This comment is a non sequitur to whether corporations have a duty to shareholders. Cited cases have nearly nothing to say for or against on that point.
Unless I'm missing something, that's at the heart of all of these cases.
In Ford v. Dodge, Ford was sitting on $60M, from which it had been paying dividends. These were stopped to reinvest the money in new factories. The Dodge brothers, who owned about 10% of Ford, sued because, per Ford's own comment, his decisions were driven by charitable interests rather than business judgement.
In Shlensky v. Wrigley, Shlensky was a stockholder who believed that the Cubs were leaving money on the table by not holding night games. He sued--and lost--because the Court found that to be a plausible business decision.
In Davis v. Louisville Gas Electric Co., Davis (or actually, his estate) held one type of share in the company, and opposed a reorganization plan that would have converted them to another, to his potential detriment.
In re Walt Disney was a derivative suit by shareholders over the hiring and firing of Michael Orvitz, and whether his (lucrative) compensation was in the company's interests.
The common theme is that the board of directors (and the CEO they appoint, etc) have wide latitude to run the company, even in ways that don't immediately benefit some (Davis) or even all (Shlensky) shareholders. They can certainly go too far (Ford) or fail to exercise much judgement at all (Caremark, where the director sold the company for a value plucked out of thin air), but as Mercantile Trading says "generally [...] courts will not upset the decisions of either directors or stockholders as to questions of policy and business management. An abundance of authority in other jurisdictions might be cited to the same effect"
I second this. Medical, Aerospace, and Government, and other engineering also use these systems. Start looking at official documents -- you'll often see something in the footer like, in tiny font, that looks like 23-14453 Rev 8 -- that's usually a Document ID number and the revision number. With my company, whenever we want to Rev a document (make changes and create a new revision), we make the changes with Word's "Track Changes" turned on, which produces what we call "Redlines" -- a Diff between that version and the previous version. We check that into our Doc Control along side the document without the Redlines. This doesn't really help when comparing Version 3 with Version 8, but as others have pointed out -- you can use Word's "Compare" if you really need to do that.
Part of my company uses SAP for their doc control, part of my company uses MasterControl. I hate hate hate SAP. I have a few bones to pick with Master Control, but overall, it's tolerable. If you'd like to chat more about how this process works in the workplace, you can find me on twitter @failbridge or on reddit as /u/daveslash
What how does that work logically or in reality ? Good guy has no gun, bad guy does, 100% good guy gets robbed, raped, kidnapped, or killed. Good guy has gun, bad guy runs away most of time or sometimes gets killed or captured or otherwise stopped some of time, or sometimes robs, rapes, or kills good guy despite good guy gun some of time. 100% of time I like the second scenario.
"Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was 'used' by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies. ... Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008."cdc see https://www.investors.com/politics/columnists/how-many-lives...
How is this tolerated as acceptable comment ? No way this would be tolerated if similar sentiment was said of SF but the South is fair game on HN. Everyone in the South particularly Texas is a bigot except the tech elite who are fleeing the high taxes and cost of living of California and other states for the abundant jobs in TX.
How is the effort to require manufacturers to provide an unlock for repair different from law enforcement efforts to require an unlock for lawful searches ? Or isn't it ? Argument has been that any backdoor would make encryption vulnerable.
How does decentralization, p2p and encryption change anything? They won't protect you or prevent enforcement. If there are issues they will just tighten the law and increase enforcement mechaniams.
I share your perplexion. At best, these technical solutions will just break off a smaller, "splinter" Internet, unused by the vast majority of users. The average user does not know or care about these things and this isn't likely to change without an effort to properly educate future generations.
Moving from a world wide web to a decentralized, fractured web? Instead of WWW you have FBW (FacebookWeb, GW (GoogleWeb), AW (AppleWeb). What a sad future that would be.
If there is no service then GDPR acts as a higher precedent. EU would have to change their law that users are not allowed to store XYZ content on their own harddrives.
So yes, P2P/decentralization is a perfectly legal alternative for the time being.
