> Such consequences will never come from the state.

Seattle’s consent decree directly contradicts this.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-returns-fu...

The idea that the SPD consent decree constituted "severe consequences", or was successful at all, is a joke.

https://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2026/01/video-cops-rallie...

So is a compiler. Humanity is the conscious altering of nature.

What’s the legal way to arrange things on a shelf?

How do you sort the directory? Alphabetical can be gamed with names like A1 Locksmith. Chronological favors incumbents or spammers depending on direction.

Catalogs are ads.

But I already have email.

Because they’re useful and well liked by consumers?

Who actually likes gift cards, as in, would still use them despite better alternatives existing?

If giving/receiving cash wasn't already illegal or socially unacceptable, gift card issuers would have started lobbying for that yesterday.

Other than that original use case, many people use them as a form of poorly functional digital cash (since it's not fungible across issuers) that really ought to exist natively in a currency these days.

I regularly got dunkin donuts, starbucks and the like gift cards for less the face value (sometimes half of face) and therefore strongly preferred using them when I shopped at those stores (at least when I had a balance).

Don’t limit yourself to first order thinking. The proposed interest payment disincentivizes companies from seeking carried balances. Companies will implement refund mechanisms and streamline dark patterns at their own expense to avoid paying the interest.

I'd stick to first order thinking, thanks.

It's easy to get things wrong trying to do second order thinking, or just make things up.

There's no reason to believe companies would do as you say. There are several other options, including choosing different financial vehicles to store the users money, implementing even more dark patterns to store N% more money so they are even, or can improve their returns over the status quo.

Your entire second paragraph is second order. You can’t just ignore consequences in a policy debate.

yes, my second paragraph is second order to explain how there can be many many possibilities, not the one you wish would happen.

> You can’t just ignore consequences in a policy debate.

Consequences of consequences though, you can route almost any argument to any conclusion you want :)

Reasonable people have been disagreeing on that since at least the late 18th century.

In a practical sense the right place is wherever it gets passed. If the United States is an experiment every legal jurisdiction is a laboratory.

How does that prove I am the original author? Can't I just download a work and sign it as my own?

Let’s consider a scenario where you’ve published a video with a public key, and you have a history of using that key for publishing your work. If someone else were to download that video, they wouldn’t be able to sign it because they lack the key. I believe the same principle applies to PDFs and ebooks.

They wouldn’t be able to sign it as me but they could sign it as themselves, taking credit.

My question is what mechanism proves the video is signed by the rightful owner?