skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I used to hold this. I can't put a finger on what exactly changed. I strongly believe Congress is productive enough, and the ambiguity around this sort of thing is good, because it allows flexibility in the face of changing circumstances.

With such a vibrant public democracy as America, things that drag out, like allowing non-competes for fast food workers, are best served with public participation, a long process, and sunlight.

It's not as tightly coupled to a presidential administration as you may think, that's where "Deep State" grumbling comes in: if it's imposed by presidential fiat, its in violation of a 1000 mundane things that courts have historically consistently enforced: a long, public, process with a thorough cost/benefit analysis that indicates a net benefit. So, the "Deep State" (administrative processes that are required to occur for a rule change at an administrative agency, to whom authority was delegated to by the legislature) prevents a unilateral presidency.

Parsing through the FTC press release on non-competes provides some indica of the sunlight/processes involved. [1]

[1] https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/04/...
The "volume of laws" required to regulate a complex modern society is far greater than that required for the US 200+ years ago. Thats why successful nations use rule-making agencies to regulate commerce, environmental protection, workplace safety, etc. Expecting the legislature to do it all is just not going to scale - which I suspect is the objective. The people behind these decisions want an overloaded, ineffectual legal system because that creates the best conditions for unrestricted accumulation of wealth and power.
Welcome to Bodfish, California
I especially like the bullet points under "Lessons learned" since they represent a good problem-solving mindset. The title is specifically referring to this one:

> Getting the bug fixed is more important than labelling it as a bug.
(people sing a different tune when the power consumer is bitcoin miners)
I love how we're all talking about state management.

Just use Remix. The database/url is your state.

Messy state management in Client-Side react is a problem of the late 2010s
I imagine you’d need circumstances similar to those that nearly resulted in the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937, which would have granted Roosevelt the ability to appoint 6 additional Supreme Court Justices. Namely:

- National crisis unifying popular support for liberal legislation.
- Liberal control of the executive and legislative branches.
- A series of supreme court rulings that effectively thwart a popular liberal agenda.

I have no idea if this is likely; however it nearly happened less than a century ago during a period with noticeable parallels to our circumstances today.
Not just Safari, but all TLS connections instantiated on Apple OSes
> Is the low key story that these are mostly just old money children in a limbo of their parents’ whims and lifelines?

I think that's incredibly reductive, although does have a bit of a point.

The gist of the story is that there's a special kind of loneliness when you're always on the cusp of "making it big" in an industry that is very very top-heavy in terms of rewards. (sports, acting, content creation, startup company, restaurant etc.)

You can spend your entire youth chasing this dream, and it's a lot harder for some people to "give up the dream" than others. You can call this being delusional or you can call it the tyranny of high expectations (from others or from themselves).

Yes, it's a lot easier to feed your delusion if you come from money. That's where a big "ick" for rich people come from - some of them are just incredibly mediocre in terms of skills, with their egos boosted by daddy's wallet.
The most reasonable option would be for congress to explicitly put in the bill that the EPA (or some other group of experts) makes the list. I’m no legal expert but in your example it sounds like that’s all that’s needed.
The agency personal can be changed if the Good Guys win again.

That's not true for judges, so any damage by the Bad Guys lasts longer.
You are confused because you interpret the meticulous and time-intensive nature of the research as potentially conflicting with the claims of affordability and ease of application. To clear up this confusion, let's break down the key points:

1. Affordability and Ease of Application: The article states that the radioisotopes are intended to be an affordable and easily applicable method for marking rhino horns. This means that the technology, once developed and refined, can be applied to rhinos without significant cost or complexity. The goal is to make it practical for widespread use.

2. Three Years of Research and Expert Collaboration: The three years of research and the involvement of a team of experts highlight the rigorous development and testing phase needed to ensure the method's safety and effectiveness. This initial investment of time and expertise is necessary to create a robust, scientifically validated solution.

3. No Contradiction: The extensive research and expert collaboration do not contradict the claims of affordability and ease of application. Rather, they ensure that the final product is safe, effective, and ready for widespread, practical use. The upfront investment in research is typical for developing innovative technologies and does not imply that the method itself will be costly or complex to implement once it is ready.

4. Scaling Up: The project's next phase involves closely monitoring the rhinos to demonstrate the method's efficacy and safety. If successful, this proof of concept will pave the way for scaling up the application to more rhinos and potentially other endangered species. The affordability and ease of application refer to the potential widespread deployment after the initial research phase, not the development phase.

In summary, your confusion arises from conflating the initial research and development effort with the final application's intended affordability and practicality. The article suggests that after this rigorous development phase, the method will be straightforward and cost-effective to implement on a larger scale.

Was wondering what ChatGPT's answer would be to this comment chain. (Also mostly checked that what it claims about the article‘s content is correct)
I actually don't think we have achieved any kind of consensus here which is why there are a proliferation of popular languages.

Concurrency is handled in wildly different ways between C/C++/Java/C# (threads), Go/Lua (goroutines/coroutines), JavaScript/Dart (async promises), etc.

Object-oriented programming is interpreted so differently by different languages that people can't even agree on what the term means. Do you have multiple inheritance or not? Are methods always virtual, virtual by default, or non-virtual by default? Is there overloading? What control do you have over inheritance? Are there interfaces or not? How are static methods handled?
Of course expertise will still influence the application of law and policy. The same people will still write the regulations, serve as expert witnesses in trials, and write amicus briefs. The thing that has changed is that the executive branch's preferred interpretation of laws passed by the legislative branch will no longer be granted deference by the judicial branch. They will be on a level playing field with other parties when it comes to putting forth proposed interpretations of laws.
Whats the problem? If congress disagrees with what the courts did to fill in the blanks in their laws, they just need to pass new laws.
True, but you kind of get to introduce what you want as long as it's popular and well backed. Even if I know a tool or language is better suited for a task, I always prioritize my employer's ability to maintain that project over time.

That usually means using similar technologies, or otherwise popular, and well backed technologies. Go has that in abundance over Elixir.

For any personal project I'd take Elixir the vast majority of the time.
To pseudo-quote an influential American Conservative via the All-in podcast:

~"That's right, I want Congress dead-locked, I don't want any new laws passed!"

- David O. Sacks
As already mentioned: it will only gain traction if/when less conservative developers and managers decide to use it. If everyone plays it safe, then no: it doesn't stand a chance because Java, Go, JavaScript, Python (etc) already exist.

But I would argue the decision to adopt Elixir isn't really as simple as a "this language" or "that language". The most essential decision, I would suggest, is about Erlang... not so much the language as much as the virtual machine and OTP. If the problem you want to solve is well solved by the BEAM/OTP, then you start to look at the languages you might use with the BEAM/OTP. I think BEAM/OTP is underappreciated for many use cases and that are worth exploring; this broadens if you consider BEAM/OTP augmented with more performant programs built with a language like Rust/Zig/C/C++.

But if everyone plays the conservative game and doesn't see the risk/reward payoff with BEAM/OTP favorably... then it will be the same old boring players with only the ocassional influence from the sidelines.
those loopholes and ambiguities should be left to the courts to decide with representation from both sides of the argument making their case and not some department head full of political bias and possibly an axe to grind favoring one side.
FWIW nothing changed re: presidential power over foreign relations. The judiciary held that the legislature can't empower an agency.
We had an experience where it was product that pushed for cleaning up the flags.

The best companies I've been at where those where product and engineering really operate as one team.
Congress failing to block a rule by passing a CRA resolution is very different from Congress approving of the rule. For example, if the majority in the House supports a rule but the majority in the Senate does not (or vice versa), neither an explicit approval action nor an CRA blocking resolution can be passed.
One thing I used shape tables for was for a fade-in effect. I would draw my spaceship one pixel at a time, choosing the next pixel at random. (I made a tool to help with this, or else it would have been too tedious!) The shape tables were rendered so slowly that it make the ship "materialize" in a cool effect. After this initial fade-in, I would render the ship more sensibly.

Other than this, I never found much use for shape tables.
Surely there is a browser plug-in that will allow you to prefer light mode for some sites and dark mode for others? Or even add a toggle to the browser UI?

I don’t see the value in having this implemented by individual websites.
> This approach attempts to minimize disruption to existing subscribers using a recently announced Chrome feature to remove default trust based on the SCTs (signed certificate timestamps) in certificates.

I was wondering how Chrome was able to revoke a certificate based on time without trusting the CA to not back date certificates and it looks like this is due to being able to trust certificate transparency logs instead. This is where they get the signed certificate timestamps (SCT) from.

See also https://certificate.transparency.dev/howctworks/
I was a python main before I started using elixir and I had similar thoughts, but after becoming more familiar with it, I actually think elixir is far less verbose than python.

They’re different enough languages that it’s really difficult to just open up an elixir codebase and try to read it. Elixir, like ruby, has a lot of syntactic sugar that just won’t make sense if you approach it with a Python mindset. Elixir is also functional, which can be a pretty big mind bender.

It’s really a language that you need to start from the basics and go through the tutorials to learn the basic syntax, operators, etc and write your own small programs. If you’re like me, you’ll just end up discouraged if you expect to be able to learn Elixir just by reading existing code.
I think there is an option (4) which is probably the one the court would prefer.

(4) In lawsuits, the regulator should have to prove that the substance in question is fatal. The EPA will have published a list ahead of time and and if challenged it will be up to a court whether the EPA has correctly determined the lethality of the substance.
This is reflection of our innate tendency to fit ourselves in an hierarchy and judge others by their perceived position in that hierarchy. The stronger someone attaches their self worth to their place in this hierarchy (ranking for tennis players, job title in corporate setting etc), the stronger their behaviour towards others will be driven by it.
Taking the Hyundai Ionic 5 as an example you have 3 capacities 58.2kwh, 72.6kwh and 77.4kwh with 114s2p, 180s2p, 192s2p. These have nominal voltages of 523v, 653v and 697v respectively.

Even for the same car it's not trivial to use these all in the same system. It might even make most sense to couple them on the AC side but that would mean a lot of small expensive inverters.
And past: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derinkuyu_underground_city
> Putting aside personal convenience is fundamental to loving God and neighbor at times.

No, it's fundamental to character. It's not exclusive to religion. That's just part of the myth.
Yes, the right have been doing it for a long time and it works. Either make it stop working, or copy the thing that works. Don't just handicap yourself to a guaranteed loss.
åäö are fine. But I had to create a custom layout a few years back for the insanity that is {}[]`~$.

And why do we have μ? (I know it's because it's a metric prefix but has anyone ever used it instead of u?)
I would bet most of the money comes from endorsing and peddling selling pieces of plastic for $249, when they cost $10 to make in China, not from actual tournament winnings.
Dude sounds like a cultist.
If you think the administrative flip flop is bad now, wait until Trump implements schedule F.
There just aren't many car batteries that are at the end of their life in a vehicle. Their lifetime seems to be a lot longer than many thought early on. Other than the Leaf batteries, most EV batteries from 10 years ago are still going. Even with those the volume was low. Now that volume is increasing, it will still take 10-15 years before you start to see the current batteries available for reuse. The average age of a car on the road is around 12 years so you will start to see vehicles decommissioned and many of those will still have useful batteries but we need much larger numbers of batteries and sooner for grid-scale usage.
Sure, but it isn't clear to me that China actually cares about stopping rhino poaching, and I imagine the major players in the conspiracy never set foot in South Africa, and just have local low level agents (ie the ones we are told are so poor, they need to poach the rhinos to survive) exposed to consequences.
Does such a culture result from people being punished for saying no?
And Congress is fantastic at passing laws and amending small details after the fact with follow-up laws \s
What does this mean for the FDA?
Wool is mostly keratin, also hooves and nails.

And feathers, turtle shell, but they are made or another type of keratin.

To be honest, each the keratin of each animal is slightly different, with small changes of the composition, something like plastic that can be made softer or harder tweaking the compostition.

Anyway, I guess it's not about the exact composition, but the "magic" part of the rhino horn.
The fault for miscommunication always falls on whatever party has less power.
You'd probably love gleam. Elixir ecosystem dwarfs it at this point, but the syntax and design choices are just phenomenal.
> (and if it's tooling, why can't that type of tooling be replicated for other codebases outside of google?)

The elegance of the tooling from what I hear is that there's tons of different tools maintained by different teams that work seamlessly (and fast) together to produce google3 and all of its supporting pieces.

But to answer your question, sure it can. But good luck building your own. Google has been doing this since the 2000s.

And if you're a big company already, you've already bought into your existing patterns & design choices; things like that are VERY hard to change.
Indeed they have already done so - many left-wing voters are swearing off voting for Biden, over his support for the Gaza genocide. This guarantees a Trump victory.
can we do one for the java + maven repository galaxy?
> How is it "taking the enforcement out of the hands of the experts?" Judges are supposed to be experts on law.

Because the laws are about particular things in the real world that have nothing to do with the legal system. They are frequently about scientific matters, for example. What constitutes a threat to public health? What constitutes pollution of a waterway?

When Congress authorizes an agency to maintain, say, clean drinking water, it entrusts scientific experts to determine, based on the most up-to-date evidence, what constitutes a pollutant that is harmful to human health. We do not need Congress to pass a new law every time we get new scientific evidence that a particular chemical (say, PFAS), is harmful.
I could not disagree more
I think the point being made was that the issue of communication across cultures is inherently low context, so it is not reasonable to assume a shared cultural context when talking across this boundary. This may mean it would be better to be clear and direct as to minimize misunderstandings.
Colour?
They're all white
> It won't force Congress to do shit.

In which case the states will step in. We're already seeing this happen post-Dobbs, with blue states falling over themselves to create safe havens. If Congress can't get anything done and the courts won't let the executive branch do anything then that trend will continue with workers' rights and everything else.

Maybe our problem is that the country has just gotten too big to run effectively as a single 350-million person democracy, and it's time for the state governments to step up and stand up for their people.

Either way—federally or at the state level—we need written laws drafted by elected representatives in a body that has more inertia than the single position of chief executive.
Medical billing is dumb but I'm not sure why that would be or appear fraudulent. The normal cost of the ambulance service would be $1798, medicare pays a max of ~$500 for ambulances and your mom pays 20% of that. The reason the rest of us would pay $1798 is because we essentially subsidize the medicare rates. Many insurance companies negotiate rates that are some % of the medicare rate, so they might pay 2x or whatever, and pay $1000. Medicare often has agreements that they can't bill the rest of the charge to the patient so it's 'adjusted' essentially written off.
Hey, that was the goal and plan of the various organizations that got these judges in place.

I mean, what checks and balances apply to focused, dedicated, funded campaigns and teams, supported by backers willing to spend multiple decades and the millions necessary - to over turn laws, win minor elections, get judges into lower courts? People spent the time to understand the system so that it could be changed in a way they think is superior.

The SC situation is the fruit of such labor.

The shortest path solution to something like this is still decades long.
We Skip Photoshop (2008)
I used to feel this way, and I can't quite identify the totality of what shifted my position, but now I parse this as "we just need to motivate congress" and it feels wrong.

The American system has always been full-throated adversarial -- and extremely successful. The historical system of legislature could delegate, and if the delegation went bad, the judiciary could intervene, rather than the legislature has to intervene in every bit of administrative minutae.

Analogy would roughly be...idk, the CEO has HR handle pencil procurement. HR, over the years, used this to interpret they could swap in mechanical pencils, erasable pens. But the new CFO tells the board this has to stop, the CEO is responsible for signing off on expenses. And then the employees say this is a good thing, that'll get the CEO more involved. But the CEO is already involved, just busy with other things.
Derivative Sport in Tornado Alley (1991)
It sounds to me like they just gave the legislative branch some of it's responsibility back. Delegating their job to the executive branch of government has created agencies that make and enforce rules themselves, and ultimately operate at the whim of whoever the president happens to be at the time.

If congress wants to delegate details to experts they could explicitly state that in the law, and create their own organization of experts to do the job. Giving the president more power is not a requirement, and enforcement should remain separate. But even then, regulations shouldn't be ambiguous. The laws should state something like "food purity should be within %x of yada yada, where x is updated yearly by the appropriate agency" Then it's up to the courts to decide if the law was broken or not.

In the short term this could be a nightmare as companies flaunt all sorts of regulation, but I think overall it is a good thing.
People playing tennis professionally aren't simply trying it out. The development of a tennis professional is probably most similar to someone who has been bred to become a classical musician. Those that play tennis or classical music professionally are never just trying something out, but have been fully immersed since childhood, to the point where their entire life revolves around playing. To give it up, would be to give up the one thing that their entire life has revolved around since childhood.
Strong Wind doesn't exist on asteroids and many planets, so I think there will be a long term need. Solar power decreases with the cube root of distance from the sun,so twice the distance is 1/8th the flux
No I can't tell the difference other than the colors. Sayls have optional features including lumbar support ; adjustable armrests.
Because this is not law in terms of billy having stolen a bushel of apples, and the expert is not called on to evaluate the value of the apples in order to determine whether billy is below or above the line for a class 3 misdemeanour.

The statutes regulating agencies are generally broad signposts, giving the agency a mission statement and a direction but leaving it a large latitude to implement it and decide on the details. That latitude has a legal implication since the agency is generally responsible for setting and enforcing standards.

The Chevron Deference is the legal doctrine that since congress delegated its power to the agency as matter and implementation experts, the agency's policy decisions should be deferred to so long as:

- it's legally ambiguous aka congress has not answered the precise issue themselves

- it is a permissible construction of the statute

The entire point of the chevron statute is that it's not up to the judicial branch to set government policy, and if a problem is a legal void then they have no authority, and unless and until congress makes a specific decision the agency does.
I mean, all of the Germanic languages are fairly direct. English has very little ambiguity in general discourse:

Other person: Could you help me move this weekend?
You: No, I have other things to do. / I'd rather not. / I can help you find paid movers. / Etc

Any ambiguity stems from a secondary layer of familiarity / emotional connection.

Meanwhile, I've been to areas where a no was interpreted more as an invitation for negotiation (Catalonia, Mexico, South Italy, etc).

So, at least from my personal experience, the language is less at fault and more the culture being more a default-no/default-yes and/or individualist/communal type culture. That being said, I don't speak Japanese, so perhaps Japanese does have some linguistic limits to direct discourse.