If what the author says is correct, the Contracts part of the legislation is the most complicated one. It is governed by differing sets of legal doctrIf what the author says is correct, the Contracts part of the legislation is the most complicated one. It is governed by differing sets of legal doctrines, that include different sets of rules. I don't remember all of those.
Things I remember: * John says to Bob: "Hey Bob, if you climb the stairs of that 100-story sky-scraper over there, in one shot, and without using the elevator to get up or down, and without resting, I'll give you $10k. The only way to accept this contract is to climb the stairs". Bob starts climbing. When Bob, exhausted, reaches floor 99, he sees John get out of an elevator at floor on 100. John says "The offer is cancelled". If Bob decides to sue, who would win? It turns out that there was a time when John would win, because technically, Bob hadn't accepted the offer yet. Nowadays, Bob would win, because only Bob had to do any work, and because after starting to attempt to do the job, John is not allowed anymore to cancel his offer. * There was a lady claiming she had a haunted house. She sold her house at some point to some people who had no idea that she previously claimed the house was haunted. When they found out about her claims (which common sense asks us to disregard), they sued her, claiming that they wouldn't be able to sell the house at the desired price. They won because the court decided that whether haunted or not in reality, from the perspective of the law, the house was haunted because there might be people who believed this. Of all things, the house was declared legally haunted, and the original owner was forced to take it back (and reimburse the buyers). Guess what happened next? Lots of people heard about this and wanted to buy the house, and so its price went way up. The original owner could then sell it at a far better price :D Law can be funny
This course is about law, as applied in the US. From what I understand, there's a great difference between the "Common law" (applied in the US) and the "Roman law" used in Europe (though not England). Roman law makes lots of rules of what one can and can't do, and leaves very little to be discussed. Common law on the other hand uses the concept of "precedence" - there are fewer explicit rules, and courts decide individual cases BUT after a case is decided, it will have to be taken into account when future similar cases show up in courts.
I also talked to a lawyer and he said there's one more difference - and I speculate this difference is the reason why people in the US seem so incredibly scared to speak out their minds, why they're polarized, and why they seem to sue each other so much. The difference is that the courts in the US use a jury. These jurors are just regular people who are not trained in law. They're supposed to cast their opinions on something that the accused person did. Naturally, these jurors will be far more influenced by feelings, because they don't necessarily know how laws work and how to cast an opinion - so feelings are simply an explicit part of the law. It is for this reason that people in Anglophone countries are far more aware, and care far more about the opinions of others. Of course, this is simply my speculation. If there is causality here, it could go the other way around: People living in Anglophone countries are culturally predisposed to care about other people's emotions more, and this could be the reason why they adopted the legal system using a jury. It's my idea, I like it, but I don't know how much truth it carries.
Very opinionated, Christian, and American book. Not sure about whoever is reading this but I'm getting kind of sick of the US culture. If someone can Very opinionated, Christian, and American book. Not sure about whoever is reading this but I'm getting kind of sick of the US culture. If someone can recommend different kinds of authors, I'd be very grateful. I'd even go so far as to learn another language just to get a perspective different from the American one.
It has just a few ideas that I'll use: * Boys need to be allowed to do "stupid boy stuff" (playing slightly dangerously) * For boys, their father's word is the ultimate truth * As an adult, you need to approach them to find and fix problems * They will always want to consider their father a hero - you have to work really hard to lose that spot, and you can work your way back to it * Never give up on kids. They will always find your good intentions helpful * Though they will never admit it, they'll appreciate you setting boundaries for them * They want to do the things their fathers expect from them...more
Autistic-spectrum people: * might have a smaller cerebellum (making it harder for them to have good dexterity - cookNeurodiversity - good concept!
tl;dr
Autistic-spectrum people: * might have a smaller cerebellum (making it harder for them to have good dexterity - cooking food is hard for them) * might have better memory * might have skills that they are really really good at, far better than a "normal" person * don't get the concept of "looking into someone's eyes" * they need to "stim" (stimulate) in order to calm down. It feels really rewarding to them
ADHD people: * Their brain needs more stimulation * They might be very creating * They might be able to reach deep focus state faster and for longer than "normal" people
The part about gender words: I do not agree with the author that "there isn't such a thing as normal". Yes there is! Society needs to maintain a fresh supply of humans - and the most efficient way to do that so far is through "normal" people's "normal" attraction mechanism. Other than that, sure there can be x-sexual people. The x-sexual people are in no way good or bad, but they are not the majority, they probably never will be, and though they deserve the same level of respect as any other person, not being heterosexual will ensure their genes are less likely to be found in the next generation. Not everyone cares about this, but ultimately, that's a very important thing to happen if we value having humans. I'm not advocating we should do anything about non-heterosexuals. I am advocating that we use the words "man" and "woman" as we'd expect if we knew nothing about non-heterosexuals. We can use other words for non-heterosexuals.
I read this with my wife, because I was familiar with Buddhism, and wanted to show her how similar it is to psychology - it's similar!
We did not read I read this with my wife, because I was familiar with Buddhism, and wanted to show her how similar it is to psychology - it's similar!
We did not read the religious-specific parts - we're not into that.
My lasting impressions: * Buddhism says suffering comes from confusion * Confusion is caused by either being too attached to stuff or being too afraid of stuff * Buddhism is all about helping you detach and not fear stuff - it comes as a great tool to use in modern-day capitalist societies, where basically everyone is trying to make you want something :)...more
Law is complicated and - quite to be expected - there is no "ultimate solution".
One permanent conflict is the battle between interpreting statues liteLaw is complicated and - quite to be expected - there is no "ultimate solution".
One permanent conflict is the battle between interpreting statues literally (following the letter) vs following an underlying/overarching/common sensical interpretation (following the spirit of the law).
The arguments for the spirit of the law are obvious - it shields us from ridiculous results. The arguments for interpreting the letter of the law are that sometimes, laws are political compromises and there's no underlying more general interpretation.
An interesting point is that judges (for some reason the author calls them "justices") are supposed to make very fee value judgments (and thus follow the letter of the law). This is because they were not democratically chosen, and so do not represent the will of "the people". The will of the people is represented by "Congress"....more
I kind of knew almost everything here from science popularization books, encyclopedias and youtube videos.
Still, very good course!
Here are my notes, tI kind of knew almost everything here from science popularization books, encyclopedias and youtube videos.
Still, very good course!
Here are my notes, taken for myself using a text-to-speech tool:
To do: look up why particles are unstable to begin with
To do: look up why there aren't up-up-up hadrons. The proton, up-up-down seems the most stable hadron...but why no uuu?
To do: look up "axis of evil" in the context of the cosmic microwave background radiation
Why are other particles made up of that up and down quarks and antiquarks not stable?
Superstring theory predicts different speeds of light for different wavelengths
The fact that the wave function is symmetrical in respect to adding an arbitrary phase results in the conservation of electric charge from Noether's theorem
The masses of the individual neutrino types are not known. What is known is the difference between their masses and the sum of their masses and the fact that they should have really really small masses like less than one electron volt. Also nobody knows why they have mass.
The mass of the Higgs boson is calculated from the mass of the boson itself and the mass of the particles that it in transforms into for short periods of time. From what I understand the second component of the mass of the Higgs boson that the masses of the leptons and the quarks should be exactly equal there should be new rules not included in the standard model
The fact that neutrinos have mass is a problem for the standard model because it predicts that they should not have mass.
The higgsfield was key to the unification of the electromagnetic and the weak Force.
Regarding the discovery of the Higgs boson the author recommends the book "massive".
The author recommends reading writings from Steven Weinberg (nobel laureate).
The weak force has 3 force carriers... crazy!
The week nuclear force does not obey conservation of energy. It seems energy can be lost when stuff decays using the weak nuclear force. In addition to energy not being conserved spin is also not being conserved. The example is the decay of Carbon 14 into nitrogen 14.... wait! No! That's just the way neutrinos were discovered (regarding energy conservation). Regarding spin they're really seems to be some weird stuff going on. I wonder if it's the case that neutrinos need to be their own anti particles. " the week Force only interacts with the right-handed Particles and left-handed antiparticles".
In the standard model neutrinos are supposed to have zero mass, but it turns out their masses are just very very small. The author says that this points to crack in the standard model....more
This book looks like it could very well be used as evidence that the west has gone insane.
I don't remember details, but basically: * let your child doThis book looks like it could very well be used as evidence that the west has gone insane.
I don't remember details, but basically: * let your child do whatever they want * let your child suppress no feeling * always try to understand absolutely everything about your child * never praise children, just describe what they did * never cast your judgment, only ask them how they felt about doing a certain thing
...to some extent, this might be good advice, but the author is going extreme with this....more
Loading...
