The people eligible for passports are not the same group of people eligible for voter id since there are a few jurisdictions where non-citizens can vote in certain elections. Voting is also a responsibility of the states (even at the federal level), so there isn't really such thing as a federal voter id since each state has different eligibility requirements for voters that don't necessarily align with passport eligibility. Additionally, passport cards aren't interchangeable with passports in most countries.
Also, every four years? Elections happen more or less constantly in this country at some level or another. Federal elections are every two years, BTW, and that's if we ignore special elections for federal candidates. You should learn more about the system you live in.
The current round of stop-and-search would be enabled by making passport cards or some form of universal id. The current legal reality is that you do not need to prove your citizenship on demand if you are already in the US as a citizen. The burden of proof - rightly in my opinion - lies with the government to prove that you are not a citizen. Frankly, I'm quite uncomfortable with "paper's please" entering the US law enforcement repertoire. The fourth amendment was pretty clear about this.
With the CBP using mere presence validated by facial id only at legally protected protests as reason to withdraw Global Entry enrollment, it seems more and more clear that we do not need to be giving more power to the people who do not understand the 4th and first amendments. Removing people from Global Entry for protected first speech is, afaict, directly in violation of the first amendment even if Global Entry is a "privilege"
FWIW, REAL-ID is not about U.S. citizenship: A passport issued by any country is considered "compliant" with the REAL-ID Act for air travel or any other purpose, regardless of the person's U.S. immigration status. Some politicians seem to have deluded themselves to think that requiring REAL-ID will stop "illegal aliens" from flying. But it won't. Many foreigners in the U.S. (regardless of U.S. immigration status) have an easier time getting REAL-ID (a passport from their country of citizenship) than some U.S. citizens.
Shouldn't we celebrate her for changing and growing instead of trolling the web for 12 year old edgelord tweets that she has already apologized for? Since then, she has become a strong and rational voice on the national scene, and there is nothing to indicate that her change in beliefs and apology was insincere.
I don't think I was a "bad person" at that age, but I certainly know that I said some cringy, stupid stuff that I certainly don't stand by anymore.
Quite frankly, I think it is far more concerning if a person can't identify anything that they have changed their mind on. We should celebrate when people change for the better instead of attacking them for having been bad in the past.
I severely doubt your thesis around iPhones being Veblen goods.
You are claiming that if the price of the iPhone went down, apple would sell fewer phones?
Correspondingly, you are arguing that if they increased prices they could increase sales?
You are claiming that 100s of millions of people have all made the decision that the price of an iPhone is more than it is worth to them as a device, but is made up for by being seen with one in your hand?
Not all goods that signify status are Veblen goods.
>Correspondingly, you are arguing that if they increased prices they could increase sales?
Veblen goods aren't like this. If they were, everything would be priced at infinity. Veblen goods have to take into account the amount of spending money their target customers have, and how much they're willing to spend. Apple products are priced this way. They're not targeted just at people who can afford Rolls-Royce Silver Shadows, they're targeted at regular people who are willing to spend too much money on a phone when they can get an equivalent Android phone for half the price. Those people have limited money, but they're willing to overpay, but only so much.
>You are claiming that if the price of the iPhone went down, apple would sell fewer phones?
Quite likely, yes. If they adopted razor-thin profit margins on iPhones, their phones would be seen as "cheap" and wouldn't have the cachet they have now. More people would start looking at alternatives, and start buying Samsung Galaxies and other flagship Android phones.
Increasing demand with increasing prices is the very definition of a Veblen good. I never said anything like pricing them at infinity (an exceptionally stupid way of saying that something is not for sale).
I simply pointed out that there isn’t really any reason to believe that a mass produced easily available phone that holds a massive percentage of the entire global cell phone market would see increased demand from increased prices. It is an extraordinary claim with nothing resembling evidence. The most damning evidence is that the most expensive iPhone, the Pro Max, is outsold 2:1 by the base model for the last three generations, despite being visually distinguishable. (The 17 saw initial sales of Pro Maxes higher than base, but that appears to have corrected. Easily understandable that early adopters are more willing to pay for the best version of new tech)
There is an argument to be made that the Pro Max flirts with Veblen for small parts of the market, or that certain submarkets in poorer countries treat the iPhone that way, but that all looks more like conspicuous consumption. I still don’t believe that Pro Max sales increase if the price increases. A few individuals or submarket will not have the ability to invert a demand curve for an Apple device.
Again, I think that you are confusing conspicuous consumption with a Veblen good. This sentence is the giveaway:
> Those people have limited money, but they're willing to overpay, but only so much.
What you are describing is a normal demand curve. As price rises fewer people are willing to pay. People being unable to pay for something they still want does not make something a Veblen good (that would make insulin a Veblen good). You are describing a steep demand curve, not a reversed one.
Just because you perceive that an equivalent android can be purchased for half the price does not mean that everyone uses your criteria. I tried switching to a lower priced android made by google. In no way was it equivalent for my purposes. and I still wouldn’t want it. I am happy to pay the price, not because I care about being seen with an iPhone, but because it is the tool that I have determined to best suit my purposes. Many people refuse to believe this, but many people like the Apple ecosystem.
iPhones in the US have an estimate ~55% market share depending on source. Owning an Android wasn't unusual in the least when I lived there, and appears to be pretty popular.
I don't think its unusual that a country with high median income and higher average income will tend to gravitate towards more expensive phones. Given that Apple doesn't make a cheap phone, it kind of follows that wealthier countries will buy more iPhones.
Of course the opposite is true as well, In a country where an iPhone is measured in months of salary, they won't sell well, but I'd be willing to bet that Androids in that price tier sell like shit in those countries too.
Is it a status symbol? arguably. But it also correlates pretty strongly with median income.
> What's to be gained... by offloading inference to someone else?
Access to models that local hardware can't run. The kind of model that an iphone struggles to run is blown out of the water by most low end hosted models. Its the same reason that most devs opt for claude code, cursor, copilot, etc. instead of using hosted models for coding assistance.
Claude code produces stuff orders of magnitude more complicated than classifying expenses.
If the task can be run locally on hardware you own anyway, it should.
As someone that falls on the side of “depression is real and antidepressants can help” it is very clear that there are people in this thread that need to hold their tongues because they know not of what they speak. (Not you OP)
There are some forms of depression that you cannot think or act your way out of. If you haven’t experienced that, I promise that you do not understand what it is like. You cannot really understand unless you have experienced it. Your opinion on it is irrelevant, and frequently offensive.
The same is true for people that say that antidepressants are mostly placebo. They are not. When people say that antidepressants saved their life, they aren’t joking or exaggerating in the least.
Yes, I understand that other therapies are also effective, and that some people are non-responsive to some drugs.
Keep your pet theories to yourself if you are not a subject matter expert or someone who has experienced it first hand.
Edit: I understand that the placebo effect is still an effect. My point is that there are a lot of people being incredibly dismissive of real lived experiences and outcomes on a VERY serious issue.
As a counterpoint, I experienced such severe negative symptoms after taking SSRIs that I had to be hospitalized for months. Medical treatment is not without its risks. I would always advise trying NPIs before drugs.
I don't in any way mean to discount adverse affects, or negative experiences. Those are just as valuable points. People should be aware of the risks when they take any pharmaceutical, and there are doctors who will happily prescribe these drugs without educating the patient or themselves about downsides and alternatives.
My point is that a lot of the commenters here are saying some variation of "have you tried being happier?" and "these drugs do nothing". Both of which are absurd to the point of offensiveness to people who have gone through it, in the same way that it would be absurd (and offensive) to claim that these drugs have no possible downsides and a negative reaction is placebo.
There are indeed some form of serious depression that are non-responsive to psychotherapy alone. Those are however not the norm. Dr. David D Burns, practising psychiatrist and author of the book Feeling Good: The New Mood Therapy has written a whole chapter in it on the appropriate use case and effectiveness of anti-depressants today. (If you are considering using anti-depressants, I urge everyone to get the latest revision of his book and read that chapter). He believes anti-depressant has its use during treatment but also shares studies that suggest modern psychotherapy, like Cognitive Therapy which he advocates, has now begun to surpass the effectiveness of anti-depressants in "curing" depression in the long-term.
A particular point he makes about depression in it is insightful: Although depression is conventionally viewed as a medical illness, research studies indicate that genetic influences appear to account for only about 16% of depression. For many individuals, life influences appear to be the most important causes.
I was incapable of the compassion you're talking about until I had a bad shroom trip and felt some horrible, hard-to-describe anxiety the next morning. It was some of the worst hours of my life until my serotonin system rebalanced itself.
I'm not saying it's the same thing as depression or regular anxiety, but it gave me tremendous perspective on how bad these conditions can be and you just don't have the ability to "shake it off" when things are unbalanced.
Maybe that's how my wife feels when she's off the meds. Shit. Now imagine having a douchebag by your side second-guessing your pain. Never again.
The good thing is it isn’t necessary to know how someone else feels to have compassion.:)
It’s enough to accept you don’t understand the other person‘s thought process and stop trying to tell them what they are thinking. You don’t need to fix things, you just need to listen and not make them justify or explain themselves to you.
Doing nothing is better than doing the wrong thing.
This comes from my own personal experience. I can’t relate to people on an emotional level. Every relationship is processed with deliberate, logical action. If I love a friend, I need to figure out what would change their internal state so they can experience that love.
From the outside, this looks like I can relate on an emotional level.
Precisely. That's what I took from the experience as well. If that's so hard and I had no idea about it until now, maybe there are other things that I don't know, and some that I will never learn, and I should tread lightly.
> The same is true for people that say that antidepressants are mostly placebo. They are not.
In fairness, anti-depressants are a lot of drugs. The article gives a list. 23 of them seemed to be better than placebo, 19 of them were much less clear.
> When people say that antidepressants saved their life, they aren’t joking or exaggerating in the least.
A: The same is true for people that say that antidepressants are mostly placebo. They are not.
B: When people say that antidepressants saved their life, they aren’t joking or exaggerating in the least.
Are placebos unable to save lives?
Not claiming antidepressants are or are not mostly placebo, and don't mean to minimize the pain of depression in anyway. I just don't think whether or not they saved a person's life is an indication either way. The placebo effect is real, right? As in the subject actually gets better after taking it.
> Keep your pet theories to yourself if you are not a subject matter expert or someone who has experienced it first hand.
This is the internet, friend. I wish you the best, but maybe don't put too much hope into that one. I think you'll have better luck cultivating the ability to be comfortable having your own beliefs while others have different (possibly wrong!) ones.
When you do this, you're just accusing people of having no real evaluative power about their own experience. It's pointless, and it's not really an opinion.
Placebo-controlled RCTs show that some people react well to antidepressants with major variation from person to person.
Maybe I wasn't being clear, since I didn't mean to accuse anyone of anything.
I'm not disputing that someone had the genuine experience of antidepressants saving their life. I'm asking if that precludes antidepressants acting as a placebo.
In other words both things can be true: antidepressants saved someone's life and antidepressants can act as placebo (even in the case where they saved someone's life). And notice I'm saying "can be true". I'm not saying they are true, cause I have no idea.
This is a logic question, not some kind of moral attack.
Lexapro made me feel like I was randomly being dropped down an elevator shaft for 6 months after I stopped taking it. I’m glad it worked for you, and am not minimizing that, but these medications have a side effects profile a mile long and should be a therapy of last resort in my opinion.
The problem with antidepressants are that while we know, more or less, what they do, we don't know why they work for some and not for others. Escitalopram (Lexapro) was a vast improvement for me over Citalopram. Then it plateaued and a year later, left me anhedonic. Tried an SNRI that would give me brain zaps every day a few hours before my next dose and it was horrendous to quit using. It also messed with my ability to meditate for a long while. Basically, I could put myself in a mental state that would trigger the same kind of painful brain zaps that withdrawal from the SNRI caused.
I can't go so far as to say it saved my life, but I'm part of that cohort of 10% of men who develop postpartum depression. Taking a small dosage of Lexapro had zero side effects for me and helped me deal with not just the anxiety and depression I was experiencing but also a lot of pre-existing anxious behavior that I didn't even realize was abnormal.
Huge quality of life improvement. 10/10 would medicate again.
Courts will look at the level of systematic tolerance. If you have a history of vigorous enforcement, it will be harder to argue in the future that a borderline dilution should be allowed.
If you allow borderline dilution, the court is going to consider what you have let other people get away with in the past.
I would still be interested in a real case where a trademark owner ignored a borderline case and this later resulted in an adverse ruling when a more concrete interest was at stake.
Amstar Corp. v. Domino’s Pizza, Inc., 615 F.2d 252 (5th Cir. 1980) The record showed a history of extensive third‑party “Domino” uses (including other food and grocery products). That crowded field made Amstar’s DOMINO relatively weak outside sugar, and Domino’s Pizza prevailed. Link:
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/615...
I’m not GP, but I can take a crack: A case against a limited liability corporation for infringing on a trademark is not like murdering someone and burning down their house because no one ends up dead and no houses are burned down, and it is an appealable judgement made by a court based in legal precedent.
The entire business is branded like Eggo waffles. The colors used, the font and stylistic “E” are the same, the white outlining of red letters on a yellow field is copied. It isn’t just the name and phrase, the entire brand is copied over.
I’m not making a judgment on the morality of the law. But under the law itself, I can completely understand how Kellog’s has a strong claim here
The stylistic 'E' actually looks nothing alike if you look at the picture in the complaint linked elsewhere in the thread[0]. Just about the only similarity is that it's vaguely cursive red with white outline. The 'E' is probably the most obviously different part.
It's immediately obvious to anyone with a functioning brain that it's a parody, so only a corporate lawyer could be so dishonest as to write that it's "likely to deceive and cause confusion, mistake, or deception among consumers or potential consumers as to the source of origin of Defendant’s goods and services and the sponsorship or endorsement of those goods and services by Kellogg". Their truck screams "this does not follow modern 'corporate' branding/style guides, so is obviously not approved or associated with a multinational company like Kellogg."
Quite interesting to see the product placement examples in the document though as evidence their "renown".
Are you looking at the Eggo logo in that filing from the 30s? If you look at the modern Eggo logo shown later in the filing compared to the egg roll trucks usage of it in “L’Eggo my eggroll” it is clearly so similar that it is hard to distinguish which “L’Eggo” belongs to the truck if you isolate them.
Parody and fair use are also significantly weakened in law when the use is commercial and without social commentary. Protected parody needs to be more than “I copied your branding style for my business”.
Again I’m not arguing that the law is moral or immoral, just that Kellog’s has a strong claim here under the law given that the branding as a whole is clearly copied from the Eggo brand, and that there is no evidence here that the food truck is trying to make fair use for the purposes of free speech, commentary or parody.
Is anyone going to confuse a waffle with an eggroll? No. But it is perfectly reasonable to think that the food truck is somehow associated with the Eggo food brand. Large corporations do stuff like operate offshoots and pop ups in adjacent niches. Look to IHOP’s brief marketing stunt rebrand to IHOB for an example.
I'm looking at all of what's in that document. The 'E' is literally the most dissimilar letter. It's very obviously distinct, and even more obviously distinct when isolated. In any case, they might legally prevail, but let's not kid ourselves: no one is going to be confused. The lawyer who wrote that is not just immoral in some abstract sense; they are concretely a disingenuous liar.
Arguing the "E" in the "Eggo" trademark and the "E" on the egg roll truck are so distinct that anyone arguing it must be lying is not a reasonable position.
My commentary on the 'E' is a response to that being specifically called out as the same in an earlier comment when it's specifically not the same if you actually look at it. The bit about the lawyer lying is what I quoted from the court document: that it's "likely to deceive and cause confusion, mistake, or deception among consumers or potential consumers" about whether this is endorsed or associated with Kellogg. And yes let's not kid ourselves, that is a lie. No one including the lawyer thinks that's true. Saying things that you obviously think are untrue is lying, even if you do it professionally.
I called out the E as one of numerous obvious similarities in the styling of the motto, not specifically. You are choosing to focus on just the E instead of the other similar elements taken as a whole. We can drop the disagreement over that specific letter and my argument as a whole still stands.
Here’s the only context I
Mentioned the E:
“The entire business is branded like Eggo waffles. The colors used, the font and stylistic “E” are the same, the white outlining of red letters on a yellow field is copied. It isn’t just the name and phrase, the entire brand is copied over.”
If it were just the E it wouldn’t be much of a claim. But it is clear to even a casual observer that the food truck business’ entire brand is based exclusively on recognizable elements of the Eggo brand.
You keep acting like Kellog’s is a villain here, but according to both parties Kellog’s attempted to resolve this amicably out of court. They went so far as to offer to pay for the cost of rebranding the truck as a goodwill effort and contacted the lawyer representing the food truck’s corporation over the course of months in attempts to solve it out of court.
It's based on recognizable elements because it's clearly parodying them; they are not copying the brand. They are not relying on people thinking there's an endorsement or association with Kellogg. They're relying on a chuckle. This stuff is all obvious to anyone with enough reasoning ability to pass the LSAT (or anyone who can pass middle school), so obviously any lawyer who claims otherwise is a disingenuous liar.
Lying like that might be par for the course, but that's why lawyers have a bit of a poor reputation when it comes to ethics.
I only mentioned the E because you did, and it's the most obvious element to display that in fact the font is completely different; the only similarity is "vaguely cursive". It's that sort of "clearly referencing X but obviously 'off'" look that parodies shoot for.
Parody defense typically relies on there being an underlying comment about the brand or product. Commercial use with no clear speech purpose will not be looked on favorably by a court. Copying someone’s brand isn’t a parody by the court’s Rogers test which will be applied in this case to determine if it is a legal parody.
The Rogers test:
> First, the Court must determine whether the work at issue is “expressive” — that is, does the work “communicat[e] ideas or express[ ] points of view.”
Second, if the work is expressive, then the plaintiff must show that the defendant’s use of the trademark either (i) is not artistically relevant to the work, or (ii) is explicitly misleading to consumers as to the source or content of the work.
There is no idea or point of view being communicated by naming your business L’Eggo my Eggroll and copying the colors and style, and I haven’t seen the defendants arguing that. So the second part of the test won’t even be considered.
There actually is case law around bad puns/rhymes as parody branding (Bad Spaniels dog toy shaped and styled like Jack Daniel’s bottle). The court did not accept it as fair use since there isn’t a comment or idea being communicated. It doesn’t matter that no one is going to confuse a dog toy with a bottle of whisky. “We operate an eggroll food truck” is not going to be accepted as an idea or comment for the purposes of parody.
They could argue that they are not actually copying the trademark, but the use of the phrase and colors is pretty damning even if you accept that the cursive is not the same (I don’t see a court buying that the cursive is different enough. It doesn’t matter that it isn’t a stencil perfect match in the totality of circumstances.) This argument is also mutually exclusive to the parody argument since it attempts to deny that there is any brand similarity.
Ironically, someone could now sell t-shirts saying “L’Eggo my trademark” using the exact font and it would be pretty clear fair use parody of Kellog’s lawsuit. It would be a comment specifically poking fun of them suing over that phrase and branding, and the absurdities of trademark law.
I’m not saying that any of this is right or wrong, I’m just saying that from a legal perspective Kellog’s is on pretty firm ground from all publicly known information.
The latest I can find on Bad Spaniels is that the courts concluded they did not infringe the trademark exactly because it was an obvious parody, but that it tarnished the brand because of the association with dog feces[0]. Notably, it seems that brand confusion is still central to the infringement question, and SCOTUS ruled that parody plays into that.
> Reaching the Supreme Court, the case took another turn in 2023 when the Court vacated the Ninth Circuit’s decision, unanimously ruling that the Rogers test does not apply in cases when a trademark is used as a source identifier, rather than as a purely artistic work. As a result, the Supreme Court remanded the case for the district court to reconsider Jack Daniel’s counterclaims under traditional trademark principles.
In the food truck case, clearly they are using it as their own brand identifier (so it's analogous to Bad Spaniels), and clearly it is a parody, so clearly it is not trademark infringement as with BS. Unlike the BS case, they're also not tarnishing the Eggo brand, but just making a playful pun, so that outcome doesn't seem likely here.
You misinterpreted the outcome of that case. The ninth circuit ruling was in favor of VIP. The Supreme Court overturned that ruling and said the lower court needed to discard the rogers test as exculpatory for VIP/BS.
I’ll use a direct quote from your own source to explain how the actual ruling ended up losing the case for BS:
…the district court found that it nevertheless dilutes the fame and distinctiveness of the whiskey maker’s reputation, thereby still running afoul of the Lanham Act’s anti-dilution provisions. The amended order follows the Supreme Court’s decision ending the application of the more liberal Rogers First Amendment test in trademark cases involving expressive works used as source identifiers. In doing so, while finding that the parody of the “Bad Spaniels” dog toy decreased the likelihood of confusion with Jack Daniel’s by modifying the analysis of certain factors in a light more favorable to VIP, the district court ultimately found VIP’s parody of the famous whiskey brand to be a double-edged sword that contributed to finding dilution by tarnishment.
/quote
The Supreme Court case said that because they were using a trademark as a brand identifier they couldn’t argue for a rogers test exemption. In other words if you use someone else’s trademark, even as a riff or joke, in your trademark, the bar is much higher. L’Eggo my Eggroll is doing exactly that.
Your argument that “In the food truck case, clearly they are using it as their own brand identifier (so it's analogous to Bad Spaniels)” perfectly encapsulates why this is a violation once you grok the outcome of the court case. Bravo for phrasing it so succinctly.
But it's not tarnishment. In the BS case, they found that it wasn't infringement, but that they were using it in a way that would cause reputational damage (also dubious, but sure). Here it would seem the claim that it causes reputational damage is even more tenuous; the food truck is not portraying them in any kind of negative light. In fact, an even better fit is likely the Chewy Vuitton toys[0]:
> While it is true that finding a mark to be strong and famous usually favors the plaintiff in a trademark infringement case, the opposite may be true when a legitimate claim of parody is involved. As the district court observed, "In cases of parody, a strong mark’s fame and popularity is precisely the mechanism by which likelihood of confusion is avoided."
> In a similar vein, when considering factors (v) and (vi), it becomes apparent that Haute Diggity Dog intentionally associated its marks, but only partially and certainly imperfectly, so as to convey the simultaneous message that it was not in fact a source of LVM products. Rather, as a parody, it separated itself from the LVM marks in order to make fun of them.
In the BS case, SCOTUS explicitly noted that parody is a factor in determining confusion and therefore infringement[1]:
> But a trademark’s expressive message—particularly a parodic one, as VIP asserts—may properly figure in assessing the likelihood of confusion ... So although VIP’s effort to ridicule Jack Daniel’s does not justify use of the Rogers test, it may make a difference in the standard trademark analysis. Consistent with our ordinary practice, we remand that issue to the courts below.
And then the ultimate conclusion was that it was not infringement. SCOTUS ruled the lower court had taken an incorrect shortcut, but ultimately the answer (on the infringement question) was the same for basically the same reason.
I guess, but it's still distasteful, especially when it's a corporation saying it and the corporation is incentivized to exaggerate/mislead to an extreme.
> You also cannot "lie" about an opinion about what might confuse other people.
What are you talking about? Of course you can lie about your opinion. And the opinion involving other people doesn't change that.
I'll do it right now: I think basically nobody likes ice cream, they're all faking it to fit in.
You wouldn’t want to be breathing anything enriched with oxygen in a fire.
reply