California Vehicle Code to mean something akin to a family saloon car, meaning a car suitable for transporting a whole family or household. This would contrast with a pick-up trucks, sports cars, and commercial vehicles. But my naivete was to not look up the actual definition, and I just wrongly assumed that definition because it made sense for “house” and “car” to combine in that way. The real definition is a car that is also a house, meaning an RV or motorhome. That just goes to show that – since I’m not a lawyer – I was not the audience to gauge whether “housecar” is a valid combo word or not. Whereas California-based lawyers would have likely recognized the meaning in short order.

Basically, each combo word is unique in its circumstances, but perhaps those three points I mentioned have a lot (haha) to do with whether a combo word achieves universal adoption. “alot” does not seem to have met the full acceptance test.

IANAL, and lawsuits almost always end up being very fact-intensive, which means that the specifics of the case often make the difference. So it’ll depend. But broadly speaking, if there isn’t a specific law – eg ADA – that specifically assigns liability, then the most typical claim someone would try to make is a theory of negligence. That is, failure of the laundromat to behave with a reasonable degree of care.

In the absence of signage or disclaimers or waivers (like in some amusement park rides), the jury will have to assess whether this laundromat’s environment suggested some heightened sense of security (eg security cameras, even fake ones) or that management implied or leaned into marketing that made it sound like clothes wouldn’t be stolen there. But a typical coin-op laundromat has people going in and out at all times of day, so it’s not reasonable to think it’s akin to Fort Knox, even without a sign indicating that management disclaims liability for clothes theft.

As for posting that sign, it won’t change the general lack of liability on the laundromat in a case where someone snatches clothing. But the equation is different if, say, a patron asked a staff member to watch their laundry for 5 minutes as they make a phone call, and that staff member agreed but then went out for a smoke, resulting in an opportunistic thief stealing the $80 bras from the dryer. Here, the laundromat would carry liability, because although they don’t normally watch the clothes, they agreed to do it this once and did it so badly that the clothes were stolen. That’s negligence, despite the sign.

That said, posting a warning sign is generally encouraged, since a core principle of liability is that avoidance of harms is always going to be preferable than litigating after they’ve already happened. So if the sign causes patrons to stay near their clothes in the machine, then some amount of theft has been outright avoided. For this reason, courts seldom will punish a business for having an overzealous sign, unless the sign itself is materially false or the sign itself causes a hazard (eg a loose “Gusty Winds” highway warning sign that falls over in a light breeze, injuring a middle school student).

But to muddy the waters some more, another core principle of liability is that liability should fall upon the person whose behavior if changed will prevent future harms. For stolen clothes, it’s quite clear that the thief should be liable for the value of the stolen bras. If a court instead holds the laundromat liable, then that creates a perverse incentive where rather than spending money on more/better washers, the laundromat must spend that money on cameras and private security, raising the cost of the laundry machines. In additional to absolving civil liability on the thief. All for something which would be more cheaply solved by patrons just watching their laundry, or perhaps installing hasps on the machines so patrons can bring their own locks.

On the flip side, denying liability means the patron has lost the value of their clothes. Perhaps they now have to spend more on “clothes insurance”, which only serves to benefit an insurance company rather than affording more bras. Adjudicating liability – in any legal system – is a thankless job and there are never perfect answers to the delicate balancing act. Life is messy, and even the best civil tribunals struggle to make sense in all of the turbulent circumstances.

TL;DR: it depends

There is truth in this, but it needs a little bit more context. If a civil lawsuit – eg personal injury claim – goes to trial and either party requests a jury, then yes, the jury is mostly unrestrained in what sort of damages (or none at all) they find. But they don’t have absolute authority.

The caveat is that some jurisdictions have hard caps on the type of damages. Texas limits punitive damages (meant as punishment to ward off copycats from causing the same harms) to 2x the economic damages (loss of money or value; excludes emotional suffering) plus $750k. This was raised as an issue in the lawsuit brought in Texas against Alex Jones where the jury awarded approximately $50 million, although the judge did not determine that the Texas cap would apply, and so it didn’t. Jones could have appealed that decision, but I couldn’t find news articles suggesting he did.

There’s also a court’s inherent duty to deliver due process, which would allow a judge to cut down a jury award which is so outlandish that it is not supported by the evidence. This is similar to throwing out a criminal guilty verdict when no shred of evidence supported guilt. The opposite is rare, as a judge usually doesn’t increase a jury award; judges might add sanctions instead though.

The odd quirk is that the fickleness of juries – both criminal or civil – is often used to broker a settlement or plea deal. When Dominion Voting Systems sued Fox News, their suit requested $1.4 billion in compensation. But a jury could have found more damages than that. But it could also have been much lower. To avoid that gamble, the parties agreed to settle for $787.5 million. A settlement cannot be appealed and permanently terminates the lawsuit, which provides some peace to all parties. As for the merits of criminal plea deals, the pros and cons are better described here: https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/plea-bargaining-necessary-evil

You’re going to have to clarify what jurisdiction, since USA law is going to be vastly different than EU law, in the realms of product, medical devices, and public accommodations liability.

But if we did examine the USA, then we can find some generalized rules. For product liability – the responsibility of manufacturers and distributors of a tangible object – strict liability will lay when a product has an inherent defect (meaning it didn’t become defective after the initial sale) and this defect causes some sort of injury. Although this criteria doesn’t depend on the frequency of injuries, if a product is accumulating a body count, that’s usually a good sign that there’s a defect. Causality is also important to establish, as well as any mitigations that may have existed. On this front, a manufacturer might argue that the warnings in the instruction manual specifically advised against diving headlong into a 30 cm deep swimming pool. And although warning consumers to not do something may be somewhat effective at discharging liability, warnings alone do not prevent someone from trying a lawsuit anyway; the popular wisdom that the “pages of warnings” in manuals are written by lawyers is only partly true, since most manufacturer prefer repeat business by customers that are still alive.

Medical product liability is similar, but slightly different because medical products are built for a specific purpose but a doctor can instruct a patient to use it differently, if medically appropriate. If not used as instructed by the manufacturer, the manufacturer is usually off the hook, but the doctor might be liable for medical malpractice. Maybe. Doctor liability in the USA is framed within a “duty of care”, meaning that the doctor takes on a responsibility to act with a reasonable degree of skill and competency. The “standard of care” idea is related, in that it sets the floor for what is reasonable for all doctors. It is, for example, grossly negligent to a drunk doctor to examine a patient. Harms from such negligence can be litigated through a malpractice suit. But this doesn’t mean all harm is actionable. A successful appendectomy that results in blood sepsis is always going to be a possibility, even with the best infection controls in place. If all the staff discharged their duties within their training, then negligence does not attach. Also, malpractice is not something which can be waived, because even if a patient doesn’t sue, a doctor’s medical license can be suspended. Whereas the risks of a surgery can be described in detail to a patient, for informed consent.

Finally, public accommodations law sets the floor for how public and private businesses conduct themselves if they provide goods or services to the general public. Very prominently in this realm are accessibility requirements, which are rules that assure the disabled will not have undue burdens that able-bodied people wouldn’t face. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) provides for very stiff fines for non-compliance, and because its objective was to set the standard, there is no provision for a “fix it ticket” approach for enforcement. That is to say, the ADA does not allow business owners to wait until a wheelchair user makes a complaint; they must follow the standard from day 1.

No doubt there is abuse of the liability laws – there’s nothing more American than filing “ambitious” lawsuits – and this is just a brief (and uncited, '“from the hip”) summary of possible areas of law that might answer your question. But I hope it gives you an idea of why a warning or sticker or sign might incur liability. Or at the very least, an unexpected lawsuit from left-field.

As it happens, it’s about 10 C (50 F) near me and raining, and I did actually think about using my leaf blower for a very specific purpose: blowing the leaves clear of the road gutters.

I saw outside my window that the autumn leaves formed a dam in the gutter, impounding an amount of water which started diverting onto the asphalt and the sidewalk. From what little I know about road construction, water intrusion is the greater enemy so I didn’t want to let the small pond sit there.

In the end, I just picked the leaves up by hand to remove the obstruction. But if I had a lot more streetfront, leaf blower would be the first tool to come to mind. But it would take no more than 10 minutes total.