So you had one, subjectively bad personal experience and that somehow disproves or discredits an empirical scientific study ?

That’s like saying “I sure didn’t notice climate change, because it was cold when I visited Texas”

It’s basically just another version of Goodharts Law:

When a measure (in this case “the amount of rubbish the crow brings”) becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.

See also: The NYT best seller list. Once that became popular, publishers started buying their own books during certain times, to make the list. Now basically every book in existence is a “NYT best seller” and the metric has become effectively worthless.

The issue is the crows are going to learn about this, and start just fishing rubbish out of bins, because it’s the easiest way to get their reward.

There was once a Parisian dog who kept trying to push children into the Seine, because he had learned that if he ha saved a drowning child he gets tons of rewards.

Addendum:

People often underestimate just how dangerous speeding can be. Going 20km/h over the limit doesn’t mean if you crash, it’ll be at 20km/h higher than the limit. Because you’re moving faster, even if the total stopping time would only increase by 25%, the distance covered during that stopping time would be much higher, meaning you reach the “crash” point earlier during the braking process, and at a much higher speed. That’s why small changes in speed can have exponential impacts on the severety of a crash.

For a simplified hypothetical.

If two cars are driving down a road with speed limit 80km/h, one is keeping the limit, the other is going 100km/h. When they are exactly neck on neck, at a dirt road intersection ahead, a tractor driver doesn’t check left and right properly, and starts turning onto the road.

Both drivers notice the tractor at the same time, react equally fast (average reaction time from recognition of a hazard to the start of brake application) and slam on their brakes as hard as they can. Using average deceleration rates for emergency stops, if they noticed the tractor early enough that the car following the speed limit just gives the it the tiniest of kisses, coming to a full stop right when reaching it, then the car going 100km/h would have crashed into the tractor whilst still going 80 km/h.

That’s going from a succesful emergency stop to an almost certainly fatal accident, over “only” 20km/h speeding on a high speed road. After subtracting measurement tolerances from a speed trap, in most countries that wouldn’t even get you a license suspension.

I 100% blame drivers. People don’t appreciate just how dangerous a car is. Driving one is an enormous responsibility, should be treated as such. It is 100% your responsibility as a driver to always ensure you are operating your vehicle as safe as possible. “The road was so wide and I wasn’t checking my speedometer” is not even in the same neighborhood of being a valid excuse for excessive speeding.

That’s a bit like saying you wouldn’t blame someone for leaving an unsecured gun around a child, because lax gun laws encourage unsafe gun handling.

Or you wouldn’t blame a corporation for their “fines are just the cost of doing business” approach to dealing with safety and environmental regulations, because the low fines and lax enforcement clearly heavily encourage corporations to behave like that.

If you are doing something that potentially significantly endagers/hurts others, it is your responsibility to that thing safely. Not being legally or structurally forced into doing it safely, is absolutely in no way whatsoever an excuse for not doing it safely.

If you are speeding, you either actively chose to ignore the speed limit, or you didn’t notice you’re significantly above the limit, which means you aren’t paying enough attention to the road, whilst flinging 2 tons of metal down it at upwards of 100 km/h, That’s irresponsible and indefensible.

Bad road design leading people to speed more often is a structural, societal problem, not an individual one.

(Also complaining about speed traps “because ACAB” is like complaining about coppers peacefully arresting a triple murderer because “ACAB”. ACAB doesn’t mean that literally every single thing that literally any cop or PD anywhere on earth ever does is automatically bad and rotten to the core, that’s an utterly ridiculous stance to have. Many things cops do are legitimately valuable public services. ACAB is about the systemic flaws of the system, that protect cops who cross the line from any (real) consequences, and the systemic biases and bigotry inherent to police forces, that every cop is at least silently complicit in)

I’m sure bars would love to sell to underage people if it was legal, and I’m sure they occasionally turn a blind eye in the name of the profit, but I’ve literally never once in my entire life heard someone who sells alcohol openly complain about enforcement, or talk about how “unfair” it is that enforcer try to “entrap” them.

Yeah, sure there’s far far fewer bar owners than car drivers, but I personally hear drivers complain about speed enforcement like every other day. Avoiding speed enforcement is a massive institutionalised industry, like I said, there’s apps, traffic radio, most sat navs show stationary speed cameras. That is not even remotely close to the odd bar owner saying they’d like to sell to younger people. Also, whilst it’s absolutely harmful to teenagers to drink alcohol, it at least doesn’t directly endanger uninvolved people. The people who are being endangered, the teens, need to actively choose to participate in the illegal activity. Drivers, cyclist or pedestrians following every speed limit and traffic regulation, are still endangered by speeding drivers, and there’s nothing they can do personally to avoid that risk. So that’s still not an entirely valid comparison.

In my experience, there is literally no other illegal activity that endangers uninvolved third parties which is so widely accepted as normal by the public, that there is literally a major institutionalised industry specifically around enabling people to do that activity without consequences, and I’d be surprised if you can name one.

I’m not talking about just people broadly doing illegal things that endanger others, or even occasionally complaining about them getting caught, my point is just how ridiculously accepted and systemised it is specifically for speed enforcement.

Fare evasion doesn’t actively endager others, like speeding, so that’s not a valid comparison. Some people also literally can not afford a fare, but still need transport. Simply not speeding is basically ALWAYS an option for every driver. As for underage drinking, teenagers are immature idiots, that’s well known, I wouldn’t exactly consider “teenager do it too” a valid defense for negative behaviour of supposedly mature adutls. And underage drinking is a personal decision, that also doesn’t endanger anyone uninvolved in the activity.

Perhaps I should have been more explicit, and said “illegal things that endanger innocent third parties”, instead of just illegal, that was a indeed a bit too broad, I just felt it flowed better.

I like that you’re complaining about gaslighting whilst literally gaslighting me about my intentions. Just stop. I’m going to block you now anyway, for your own good more than mine.

People disagreeing with you and telling you your meme is shit is not psychological abuse, and it’s objectively fucking insane to claim it is.

Every reply you make like this literally just further reinforces and strengthens my point.

You’re not mentally suited for social media. Just stop, your mental health will thank me.

Just kinda proves my point, tbh. See previous reply.

Dude. Touch fucking grass and delete your account. Clearly you don’t have the mental fortitude to deal with social media without having some kind of break down.

This isn’t an insult, this is genuine advice. Getting this upset over the reception of a meme you posted is neither normal nor healthy.

I get this irrationally upset when I do badly at online competitive games. And that’s why I decided to stop playing them completely years ago. Maybe you should make a similar decision about posting on social media.

I’ve directly answered every single comment you made. Every single one. You’re literally just making shit up now. You’re clearly arguing in bad faith, and I’m not going to engage with you anymore. You’ve notably also yourself provided ZERO sources for any of your claims that disclaiment would’ve been the wrong choice. Your literal only source is “they didn’t chose it, and they couldn’t possibly have been wrong”. According to that dumb ass logic, expert financial analysts at Blockbuster deciding to not buy Netflix must’ve been the right decision.

Come back when you’ve learned to argue at a level above a C- high school student.

~~How the fuck can you people sleep at night while treating others like this?~

Dude. You’re reacting like someone murdered your mother to people down voting your meme, that’s not normal. Go touch grass.

You posted a link to a Wikipedia paragraph that doesn’t mention the arguments you made and just called it a “contemporary source”. I can’t take you seriously anymore, you’re arguing on the level of a C- high school student.

You’ve also literally not provided a single direct counter to ANYTHING I’ve said. Every single time I’ve pointed out something you said is wrong, instead of arguing you’re right, you just moved on a to a new argument. Until you ran out, and posted a generic milk toast response about reading a Wikipedia paragraph that doesn’t even mention the word “disclaim” or patent law, and only talks about the reasoning for making the patent public, not for choosing donation to a university over disclaimment. And then proceded to call the Wikipedia paragraph a contemporary source.

Also, half the arguments I made have nothing to do with specific patent law, they’re just objective facts, like that a university has no incentive to defend a patent they don’t want to enforce, beyond altruism, which exists equally as incentive to defend a disclaimed patent. That’s not a legal arguement, that’s an objective fact. Just like the fact that at no point in history has any PTO ever required a personal connection/patent to prior art to contest a new patent, because that would be dumb as fuck. It would literally mean that if the original inventor of a publicly known, unpatented/disclaimed invention can’t be bothered with the legal effort of defending it (or, ya know, died), there would be nothing stopping someone else from getting and inforcing the patent.

You were arguing just as vehemently about this, with just as much certainty, before that comment, which weirdly just happened to appear when you ran out of arguements.

Just a weird, coincidence I’m sure.

No it doesn’t. They’re explicitly NOT enforcing the patent, they have no incentive to defend it based on the patent being valid. They could just as easily sign a contract with the original inventor, promising to challenge attempts at repatenting the idea. The only reason validity of the patent would make a difference to their motivation, is if they plan on eventualyl enfocing it.

Yes there is. Anyone can contest a patent based on prior art existing, you don’t need any personal relation to the prior art, and having one doesn’t strengthen your legal case. The university would have identical legal power to contest the new patent, on basis of the existing disclaimed patent.

That logic applies identically to a valid patent. For the issues you mention, there is no distinction between the patent being filed at the PTO and still valid, or being filled at the PTO and disclaimed. In terms of the enforcibility, and patentability of a ““new”” inventions with prior art, there is no legal distinction whatsoever between the prior art being a disclaimed or a valid patent, so I don’t think that’s a valid reason to not disclaim it.

Anyone who wants to repatent the process and harass people using it, would have an equally hard/easy time doing so, if the patent is disclaimed or valid.

The only real legal distinction between a disclaimed and valid patent is that the orignal patent holder can’t enforce the disclaimed one. And since that was the intended goal here, disclaimment feels like the obvious best choice.

What a dumb ass argument. Accordings to Al Quadas rules of engagement, the twin towers were a legitimate military target.

You don’t just get to decide yourself what counts at legitimate target, that’s not how any of this works.