We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
LI's 2 cents. Be afraid. Be very afraid. But that goes for nearly all creative / intellectual professions done with a computer nowadays, including copywriting, translation, 2d and 3d graphics and even computer coding, many parts of which could in some years time be largely automated by this kind of technology.
But, importantly for legal:
1. It's not quite there yet both in terms of quality and reliability (but it probably will get there at some point in the coming years).
2. There will still be scope for human supervision and checking, particularly for high-value legal issues, but there might not be as much need for as much human and junior time.
3. Some of it will be positive for newbies, in that it may assist you in doing research and drafting faster by suggesting intelligent things that you can do.
In terms of law school assignments, a good professor can probably still spot a GPT authored paper and it likely won't get a very good grade (for now), though you're right, it might actually be good enough for a passing grade. Also, turnitin or other plagiarism checkers might adjust to also use AI that might be able to determine whether something was written by a GPT-style algorithm or not.
Would love to hear reader views.
But mostly this is a comment putting responders on notice that please let us not turn this thread into a discussion of 'cancel culture', 'wokism' etc, but on the merits of OPs points. We have accordingly modified the headline.
Regarding Amnesty: moving from Amnesty to the UN is surely not miles away, and the contacts you'll make in top international NGO like Amnesty will likely include UN people or others who can help you get a foot in the door.
Because the revenues of even successful media businesses are surely dwarfed by his other businesses, so the more likely reason he's buying this is for power and influence as subset of business (and if it's about power and influence, Ravish has a potential point)
Also, "very likely" here is still false, unless new evidence comes to light beyond current circumstantial evidence. Here's a more recent scientific study of the virus origins and genomic make-up: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abp8337 This concludes:
Quote:
> The precise events surrounding virus spillover will always be clouded, but all of the circumstantial evidence so far points to more than one zoonotic event occurring in Huanan market in Wuhan, China, likely during November–December 2019.
Quote: Do you have any evidence of this? Hasn't the government been regularly sitting / rejecting a whole bunch of collegium recommendations?
In any case, most of the recent files haven't actually revealed anything new: it was public information that the FBI and DHS had departments dealing with online misinformation. That they would actually use that power and engage with social media companies and try to get them to do stuff for them, like take posts down, etc, shouldn't surprise anyone.
Neither should it be a surprise after Snowden that FBI and Homeland Security they would not try to abuse that power (and that most US social media companies would play ball). This story, for instance, is much more interesting thing out of the Twitter files than yet another rehashing of the Hunter Biden laptop thing:
https://theintercept.com/2022/12/20/twitter-dod-us-military-accounts/
Sure, Greta and her followers and generation are not saints and all eco-warriors, but you don't know enough of them to claim they are all hypocrites who buy iPhones every year and produce more electronic waste than others and that they've done nothing or that they're activism is worthless compared to 'simple folk', both of which are dishonest reductions.
But unless the virus mutates in China into a nastier variant, the pure number infected in China shouldn't make much difference to India, where the virus is practically endemic already anyway and travel restrictions from China are still strict.
Has anyone heard of anyone making it purely via the application portal?
That's certainly NOT the case in the Far East, like China, where respect for elders generally trumps their potential lack of modern-day coolness.
In India it's probably a mixed bag of both, depending on where you live, or depending on whether your grandparents were freedom fighters or whether they've become WhatsApp uncles and how you might feel about that, as a grandkid.
However, isn't the point of "Ok boomer" online not that it's specifically generational, but used as a general putdown by youngsters against others exhibiting a caricature of the US 'boomer' mindset / or as a general comeback against 'you damn kids these days'?
I mean, reading it any other way doesn't make sense in India, you're right - there is really no such thing as a 'baby boomer' generation in India, no more than the slacker Gen X was probably much of a thing in India either. Most of those things - arguably even gen Z to some extent - are US American constructs that are shorthands for other things when used here.
1. Your original claim in the headline is false: according to all references, even cited by OpIndia, at most it was a throwaway single comment in a long lecture, which no one seemed to have reported on because it was apparently so insignificant to the main points he was making.
2. The original comment, as tweeted by LiveLaw, makes it clear that he is explicitly mentioning that it's a legend, not a fact: https://twitter.com/LiveLawIndia/status/1603995360904765441
Quote: 3. The Telegraph article you cite, makes it very much clear that while there wasn't a 'breast tax' as such, lower castes (of both genders) were not allowed to wear garments without paying for it, which seems to have been DYC's exact point.
Quote: The story of Nangeli specifically, does indeed seem to be a legend, but going by the tweets there is no evidence that DYC ever claimed otherwise.
In conclusion, DYC seems to have made clear his story off protest masectomies was a legend in order to illustrate casteism fought by Ambedkar, all of which checks out.
More interesting than this actualy non-story would be, what do you / OpIndia have against DY Chandrachud? The fact that he comes from a family of judges, as do most senior judges, or is there something substantive about what he does or his views that bother you, any more than any other SC judge or CJ?
Regarding partnership, the vast majority of UK law firm lawyers don't actually make it to equity partnership and leave firms or even the profession before, and even then, to get into the millions take-home-pay range, you'll need to make equity at one of the big firms and stick around for a while - junior equity partners might not make as much...
For anyone in any of these situations picking which toilet you enter can be deeply upsetting and traumatic and can result in harassment or physical attacks, so much so that some trans people try not to drink too much water so they don't have to pee when not at home and face these choices. Likewise, some biological women claim that they would be put in the same position if toilet access was liberalised in certain ways.
Therefore not very simple, unfortunately.
And in this case, if someone is saying: "Oh the new generation is so entitled and lazy and whatnot", then 'ok boomer' would be a fair response, just like 'ok zoomer' would surely be a legitimate response if I said: "the old generations have ruined this planet by polluting endlessly and created a shitty world full of wars and dictators and are banning abortions and generally are out of touch with what's important to the newer generations on this planet, who are surely more important and should have more of a voice in this, as they will be the ones who have to live in this world for longer and clean up the mess the old gen made long after they're dead".
In short, if you start a mini-culture war topic over generational differences and 'ok boomer' is one of the worst of responses imaginable, then maybe don't start mini-culture wars about how Gen Z and the wokes are upsetting you so much, because there's maybe no real other response you can give to such broad generalisations.
That is, even though it is true that Gen Z as a whole may be over-entitled and over-sensitive and may listen to some pretty bad music, but why not let them have their fun and find their way, as every young generation has had to before them and will after them too. And also, as every generation before them, they too will also have parents and grandparents looking at them, shaking their heads and muttering "damn kids these these days, no values or work ethic. Now back in my day..."
Exactly.
Half-right: grandpa/ma is not automatically an asshole for being themselves, but grandpa/ma have always been uncool in the eyes of the young, and so it should be so that grandkids build upon the works and countries that grandpa/grandma have built and fixing the problems they created, rather than worshipping at their altars.
Honestly, genuinely interested: can you explain why you're so scared of 'Communism'? How is Communism any scarier than totalitarianism in all its various forms as is currently practice in many countries in the world, only a few of which are actually communist (Cuba maybe?), some of which pretend to be communist (China) but are basically hyper-capitalist under autocratic regimes, and many of which are just right-wing strongmen or military crackpots or juntas.
Even in history, there are as many (and probably significantly more) atrocities committed by non-communist regimes than by communist ones (which may have killed a lot of people, but so did a lot of other types of government through the ages).
So, why the obsession?
If you call them 'privacy toilet' it implies that normal toilets are 'zero-privacy toilets', and no one will go anymore :)
The repeated whining and clutching of pearls about the terrible Gen Z's and how they are taking your genders and freedoms and jobs and who-knows-what, is a little repetitive and has pretty much nothing to do with law or average LI reader interests or concerns most of the time.
Other than that, however, dictionaries just reflect usage of a word, and if woman is being increasingly used in the real world / online in that way, that's what they are documenting.
Perhaps a more nuanced engagement with the issue is warranted, rather than reducing it to a 'trans quest'. If there's indeed a 'trans quest' pursued by every trans person (which is unlikely), it would presumably be for most trans people, that they get to live their lives free of harrassment, much like any other gender, sexual or religious preference or other choices / non-choices.
The toilet argument, as you couch it, however, is often a dog-whistle that is understandably emotive, playing on the idea of male predators, pretending to be trans, invading female-only spaces. Phrased that way, would that risk actually compare in scale to the documented sexual abuse the trans community regularly faces? And would existing laws not cover the scenario of a pretend-trans 'predator'?
That said, it's also understandable if some biological women feel uncomfortable at the idea. But even stopping short of self-id but having gender recognition be an official legal process allowing access to female spaces, might not be enough to allay those women's fears either, right?
In short, there's no easy solution that will make all sides equally happy, but "the day isn't far" arguments are not constructive. Instead, Nalsar's attempt is surely a worthwhile one to consider that doesn't really hurt anyone (or at least hurts less or fewer people than many of the other 'solutions'), other than maybe not being the most hyper-efficient use of space.
If we don't receive a reasonable attempt at a response, we'll mark the thread as trollish for being non bona fide.
1. Why exactly would Vijaya Gadde face legal action? Twitter was / is a company, they are not bound to protect freedom of speech under the US constitution. So what action are you imagining can be taken exactly?
2. Please provide evidence or what you mean by 'wokes' are 'cancelling' them, other than some random people on Twitter being mean to them.
3. Don't know this Weiss fellow, but to describe Taibbi as 'liberal' is too easy. He's a bit hard to pin down - perhaps liberal on some social values and not a Trump supporter, but fundamentally Taibbi seems to be heavily into free speech, potentially allied to Elon's brand of free speech absolutism, which puts him into the libertarian / right-wing camp as much as liberal.
Mind you, he's not wrong on his and others' longer-running criticism that it is worrying that private companies like Twitter and Facebook have so much power to decide what is and what is not acceptable speech, but that's really about the concentration of power in Silicon Valley / the world of finance in the hands of a few, who are largely unaccountable.
Guess what: the only thing that would help there is more government regulation (eugh, only liberals like that), not less: if you leave it to the companies to regulate content, they will end up removing content they will legally be required to remove, and stuff that advertisers don't like, and stuff that their staff are uncomfortable with, including racist content, CSAM, calls for violence, disinformation, etc. How would you have platforms like Twitter 'solve' the inappropriate content problem?
What if you have a sitting president who is regularly undermining trust in democracy by claiming without evidence an election was stolen, resulting in a riot and loss of life / coup? How would you deal with it, if at all? And if you choose not to deal with it, what service do you think is being served?
And lastly, how is Elon's ownership of Twitter making it any more accountable? Because he tweets out polls every now and then to his echo chamber about making important policy decisions?
Why did Elon block Kan(ye) West's account? By a similar yardstick that's being used to criticise Trump's blocking, is that not censorship of a potential future Presidential candidate?
Yours,
Robot Lord
Are the journal articles of similar quality, or do you mean the blogs mostly?
Some factors to consider: how long have you been at a firm, do you ever talk about family or outside-work topics with them, have you been out for coffee or lunch with them socially already, etc...