• 0 Posts
  • 16 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 22nd, 2023

help-circle



  • The story of the Tree That Owns Itself is widely known and is almost always presented as fact. Only one person—the anonymous author of “Deeded to Itself”—has ever claimed to have seen Jackson’s deed to the tree. Most writers acknowledge that the deed is lost or no longer exists—if in fact it ever did exist. Such a deed would have no legal effect. Under common law, the recipient of a piece of property must have the legal capacity to receive it, and the property must be delivered to—and accepted by—the recipient.[6] Both are impossible for a tree to do, as it isn’t a legal person.

    […]

    “However defective this title may be in law, the public recognized it.”[11] In that spirit, it is the stated position of the Athens-Clarke County Unified Government that the tree, in spite of the law, does indeed own itself.[12] It is the policy of the city of Athens to maintain it as a public street tree.[13]

    […]

    Although the story of the Tree That Owns Itself is more legend than history, the tree has become, along with the University Arch and the Double-Barreled Cannon, one of the most recognized and well-loved symbols of Athens.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_That_Owns_Itself

    In reality, the tree is not protected by law, but by the will of the people. Kind of symbolic if you ask me.





  • Just today there was a great comment by @Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works on why this does not make any sense.

    1. When you factor in the incredible damage done to the Tesla share price by the amount of stock he had to liquidate to finance the deal, and the almost billion a year in interest and operating costs the company is pulling out of him, the deal has, altogether, cost Musk about half of his net worth. No amount of petty childishness is worth that.
    1. He literally went to court to try to get out of the deal. What was his play here? To sue with the intention of failing? For what possible reason?
    2. If his plan was to kill Twitter, why would he attach his beloved X name to it? Musk has spent his entire life trying to make X happen. It is dearer to him than his own children. Why would he attach that brand to a company he’s intentionally sabotaging?
    3. If his goal is to kill Twitter, why is it still here? He owns the company outright. He took it private. There’s no board. There’s no shareholders. He doesn’t have a fiduciary responsibility. If he wanted Twitter dead, all he had to do was shut the doors, turn off the lights, and send everyone home.

    Anyone who buys into this “He’s trying to kill Twitter” nonsense, please, I am begging you, try to get your head around the fact that Elon Musk is not a smart man. This isn’t some incredible 4D chess play. Twitter isn’t failing because of intentional sabotage; it’s failing because Musk is genuinely trying his best, and his best absolutely sucks. He’s a bad businessman who lucked into a fortune he never deserved.

    https://sh.itjust.works/comment/4855307




  • The source is NABU = “Nature and Biodiversity Conservation Union” (the largest non-profit nature conservation organization in Germany)

    Translated from german:

    But you have to look at the overall picture: only in human settlement areas are cats a serious factor that can partially lead to a decline in bird populations. But in fact, bird populations are increasing there, while they are decreasing especially in agricultural landscapes, but also in forests. Blaming these declines on cats would be far too simplistic. The greatest threat to biodiversity is and remains the progressive degradation of habitats by humans.

    https://www.nabu.de/tiere-und-pflanzen/voegel/gefaehrdungen/katzen/15537.html

    They recommend castration to limit the cross-breeding of house cats with wild cats, but see no general problem in free-roaming house cats.







  • I don’t think the article is trying to claim that labor exploitation is new.

    This part directly admits that it is a very old phenomenon:

    It’s been noted, and correctly so, that entertainment industry labor disputes often erupt when there’s a change in technology — from theaters screening projected films to the cathode ray tube of the home television, say, or the rise of YouTube and other online content in the 2000s — and that happens for a reason. Historically, executives and management use a disorienting new technology to try to justify lowering wages of their workers, and they have done so since the days of the Industrial Revolution.

    As I understood it, the article just wants to explain why this is happening now, because historically it seems to happen in waves.