#law firm case management system | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

mariacallous · 28 days

Text

If you’ve rented an apartment in the US in the past several years, you may have had the sense that the game was rigged: Prices creep up not only at your building but at others throughout the city, seemingly in lockstep. A new civil lawsuit brought by the US Department of Justice today alleges that in many cases it’s not just in your head—and that a single company’s algorithm is to blame.

That company is RealPage, a Texas-based firm that provides commercial revenue management software for landlords. In other words, it helps set the prices of apartments. But it does so, the DOJ alleges in its lawsuit, by effectively helping its clients cheat; landlords feed rental rate and lease terms into the system, and the RealPage algorithm in turn spits out a suggested price that enables coordination and hinders competition.

“By feeding sensitive data into a sophisticated algorithm powered by artificial intelligence, RealPage has found a modern way to violate a century-old law through systematic coordination of rental housing prices,” deputy attorney general Lisa Monaco said in a statement.

RealPage’s reach is broad. It controls 80 percent of the market for software of its kind, which in turn is used to set prices of around 3 million units across the country, according to the DOJ. It already faces multiple lawsuits, including one from the state of Arizona and another in Washington, DC, where RealPage software is allegedly used to price more than 90 percent of units in large apartment buildings. RealPage’s algorithmic pricing first gained broader attention when a 2022 ProPublica investigation detailed how the company’s YieldStar software works.

The DOJ civil lawsuit, which was joined by the attorneys general of eight states, is a significant escalation in legal action against the company. It’s also a first for the DOJ, according to officials speaking on background during a call to discuss the complaint. While the government had previously filed criminal charges against an Amazon seller for algorithm-enabled price-fixing, this is the first civil action in which the algorithm itself, the Justice Department official says, was effectively the means of the violation.

The complaint itself quotes RealPage executives allegedly acknowledging anticompetitive aspects of its product. “There is greater good in everybody succeeding versus essentially trying to compete against one another in a way that actually keeps the entire industry down,” one RealPage executive allegedly wrote.

RealPage has repeatedly denied any allegations of antitrust violations, going so far as to publish a six-page digital pamphlet that claims to tell “the Real Story” about its products, along with an extensive FAQ page on a dedicated public policy website. The company did not immediately respond to a request for comment. “Attacks on the industry’s revenue management are based on demonstrably false information,” one section of that site reads. “RealPage revenue management software benefits both housing providers and residents.”

“We are disappointed that, after multiple years of education and cooperation on the antitrust matters concerning RealPage, the DOJ has chosen this moment to pursue a lawsuit that seeks to scapegoat pro-competitive technology that has been used responsibly for years,” said Jennifer Bowcock, senior vice president of communications and creative at RealPage, in an emailed statement. “RealPage’s revenue management software is purposely built to be legally compliant, and we have a long history of working constructively with the DOJ to show that."

The DOJ disagrees. “Algorithms don’t exist in a law-free zone,” said Monaco in a press conference to discuss the case. “Training a machine to break the law is still breaking the law.”

In this case, the complaint alleges that those algorithms consistently drove rental prices upward. “RealPage’s software tends to maximize price increases, minimize price decreases, and maximize landlords’ pricing power,” said the DOJ in a press release. RealPage also doesn’t just recommend prices; in many cases, it actively sets them.

“RealPage actively polices landlords’ compliance with those recommendations,” said US attorney general Merrick Garland in today’s press conference. “A large number of landlords effectively agree to outsource their pricing decisions to RealPage by using an ‘auto-accept’ setting that effectively permits RealPage to determine the price a renter will pay.”

The DOJ also claims RealPage has created a “self-reinforcing feedback loop” with its data intake and pricing recommendations structure that also gives it an alleged monopoly in the apartment revenue management software industry. Any competitor who plays by the rules, the DOJ claims, is at a distinct disadvantage.

The Justice Department has spent the past several years staffing up with technologists and data scientists, better enabling them to “interrogate the code,” as multiple officials described the investigative process. While this is the first major algorithmic collusion case, DOJ officials suggested it would be far from the last.

153 notes · View notes

dontmeantobepoliticalbut · 9 months

Text

Since we're heading into winter...

The Supreme Court of Texas narrowly decided Friday that sovereign immunity, which largely shields government agencies from civil lawsuits, also protects the operator of the Texas electric grid.

The 5-4 opinion will likely free the nonprofit corporation from lawsuits filed by thousands of Texans for deaths, injuries and damages following the deadly 2021 winter storm, unless lawyers find another way forward.

The Electric Reliability Council of Texas, which manages the power supply for most of Texas, qualifies for immunity because it “provides an essential governmental service,” Chief Justice Nathan Hecht wrote in the majority opinion. State law intended for ERCOT to have the power of an “arm of the State government,” Hecht wrote. If anyone is going to hold ERCOT accountable for its actions, Hecht wrote, it should be state regulators or the Legislature, not the courts.

Freezing temperatures gripped the state during the 2021 winter storm, straining the power supply so much that ERCOT called for cutting power to millions of homes and businesses to prevent the grid’s collapse. More than 200 people died. Experts estimated afterward that financial losses totaled between $80 billion and $130 billion, including physical damage and missed economic opportunity.

Thousands of residents accused ERCOT, power companies and distribution companies of failing to prepare for the freezing weather.

Lawyers expect the high court’s decision will allow ERCOT to be dismissed from the litigation, although it does not shield other defendants.

Attorney Mia Lorick, who represents some of those plaintiffs, said she sees only a slim possibility that lawyers could keep claims against ERCOT alive by arguing that their cases have differences that somehow skirt the sovereign immunity finding.

Majed Nachawati, whose firm is representing other plaintiffs in the related cases said, “The Texas Supreme Court’s decision is disappointing to say the least. People lost their lives and the only recourse to the citizens of Texas is to be able to go through the judicial process, and the judicial system, to try to remedy or right the wrong that occurred in this case. And if you can’t count on our judiciary to protect its citizens, I think we’re in a lot of trouble.”

Justices Jeff Boyd and John Devine, along with two others, disagreed that ERCOT has sovereign immunity. Purely private entities are clearly not sovereign, and making them so undermines the public trust, they wrote. The justices argued that “no statute designates ERCOT as a part of the government” and that courts should not be barred from hearing claims against it.

The ruling sprang from two cases filed against ERCOT. San Antonio’s municipally owned utility, CPS Energy, alleged that ERCOT mishandled the soaring price of power during the 2021 winter storm. And private equity investors at Panda Power Funds alleged that 10 years earlier ERCOT issued reports that misled them about how much power the grid needed.

ERCOT spokespersons issued a statement saying that the organization was pleased with the decision. CPS Energy said in a statement that it was disappointed but thankful that four justices agreed with the utility as it sought relief for customers. The utility said the litigation still led to “critical discussions at the highest levels that are necessary to improve our power grid and energy market.”

#us politics #news #texas #texas supreme court #ercot #the texas tribune #2023 #Electric Reliability Council of Texas #Chief Justice Nathan Hecht #Mia Lorick #Majed Nachawati #Justice Jeff Boyd #Justice John Devine #CPS Energy #winter weather #power outages #freezing #winter

46 notes · View notes

dailyanarchistposts · 5 months

Text

A.2.11 Why are most anarchists in favour of direct democracy?

For most anarchists, direct democratic voting on policy decisions within free associations is the political counterpart of free agreement (this is also known as “self-management”). The reason is that “many forms of domination can be carried out in a ‘free.’ non-coercive, contractual manner… and it is naive… to think that mere opposition to political control will in itself lead to an end of oppression.” [John P. Clark, Max Stirner’s Egoism, p. 93] Thus the relationships we create within an organisation is as important in determining its libertarian nature as its voluntary nature (see section A.2.14 for more discussion).

It is obvious that individuals must work together in order to lead a fully human life. And so, ”[h]aving to join with others humans” the individual has three options: “he [or she] must submit to the will of others (be enslaved) or subject others to his will (be in authority) or live with others in fraternal agreement in the interests of the greatest good of all (be an associate). Nobody can escape from this necessity.” [Errico Malatesta, Life and Ideas, p. 85]

Anarchists obviously pick the last option, association, as the only means by which individuals can work together as free and equal human beings, respecting the uniqueness and liberty of one another. Only within direct democracy can individuals express themselves, practice critical thought and self-government, so developing their intellectual and ethical capacities to the full. In terms of increasing an individual’s freedom and their intellectual, ethical and social faculties, it is far better to be sometimes in a minority than be subject to the will of a boss all the time. So what is the theory behind anarchist direct democracy?

As Bertrand Russell noted, the anarchist “does not wish to abolish government in the sense of collective decisions: what he does wish to abolish is the system by which a decision is enforced upon those who oppose it.” [Roads to Freedom, p. 85] Anarchists see self-management as the means to achieve this. Once an individual joins a community or workplace, he or she becomes a “citizen” (for want of a better word) of that association. The association is organised around an assembly of all its members (in the case of large workplaces and towns, this may be a functional sub-group such as a specific office or neighbourhood). In this assembly, in concert with others, the contents of his or her political obligations are defined. In acting within the association, people must exercise critical judgement and choice, i.e. manage their own activity. Rather than promising to obey (as in hierarchical organisations like the state or capitalist firm), individuals participate in making their own collective decisions, their own commitments to their fellows. This means that political obligation is not owed to a separate entity above the group or society, such as the state or company, but to one’s fellow “citizens.”

Although the assembled people collectively legislate the rules governing their association, and are bound by them as individuals, they are also superior to them in the sense that these rules can always be modified or repealed. Collectively, the associated “citizens” constitute a political “authority”, but as this “authority” is based on horizontal relationships between themselves rather than vertical ones between themselves and an elite, the “authority” is non-hierarchical (“rational” or “natural,” see section B.1 — “Why are anarchists against authority and hierarchy?” — for more on this). Thus Proudhon:

“In place of laws, we will put contracts [i.e. free agreement]. — No more laws voted by a majority, nor even unanimously; each citizen, each town, each industrial union, makes its own laws.” [The General Idea of the Revolution, pp. 245–6]

Such a system does not mean, of course, that everyone participates in every decision needed, no matter how trivial. While any decision can be put to the assembly (if the assembly so decides, perhaps prompted by some of its members), in practice certain activities (and so purely functional decisions) will be handled by the association’s elected administration. This is because, to quote a Spanish anarchist activist, “a collectivity as such cannot write a letter or add up a list of figures or do hundreds of chores which only an individual can perform.” Thus the need “to organise the administration.” Supposing an association is “organised without any directive council or any hierarchical offices” which “meets in general assembly once a week or more often, when it settles all matters needful for its progress” it still “nominates a commission with strictly administrative functions.” However, the assembly “prescribes a definite line of conduct for this commission or gives it an imperative mandate” and so “would be perfectly anarchist.” As it “follows that delegating these tasks to qualified individuals, who are instructed in advance how to proceed, … does not mean an abdication of that collectivity’s own liberty.” [Jose Llunas Pujols, quoted by Max Nettlau, A Short History of Anarchism, p. 187] This, it should be noted, follows Proudhon’s ideas that within the workers’ associations “all positions are elective, and the by-laws subject to the approval of the members.” [Proudhon, Op. Cit., p. 222]

Instead of capitalist or statist hierarchy, self-management (i.e. direct democracy) would be the guiding principle of the freely joined associations that make up a free society. This would apply to the federations of associations an anarchist society would need to function. “All the commissions or delegations nominated in an anarchist society,” correctly argued Jose Llunas Pujols, “must be subject to replacement and recall at any time by the permanent suffrage of the section or sections that elected them.” Combined with the “imperative mandate” and “purely administrative functions,” this “make[s] it thereby impossible for anyone to arrogate to himself [or herself] a scintilla of authority.” [quoted by Max Nettlau, Op. Cit., pp. 188–9] Again, Pujols follows Proudhon who demanded twenty years previously the “implementation of the binding mandate” to ensure the people do not “adjure their sovereignty.” [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 63]

By means of a federalism based on mandates and elections, anarchists ensure that decisions flow from the bottom-up. By making our own decisions, by looking after our joint interests ourselves, we exclude others ruling over us. Self-management, for anarchists, is essential to ensure freedom within the organisations so needed for any decent human existence.

Of course it could be argued that if you are in a minority, you are governed by others (“Democratic rule is still rule” [L. Susan Brown, The Politics of Individualism, p. 53]). Now, the concept of direct democracy as we have described it is not necessarily tied to the concept of majority rule. If someone finds themselves in a minority on a particular vote, he or she is confronted with the choice of either consenting or refusing to recognise it as binding. To deny the minority the opportunity to exercise its judgement and choice is to infringe its autonomy and to impose obligation upon it which it has not freely accepted. The coercive imposition of the majority will is contrary to the ideal of self-assumed obligation, and so is contrary to direct democracy and free association. Therefore, far from being a denial of freedom, direct democracy within the context of free association and self-assumed obligation is the only means by which liberty can be nurtured (“Individual autonomy limited by the obligation to hold given promises.” [Malatesta, quoted by quoted by Max Nettlau, Errico Malatesta: The Biography of an Anarchist]). Needless to say, a minority, if it remains in the association, can argue its case and try to convince the majority of the error of its ways.

And we must point out here that anarchist support for direct democracy does not suggest we think that the majority is always right. Far from it! The case for democratic participation is not that the majority is always right, but that no minority can be trusted not to prefer its own advantage to the good of the whole. History proves what common-sense predicts, namely that anyone with dictatorial powers (by they a head of state, a boss, a husband, whatever) will use their power to enrich and empower themselves at the expense of those subject to their decisions.

Anarchists recognise that majorities can and do make mistakes and that is why our theories on association place great importance on minority rights. This can be seen from our theory of self-assumed obligation, which bases itself on the right of minorities to protest against majority decisions and makes dissent a key factor in decision making. Thus Carole Pateman:

“If the majority have acted in bad faith… [then the] minority will have to take political action, including politically disobedient action if appropriate, to defend their citizenship and independence, and the political association itself… Political disobedience is merely one possible expression of the active citizenship on which a self-managing democracy is based … The social practice of promising involves the right to refuse or change commitments; similarly, the practice of self-assumed political obligation is meaningless without the practical recognition of the right of minorities to refuse or withdraw consent, or where necessary, to disobey.” [The Problem of Political Obligation, p. 162]

Moving beyond relationships within associations, we must highlight how different associations work together. As would be imagined, the links between associations follow the same outlines as for the associations themselves. Instead of individuals joining an association, we have associations joining confederations. The links between associations in the confederation are of the same horizontal and voluntary nature as within associations, with the same rights of “voice and exit” for members and the same rights for minorities. In this way society becomes an association of associations, a community of communities, a commune of communes, based upon maximising individual freedom by maximising participation and self-management.

The workings of such a confederation are outlined in section A.2.9 ( What sort of society do anarchists want?) and discussed in greater detail in section I (What would an anarchist society look like?).

This system of direct democracy fits nicely into anarchist theory. Malatesta speaks for all anarchists when he argued that “anarchists deny the right of the majority to govern human society in general.” As can be seen, the majority has no right to enforce itself on a minority — the minority can leave the association at any time and so, to use Malatesta’s words, do not have to “submit to the decisions of the majority before they have even heard what these might be.” [The Anarchist Revolution, p. 100 and p. 101] Hence, direct democracy within voluntary association does not create “majority rule” nor assume that the minority must submit to the majority no matter what. In effect, anarchist supporters of direct democracy argue that it fits Malatesta’s argument that:

“Certainly anarchists recognise that where life is lived in common it is often necessary for the minority to come to accept the opinion of the majority. When there is an obvious need or usefulness in doing something and, to do it requires the agreement of all, the few should feel the need to adapt to the wishes of the many … But such adaptation on the one hand by one group must be on the other be reciprocal, voluntary and must stem from an awareness of need and of goodwill to prevent the running of social affairs from being paralysed by obstinacy. It cannot be imposed as a principle and statutory norm…” [Op. Cit., p. 100]

As the minority has the right to secede from the association as well as having extensive rights of action, protest and appeal, majority rule is not imposed as a principle. Rather, it is purely a decision making tool which allows minority dissent and opinion to be expressed (and acted upon) while ensuring that no minority forces its will on the majority. In other words, majority decisions are not binding on the minority. After all, as Malatesta argued:

“one cannot expect, or even wish, that someone who is firmly convinced that the course taken by the majority leads to disaster, should sacrifice his [or her] own convictions and passively look on, or even worse, should support a policy he [or she] considers wrong.” [Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 132]

Even the Individual Anarchist Lysander Spooner acknowledged that direct democracy has its uses when he noted that ”[a]ll, or nearly all, voluntary associations give a majority, or some other portion of the members less than the whole, the right to use some limited discretion as to the means to be used to accomplish the ends in view.” However, only the unanimous decision of a jury (which would “judge the law, and the justice of the law”) could determine individual rights as this “tribunal fairly represent[s] the whole people” as “no law can rightfully be enforced by the association in its corporate capacity, against the goods, rights, or person of any individual, except it be such as all members of the association agree that it may enforce” (his support of juries results from Spooner acknowledging that it “would be impossible in practice” for all members of an association to agree) [Trial by Jury, p. 130-1f, p. 134, p. 214, p. 152 and p. 132]

Thus direct democracy and individual/minority rights need not clash. In practice, we can imagine direct democracy would be used to make most decisions within most associations (perhaps with super-majorities required for fundamental decisions) plus some combination of a jury system and minority protest/direct action and evaluate/protect minority claims/rights in an anarchist society. The actual forms of freedom can only be created through practical experience by the people directly involved.

Lastly, we must stress that anarchist support for direct democracy does not mean that this solution is to be favoured in all circumstances. For example, many small associations may favour consensus decision making (see the next section on consensus and why most anarchists do not think that it is a viable alternative to direct democracy). However, most anarchists think that direct democracy within free association is the best (and most realistic) form of organisation which is consistent with anarchist principles of individual freedom, dignity and equality.

25 notes · View notes

satansaidnottoday · 1 year

Text

Obey Me! Human AU.

I've been working on this AU for some time. I have a lot of writing for it that I want to publish here, so I thought I should write a guide to it!

I've decided to keep their names the same, as it makes for less confusion.

Warnings: Child death. Mentions of child neglect and abuse.

Brothers age and occupation:

More info about each of them here.

Lucifer: 34 years old, Lawyer.

Mammon: 28 years old, Bartender/Aspiring model.

Leviathan: 26 years old, Streamer/Retail worker at a manga shop.

Satan: 24 years old, Librarian.

Asmodeus: 23 years old, Full time student.

Beelzebub: 22 years old, Full time student.

Belphegor: 22 years old, Student/Part-time worker at a café.

Side characters age and occupation:

Diavolo: 35 years old, Lawyer.

Barbatos: unknown, Diavolo's personal assistant.

Simeon: 30 years old, Writer.

Luke: 12 years ago, Kid.

Solomon: 25 years old, Owner of a Holistic shop (he absolutely does NOT sell any kind of illegal substance, stop asking. Who are you? The police?).

Main Mc: is around Lucifer's age, Owner of a cat Café.

The brothers story:

Note: the term foster home is the nearest translation I could find. It's more of a permanent place of living for kids on the system, like an individually owned orphanage.

They grew up together in a foster home. The owners were in it for the money and didn't care about them. They did the bare minimum to keep them, like buying them food and sending them to school.

The parental duties fell on the older siblings. Mostly Lucifer, who was significantly older than the rest. The twins and Lilith were babies when they arrived, Lucifer and Mammon basically raised them.

They met Simeon there. He lived with them for a few months before his parents regained custody over him.

Lucifer managed to get a retail job before aging out of the system. It allowed him to rent a room in a student residence and enroll in law school, where he met Diavolo.

They instantly became friends, mostly through Diavolo's efforts. Lucifer was reluctant at first, but found that he enjoyed his company.

Diavolo convinced him to be his roommate. He didn't really need one, as his dad owned the apartment, but he really liked the idea of living with a friend. It was a bonus that it got Lucifer out of paying an exorbitant rent just to bunk with 4 other people.

Lucifer wouldn't sleep or eat much during that time, putting all of his time and energy into studying.

He kept a close relationship with his siblings, visiting every weekend and bringing them gifts when he was able to afford them.

He started to notice obvious signs of neglect on their younger sister, Lilith. He ended up fighting with his foster parents. He was banned from the house after that.

Lucifer made a legal complaint, but nothing was done about it.

From then on, Mammon and sometimes Levi, would make secret visits to Lucifer's place to tell him all the news and smuggle groceries and gifts back into the house.

He graduated with Diavolo's class, a full year ahead and with honors.

After graduation, Diavolo offered Lucifer a position on his dad's law firm, but he wanted to become a family defence attorney.

It was a few days after that Mammon came crying at their door.

Lilith had died. She had a lung infection their caretakers refused to treat.

Lucifer felt he was drowning. Tears wouldn't stop falling from his eyes, and he couldn't breathe. But Mammon was there, crying too. All of his brother's were probably crying too, trapped inside of that house. He needed to take them out. He couldn't let them there.

And so he didn't grieve, he held Mammon in his arms until he fell asleep crying. And then he got to work.

With the help of Diavolo's family, he started a case against the home, and a claim for his brother's custody.

He needed to prove he was able to care for all of them, and that included a place to live in. Diavolo lent him the money to buy a house big enough for all of them. It was run down and on the outskirts of the city, but it passed all security checks.

He could give it back when he wanted, no interest rate or pressure. The only condition was to work for him. Lucifer accepted without thinking.

Levi and Mammon helped gather evidence of the neglect they were subject to in the house.

With that and Lilith's death (and the help of a very well regarded judge who was friends with Diavolo's family) he was able to win the case in a year.

It was the happiest day of his life, and also the most exhausting.

He took all of them out for dinner, some of his brothers he hadn't had a direct conversation with since he was banned from the house.

It was the first time he saw them all happy in a long time.

They had a lot of hardships to overcome, but they were together at last.

About Mc.

The main Mc in this story is the owner of a Cat Café in the brother's neighborhood. Their café was the only decent place to eat at when they moved, so it became a regular spot for them. They develop a romantic relationship with Lucifer.

All of the brothers have different MC's that play roles in their stories, but this MC is the most present through the whole AU.

That's all for this post! The specifics of what the brothers did after that is in my other post. It goes more in depth about each of them.

All of the content for this AU will be under the tag #OB!HumanAu

Thanks for reading!

#OB!HumanAu #dividers by @cafekitsune #obey me shall we date #obey me #obey me!#obey me nightbringer #om! shall we date #obey me x reader #obey me fanfic #obey me! Au #Obey me Human Au

90 notes · View notes

mesetacadre · 2 months

Note

hey do you have any wisdom on bourgeois “justice” systems like the usa’s, and the position of lawyers?

Starting from the infrastructure-superstructure relation, the justice system in any bourgeois state functions first and foremost to resolve disputes that may arise between capitalists and to aid the state's repressive endeavors by applying punishments for breaking bourgeois law. Because, as a part of the superstructure, the justice system must justify both the infrastructure and itself, so it extends that function of resolving disputes between capitalists to at the very least the charade of doing the same for workers. This last part is also conveniently the "normal" image of the justice system that is painted by education and media. However most applications of justice deals in some form with property: land ownership disputes, theft, intellectual property, inheritance, anything related to businesses, etc. Murder cases and other purely (or predominantly) interpersonal disputes make up a small part of the workload.

The law is codified in usually different systems with different standards and in a language that can get difficult to parse. I want to point out that the difficulty a layperson can have interpreting the law is mostly due to a necessity of having very precise and rigorous vocabulary and structures rather than willful inaccessibility, although I still think there are many cases when a better effort can be made to make the law a little bit more accessible. Lawyers make up for this generalized inaccessibility; in the case of a lawyer a worker may hire, they aid said worker in navigating the justice system; and in the case of corporate lawyers, they play an important role in managing the increased bureaucracy and general workload that comes with the managing of any capital. Lawyers are still workers, unless they own a firm obviously, and although the critique can be made that lawyers are also required because of a commodification of the law itself, I don't think it's very incisive in the sense that it doesn't lead as far as investigating the other role of lawyers I mentioned or the functions of the law.

#ask #yourlocalfallofthewest #seriousposting

14 notes · View notes

cookies-and-music · 4 months

Text

Ghost. - part 15: Compromised

My suggestion for this chapter is Rehab by Amy Winehouse,

Part 1 here - part 16 here

PAIRING: TVA!LokixOC

TAG LIST: @kats72 ; @mischief2sarawr ; @m3ntally-unstable

SUMMARY: Loki meets sombody at the TVA he once knew. Unfortunately she doesn't seem to remember him.

The first problem with Yggdrasil was the fact that in no document and no story had there ever been written about a god trapped within it. Thousands of timelines and countless books all led to the same point: "It's just a damn tree!" She threw a book off the desk under Mobius' shocked gaze.

"Are you talking about..."

"That. That damn thing." Lydia wanted to bang her head against the desk. "It doesn't matter how many books I read, how many papers I examine."

"Maybe you should look for something different," Mobius suggested calmly.

"And what?! Do you think I haven't looked for variations of the same damn tree?" She got up from the desk. "Even an infinite number of universes follow the same damn laws. It doesn't matter what you call it, with all the knowledge in the world at our disposal, it's still just a damn tree!" Lydia shouted on the verge of tears.

"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet," Mobius sighed, turning a page.

"Oh, don't start with the damn Shakespeare quotes," she leaned back in her chair. "You know where you can shove your-

"Lydia," Mobius stopped her before she could say something she'd surely regret. He used a firm tone in such cases, and Lydia secretly thanked him for it, as her mind was a hurricane and his voice grounded her.

"Sorry," she took a deep breath, bowing her head.

"You need a break; you've been thinking about nothing but this for months."

"But Mobius, how can I if he-"

"You're compromised."

Lydia didn't respond because it was true. He had said so before.

"If I could, I'd take you off the case, but this isn't an official case, and making your life difficult wouldn't stop you from doing your things anyway," Mobius massaged his temple with a finger. "So I'm asking you to take a break, think about something else. Anything else, I really don't care what," he said with a bitter laugh that betrayed his exhaustion.

Lydia closed her eyes, nodding. The first thing to do when hitting a dead end was to step away from the case and think about something else, then come back to it. But she just couldn't.

"You're right," she swallowed before grabbing the jacket draped over the chair. "I'm going to the café. Do you want anything?"

"I want you to have some chamomile tea."

He managed to make her laugh before she walked away.

Mobius understood her frustration and shook his head because Lydia was right, even with all the knowledge in the world at their disposal, it was still just a damn tree. That had always existed and always would.

"All the knowledge in the world..." Mobius murmured to himself, "at our disposal..."

All the written knowledge of the world. Damn the TVA and the arrogance of everyone working there.

---

Lydia was an excellent agent, Mobius knew this. That's why he had fought with the council to get her promoted from consultant to analyst. Not that he had ever told anyone. The slight workplace rivalry that united them had made the days stimulating while the world was falling apart.

But at that moment, Lydia wasn't there to question his theories when they didn't hold up. She was imprisoned by her own emotions in a dark cell of her mind, compromised. And thus, she wouldn't be of any use to anyone.

Mobius had decided that to get anything from her, he would have to get her as far away from the TVA as possible, clear her mind, and restart her system.

"Why are we here?" Lydia crossed her arms.

"Because we need some fresh air," Mobius smiled at the lady as he picked up the two tickets.

"At the Natural History Museum?" She raised an eyebrow.

"So what? Loki said you liked history," Mobius walked toward the entrance.

"Loki talked about me?"

"Constantly," Mobius rolled his eyes, and Lydia smiled, sadly, but she smiled. "Anyway, relax, let's take a walk. Think of it this way, everything is stable, the TVA is stable, Loki is stable, there's no need to rush."

"But not time to waste either," Lydia huffed.

"It's not a waste of time. You know what is a waste of time? Rushing to reach the destination, falling, and having to go to the hospital, if you get what I mean."

Lydia didn't respond.

They walked around the museum, and after a few minutes, Mobius said something incorrect, triggering Lydia's need to prove herself.

"It was 1732, not 35."

"Really...?"

From there, Lydia went into encyclopedia mode. She had so many things to say, but also to discover, about each room in the museum that after a couple of hours, when they reached the Norse wing, Mobius couldn't take it anymore.

"The runes of this type are about Odin who, according to legend, held onto Yggdrasil for three days and three nights to absorb its knowledge."

"Oh, finally!" Mobius exclaimed, spreading his arms.

"Finally, what?" Lydia turned, confused.

"Are you serious?"

She shrugged, and he burst into laughter.

"You are really, really compromised," he shook his head. "Repeat what you just said, slowly."

Lydia frowned.

"Odin... held onto... Yggdrasil for three days and three nights..." With each part of the phrase spoken by Lydia, Mobius nodded with the smile of someone about to punch her. "to absorb its knowledge..."

They stared at each other for a moment before Lydia's gears started working again.

"Oh my god! Odin held onto Yggdrasil for three days and three nights to absorb its knowledge!" Lydia exclaimed, but after a moment, her enthusiasm faded.

"But Mobius, we've examined almost every piece of paper in the TVA library, there's nothing."

"Just because it's not written doesn't mean it isn't there."

"But we also have the communication transcripts," she shook her head.

"But knowledge can go beyond that. In this case, it can be absorbed. If it's never told to anyone, nor shown, nor written," Mobius listed on his fingers, "there's only one place it can be."

"Odin's mind."

OFFICIALLY BACK BITCHES. AS PROMISED THAT WAS NOT THE END.

I'D LIKE TO THINK OF THIS AS A SECOND SEASON, IN WHICH MOBIUS MA BOI WILL PLAY A GREAT ROLE AND LOKI WILL APPEAR SOONER THAN YOU THINK

AS USUAL, THANKS TO EVERYONE WHO READS

CHEERS

#fanfic #loki series #loki #loki laufeyson #loki x reader #loki x oc #loki season 2 #loki x reader images #loki x you #loki x y/n #tva!loki #tva!lokixreader #tva!lokixoc #tom hiddleston #ghost

13 notes · View notes

twosides--samecoin · 1 year

Text

Frankly it is a personal slight I have an assignment due at the same time I desperately want to sink my teeth into making screenshots so here's a General Atomics/Mister Handy headcanon nobody asked for:

Before the bombs, Nora had a Mister Client module installed for Codsworth. It was client management software developed for law firms and produced by General Atomics for the Mister Handy line.

This rendered paralegals and attorneys having to handle their own time docketing, billing and scheduling obsolete as a Mister Handy could perform these duties faster and with much more accuracy.

At the time of the bombs, General Atomics was working on software to support a Mister Handy working in court. Trial runs with a Mister Handy acting as state's attorney produced mixed results - while lightning-fast searches through law history, each court case and outcome plus precedent and citations were possible in real-time, an incident wherein a Mister Handy's jet propulsion system accidentally set a court house on fire occurred when the robotic attorney could not easily pass through the wooden bar and fell over.

#can you tell I am done with this assignment lol #codsworth #nora ward #my oc #general atomics #mister handy #long time running

23 notes · View notes

longwindedbore · 4 months

Text

* At the heart of this investigation is RealPage, a software and consulting firm that allegedly orchestrates price-fixing among large corporate landlords. RealPage’s system, which is owned by Thoma Bravo, one of the largest private equity firms in the U.S., provides rental price recommendations to landlords. These recommendations are based on detailed real-time data shared by landlords, including pricing, inventory, and occupancy rates. RealPage’s influence is extensive, affecting rents for 70% of multi-family apartment buildings and 16 million units across the country.

The scheme allegedly works by encouraging landlords to adopt RealPage’s pricing recommendations, which they do 80-90% of the time. This coordinated effort among landlords to follow the software’s suggestions drives up rental prices by reducing the availability of units. As one of RealPage’s architects reportedly stated, the goal is to prevent landlords from undervaluing their properties, thereby ensuring higher rents nationwide.*

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

EDITORIAL

Is there a difference in the DOJ between administrations?

YES: both political parties, including presidential candidates, accept donations from Big Corporations, and Political Action Committees (often the same entities).

HOWEVER there is a SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE between policies of administrations and legislative majorities.

OBVIOUSLY we live in a corrupt system resistant to change.

The Rich and their surrogates in institutions lecture the 95% of us that we should be investing (or tithing) instead of buying I-phones or lattes, food, etc.

In actuality the Rich aren’t ‘investing’ to create new markets and growth. As was more the case in times past.

Instead they’re wealth comes from hegemonic depredations which they can easily hide with their hegemony on the media.

The stock market has changed from a means to raise capital for new ventures to a gigantic legalized Ponzi scheme to drive up the value of the stock bonuses that are 90% of the compensation for the top floor execs and directors so that they can borrow against their monopoly-money value.

Voting could change this

The old anti-trust laws are on the books. We could have done this in the Obama Admin.

Alas, the #%^*£€¥ ‘progressives’ who failed to vote in the off-year 2010 elections wiped out Dems large majotlrities in Congress

The loss of the majorities torpedoing any chance of Obama resurrecting the anti-trust laws, the Congress and DOJ investigating the ‘derivatives’ Ponzi scheme and breaking up the ‘too big to fail’ banks. Then the aerospace duopoly, pharmaceuticals, insurance bastards, etc.

Not voting matters!

And, yeah, “voting within the system won’t change the system”. No shit?

Did “punishing the Dems” improve things when #%^*¥£€> ‘progressives didn’t vote their MAJORITIES in 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, 1994, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2022???

2 notes · View notes

cindylouwho-2 · 8 months

Text

RECENT ECOMMERCE NEWS (INCLUDING ETSY), January 2024

Welcome to my first commerce news update of 2024!

Now that we are through the intensity of the holiday rush, I plan on getting a few of these out each month. Please follow me on Bluesky or on LinkedIn if you want more timely updates. (New ways to get updates coming soon!)