The only direct costs to the taxpayers in these kinds of lawsuits are the judge's time (also the bailiff's, stenographer's, and a couple more), a slight extra load on the computer system to handle the filings, and miscellaneous wear and tear on the courtroom.
That would make sense if we had infinite courts and judges, but we don't. You waiting longer for your trial date is a significant cost (justice delayed is justice denied, and all that). A jury's time is a cost. A system that enriches a select few while the rest of us get $20 off our next purchase of XYZ product is a cost. The only people receiving a major benefit aren't even the people affected by the wrongdoing.
> these devices also routinely spoof themselves as mobile phones clicking ads on AI-generated websites as part of a sprawling operation that seeks to defraud online merchants and advertising networks.
Yes, eminent domain is there. In the case you linked to, it started in 1998 and took until 2005 for the Supreme Court. Sure new cases may happen faster, but it still takes year with due process and the courts.
> one assumption is that the brain is halving and doubling frequencies to fit them all into one frequency magnitude
You've got an awful lot of assumptions in there that I don't think are at all supported, and this is one. It's also contradicted by 3.5.2 in the article: if the brain were actually doing this, then you could, say, replace the 9th by the 2nd.
> Ok, but where do the expectations come from? Your assertion that it is all culturally relative ("nurture") and none from the structure of the most efficient algorithm for recognizing the harmonic series ("nature") has no basis in fact; you just assert it without proof.
I interpreted "mostly meets expectations but surprises you" as referring to things like chord progressions creating tension and resolving it, for which you don't need major triads. (and of which there's no discussion in the article).
> In contrast, there is strong evidence for the absolute nature of auditory processing
I'm perfectly happy to grant that an owl experienced the sensation of a pitch at a frequency that was not actually present, but there's something missing here that's also totally missing from the article: the role of the cochlea. The brain doesn't experience sounds, i.e. the pressure waves in the air, the brain experiences electrical signals transmitted to it that, tinnitus aside, come from excitement of the cochlea by those pressure waves. How do we know that there isn't some kind of mechanical resonance somewhere in the ear that fills in the missing root? And if we know there isn't in the human ear, how do we know the same for the owl?
> The explanation of the experience of the minor triad in "Harmony Explained" requires the concept of an inconsistency arising from a redundant recognizer algorithm.
Once upon a time the explanation of the propagation of light required the concept of a luminiferous ether.
Never was.
reply