skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I believe the conservative judges use the following process flow:

1. Is the prior precedent what I want? If no, go to 2.

2. Is the prior precedent consistent with "textualism", i.e. can we find enough period writings which use the words in the constutition a certain way? If no, go to 3.

3. Is the prior precedent consistent with "originalism", i.e. can we find enough period writings which suggest some people peripherally or directly involved with the drafting of the constitution (or state constutitions) thought of an issue in the same way we want to rule? If no, go to 4.

4. Rule that way anyways, and just do your best to justify it with whatever you dug up for 2 and 3.
I worked at a place that did retros seriously on Friday afternoons.

Usually we were knocking ourselves out to complete the sprint and just wanting to go home. Feeling exhausted the last thing you want to do is talk about the sprint more, particularly when there are the common communication pathologies which make people doubt they are really being heard.
The basic trend in America has been to defer power to an administrative state beholden to the Executive. This accumulation of power has the basic effect of enabling tyranny. To prevent tyranny it is necessary to check this concerning accumulation of Executive power.
They'll kill the rhino, then test it. If it tests positive, they'll just leave the carcass to rot.
I’d be cautious about assuming most who can benefit from continuous monitoring are already being overseen by a doctor for some range of known conditions. Having just personally gone from apparently above average health to suffering a rapid onset vascular condition that probably would have come with some measurable anomalies in the days before I needed an ambulance, ER diagnosis, and surgery, I certainly can see a compelling case for widely available constant monitoring.
Certainly no detectable trend in that data. But the accident frequency is so low that the random variation dominates and makes it impossible to distinguish any trend.

What is demonstrably increasing is CAT, due to climate change. But considering how infrequent these incidents are we might not see a clear increase for several decades.
> Ask HN: How to reuse waste heat and water from AI datacenters?

- Steam Turbine

- Thermoelectrics (solid state)

- Gravel Battery, Sand Battery (solid state)

- OTEC: Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (needs a 20C gradient)

- Water Sterilization

- Heat Pipe contract

- Commercial and Residential HVAC Heat

- Air Filter Production (CO2, Graphene, Heat)

- Water Filter Production (CO2, Graphene, Heat)

- Onsite manufacturing with Carbon & Heat (See: Datacenter Inputs)

- Carbon-based Chip Production (2D Graphene and other forms of Carbon)

- Thermoforming products (e.g. out of now easily-captured CO2 to Graphene and other forms of Carbon)

- Geopolymer production: pads to mount racks on, bricks, radially-curved outwall blocks

- Open-Source CFD: Computational Fluid Dynamics; use the waste heat to pay for CFD HPC time to reduce the waste heat with better materials, better facility design with passive thermofluidics and energy reclamation

- Datacenter Inputs: [Earthmoving, Infrastructure], Water, Air, Concrete, Beams, Electricity, Turbines, Bolts, Racks, Fans, PCs, Copper power Wires and data Cabling, Bandwidth, Fiber Cabling

- Datacenter Outputs: Boiled Water, Warm Air, Data, recyclable building materials, Electricity
Is having a unique word that much of an improvement over "paternal grandmother" vs "maternal grandmother"?

Or is it that you're referring to other relations than those two having unique words? If so then that would seem to introduce its own problems in ballooning the vocabulary.

Maybe English is just happier with the ambiguity?
Clearly those companies should use ChatGPT to generate those URLs. That way when ChatGPT guesses what the URL should be, it’ll be correct!

/s in case it’s not obvious
If you asked the LLM it would say "those look like URLs to me!" And it'd be right!
Why so much distrust for our civil servants? Have you met any of these people? I grew up in the DC area and both liberal and conservative civil servants are dedicated to truth, science, and the well being of the American people. Sure, there are exceptions, corruption is everywhere, etc. but by and large, the people who work in government agencies have our interests in mind. I say this as a liberal who briefly consulted for U.S. Customs and Border Protection - the people working at that agency understand immigration far better than I ever could. If you left it up to radical politicians to decide immigration, you'd be left with policies that swung too far in either direction every four years.
So basically, Congress is going to have to pass more updates to previous laws to reflect what the regulatory agencies need or want. Basically, fix the bugs in the core legislation instead of patching it downstream.
What is your opinion about it? What kind of mics they are using?

I think they did a poor job at presenting the current president by giving him a really silent mic compared to the previous president.
No, that isn’t the case. It is saying that regulatory agencies cannot exceed their authority and act like the judicial branch. In other words, it was the executive branch that had taken more power previously.
It was easy with a PC and keyboard.
This is unbelievably good news! It's time to move power out of the hands of bureaucrats back into Congress where it belongs.
Well, let's see.. The Affordable Care Act was a meaningful law based on a very complex issue. Was that wrong? Do you think civil servants with no oversight is better somehow?
So if courts aren't to defer to agencies on such matters, to where do they look? Congress? The executive? We can hate on regulatory agencies all day long, but they are least get stuff done. They show up to work and figure out how to move forwards. This decision seams a win for those political groups who, rather than actual fix anything, are bent on throwing sand into the gearbox.
Chevron says (said) that the courts should defer to agencies as the experts in their specific arenas when interpreting vague laws. This situation comes up a lot. It's quite common for Congress to delegate to an agency with only quite broad language, relying on the agency to fill in the specifics through regulation.

Practically, the major effect here is to reduce the power of the executive (and of Congress to delegate to the executive) and increase the power of the courts.

Like many of the Supreme Court's actions, it needs to be understood in the context of the years of history of Congress being in an almost total state of paralysis, so decisions that nominally "kick things back" to Congress are of enormous significance.

The decision tries to say that this doesn't affect the solidness of the many many prior cases that relied on Chevron deference, but expect a flood of challenges to regulations in basically every field.
Yep. Please remind your friends in Arizona to vote https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2380:_Election_Im...
Serial experiments Lain

Tbh
I'd summarize it as:

Hard Work +
Market Analysis +
(Massive Luck OR Large upfront funding OR Large and relevant network of personal connections) +
Luck IRT externalities that can impact your business

I wasted my 20's because I didn't understand the formula above. I worked for a small startup and I thought the idea was great. I worked 80 hours a week and churned out massive improvements to the product as they pivoted over and over trying to find a foothold in the market. But now I realize that the failure was because of both a lack of market analysis and a failure in that third term: we had neither luck nor upfront funding nor a network of REAL connections that could make things happen for us. It was a recipe for disaster: for wasted effort and a wasted era of my life before I woke up and realized how unlikely it was that we would turn the ship around.

The unfortunate part is that the third factor - the Luck or funding or connections factor - is mostly only influenceable by how successful you already were before you started the venture. It is the "success begets more success" factor that is unpopular to talk about among people who want to believe that their success came exclusively from the sweat of their brow.
Turns out the notions of jurisprudence they claim to represent is all a farce for pushing specific political agendas after all.
There aren't three, there is every justice between when the decision was decided and now. Republican and Democratic judges upheld stare decisis for years.

Note Roberts isn't of questionable character but if he loses the conservative majority he may as well side with them to keep political capital. The other five not so much.
"The better MTA's service is - more passengers and more Fare revenue they receive. This is how a normal healthy transportation agency would finance their capital investments."

[citation needed]

That may be how it works in a consumer product, but not how it works in transit.
> Precisely why it should be possible for an app to provide their own algorithm (by accessing sensor information, or opting to re-use Apple's algorithm) but adapted to the app's use case. Apple must be transparent here.

This assumes it is possible to use the sensor as we expect it would be presented in the first place. Take the oxygen sensor, which to the best of my knowledge is largely an ML algorithm anyways.

> We already have a system in iOS to request permission to sensitive data. In fact, we have more than one - App Store Review (supposedly the guardian at the gate) and the permission prompt in the app itself. Privacy is not "degraded" when more sources can be requested by an app.

Yes and no, we know that users have a tendency to just accept and move on. This has been shown time and time again.

There are plenty of sensors that a developer would never need direct access to and should only ever need it through an API.

I would also argue that pushing all developers through API's instead help avoid apps being incompatible with later hardware revisions (within reason) which has largely been a staple of the iOS platform.

We should also be clear here that the lawsuit is not about direct hardware access. It never was from the best that I can tell. It is also not clear to me if direct hardware access would actually give anything meaningful depending on how exactly this works.
I prefer to call it climate change, as it is a change of the conditions where everyone lives. As such, it is expected to affect everyone life.
First, that's not true. It's just a degree of separation from your vote that you're uncomfortable with.

But yes, the fact that 99% of our government is made up of these people who are a few layers separated from direct political bullshit is why it functions at all.

We are much better off when these agencies operate autonomously and elected representatives can intervene when necessary instead of making them go back to the meat grinder to do anything.
No, it is. Running unsigned exes with no sandbox actually is risky, and game jams are a specific case where it comes up.
> keep their hands out of it

This. I do not think it is appropriate for legislators to delegate as broadly as they have. The default should be for them to not pass laws, if they don’t have time to understand the issues. Instead, they are basically creating new legislative branches under the executive branch.
Please choose a different name. It could be the most useful product in the world, but no way am I ever advocating something called "dorkly" at work.
When was the last time a commercial airliner crashed due to turbulence?
That's absolutely 100% false. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act gives the FDA considerable authority to shut down a food factory if it is not adhering to regulations and laws regarding safety.

Where do you find that the FDA cannot shut them down?
That said, it's also valid for Congress to decide to abdicate its powers.

We've had 40 years of Chevron deference, during which time Congress wrote laws expecting that this is how they'd be interpreted. If they didn't want this behavior, they could have passed laws about it. Or included some boilerplate language within new laws about how the agency has to defer to courts for interpretation of those regulations.

(Granted, by the same logic, they could presumably start adding some "these rules should be interpreted according to the agency's definitions" boilerplate to new laws, if they really want that.)
Before proclaiming that this outcome is horrible - Please consider that the Good Guys (your opinion) might not win the election in November. And that you might not want the courts auto-deferring to all the plausible-ish interpretations of ambiguous laws which gov't agency officials appointed by the Bad Guys (your opinion) might suddenly add the Official Agency Interpretations next year.
One change to optimize them all: a story about batching on the source side
I worked in two commercial bakeries: Angel and Berman in Jerusalem. The first mostly makes sandwich bread, the other one mostly makes pastry.

This will be probably relevant to answering your question: if you want to realistically prevent cross-contamination, you will need separate set of everything, that is, a separate room with mixing bowls, separate ovens, and, well... the same employees won't be going between those two rooms, so, you need to hire more people to man more equipment.

I was hired into both of these bakeries as a non-skilled labor who was paid minimum hourly wage. Baking bread isn't a particularly luxurious business. It's out there with agriculture, where margin of profit is very low, and your only hope is scale. Also, you cannot really increase bread consumption by baking more bread. The market is easily saturated. So, by forcing a bakery to, essentially, split in two, hire extra workers and install extra equipment, while in the end they'd not be able to sell more product is going to be very expensive. Maybe not even affordable.

Now, consider that a very small minority of people buying bread care for it not being accidentally contaminated with sesame seeds, and your non-allergic bread will either have to cost ten times more than normal, or it won't be made at all. Needless to say that people with allergies will, likely, not want to buy overpriced bread. They might just not eat bread at all, if that's so dangerous.
There is no tension.

"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." -- Francis M. Wilhoit

Viewed through this lens the actions are completely consistent.
Id argue that it is not so much American gun control that is different but American gun culture.

The Nordic countries are not far behind on gun ownership, and I recently learned (I have my gun background from mandatory military training + farming/hunting, so mostly bolt action except in military) that even semi automatic are still very accessible than I assumed, you just need to know how.

The Czech Republic is even more liberal than that.

Several European countries also practice the storage of military weapons at home, actual full auto assault rifles meant to defend against an invader.

So again: the difference I think is more in culture than in the amount of weapons. Obviously control makes a difference as to who gets hold of the weapons, but again, the rules are pretty lax: a good reason (hunting and/or sports shooting), and, in the case of sports shooting (at least for single hand guns) a recommendation from a local club.

The American culture were guns are stored loaded around the house however and the glorification of gun violence, that however scares me.
More discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40821007
seriously?
meta llm's are on huggingface and you can download and run them on your machine along with the weights
For C++ applications, nothing beats Tracy’s flame graphs in value per dollar. We are using it at Adobe with great effect. It can handle mutex lock contention, runtime values and notes, arbitrary value graphs, and more. Highly recommended: https://github.com/wolfpld/tracy
It's all "calvinball".
That doesn’t solve the problem; how do you decide the ambiguity in the meantime? (Concretely, some court is evaluating a dispute. Does the EPA have the right to decree X, or not?)
No, it does not. The subway is practically always faster.
> If the legislature are not experts - and they're not on many many topics - they need to either a) find those experts for advice or b) keep their hands out of it.

That's why we have Congressional hearings, etc. It's not like the legislature makes laws in a locked room, consulting nothing but their own minds.
That strengthening a pressure vessel with tape might raise the pressure at which it fails? Does that really need a citation?

One example: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-teen-gravely-injured-by-h...
Friday retros actually drained the energy out of me. Retros need to be intentional so forcing people to be intentional at 3pm on Friday is likely doing the opposite. I wish there's an easier way to async do retros.
They are definitely defying precedent more than any Supreme Court in recent history.

The other thing this ignores is judicial bias. One positive of the Chevron ruling is that a well scoped agency with a clear agenda and expertise was able to oversee their domain of expertise and enforce rules under the Chevron Doctrine, which means in a well functioning agency (e.g. generally the SEC, FTC) didn’t have to rely on lengthy and often partisan court trials.

If you look at how we handle patents for instance, you have a good taste of what things going to look like going forward. It will completely hamstrung agencies and delay regulation enforcement for years if not decades. Unfortunately judges aren’t without bias and partisanship and this will reflect in the venues that get used for these hearings, like how most patent cases end up in a small Texas court due to how favorable that court is to patent holders.

This is going to be a mess. I don’t foresee judges deferring to agencies to speed up judicial review. I see courts becoming an even bigger partisan battle ground than they already are.
Time for Congress to start aggressively using its express constitutional power (under the Exceptions and Regulations Clause of Article III) to circumscribe federal courts' power to set aside congressional directives such as the ones that led to Chevron deference. "Separation of powers" is nowhere to be found in the Constitution; it's a bootstrapped creature of power-seeking judges.
Is Preact a fine alternative if all you’re after is JSX and declarative UI?
Assuming you don't run out of money before the suit is finished. The corporation won't have this issue.
I'm impressed that they can so easily dispose of 40 years of law making by Congress that assumed that agencies would interpret the statutes and make rules for regulating their area of authority.

Now Congress is going to have to specify every possible consequence of laws in the statutes, otherwise a judge will decide.

So agencies will not have any power to actually regulate.

Awesome logic work, but terrible legal thinking without considering the side effects of the decision.
"They get things done" has been one of the selling points for more than a few tyrannical regimes throughout history.
> humans have even less accountability than an LLM when stating falsehoods or dangerous advice

Where on earth are you getting this? As a human in most developed countries you can be very much held accountable for lying under oath. Other times you can be held accountable for lying:

1) when involved in an police investigation

2) when you are under arrest

3) when you are being lawfully detained by the police

4) if you are being asked about a crime you witnessed

5) when filing a police report

6) many kinds of financial disclosure documents (eg. taxes)

7) when you're advertising something

8) if you're committing fraud
From my perspective it's because the constitution outlines law making as a power given to the legislative branch. To give regulatory agencies the ability to effectively create law by reinterpretation is clearly bad. But to let the courts give broad deference to the executive branch agencies, when challenged on it, is a clear violation of the separation of powers. Beyond that, it is just wrong, in my opinion, for unelected bureaucrats with vested personal interests in these issues to get deference over the people they serve.

Edit: clarification and wording
From either side, relying on the judiciary over active, well-functioning legislature is bad.
There's no strong legal structure to allow it, the US justice system strongly favors the rich and corporations. Loose consensus isn't enough if there's no legal mechanism to do so.

The deal was pragmatic in the absence of a clear path for actual consequences.

It would be easier to rally an angry mob at this point.
Most of the decisions that get to the Supreme Court could reasonably be decided either way. If they were simple, clear decisions they wouldn't make it to the highest court after all. I don't necessarily think the original Chevron decision was the "correct" choice, or the "incorrect" choice, but it was the choice that was made and for 40 years Congress wrote laws and funded agencies on the assumption that that is how things would continue to work. If it had been decided differently all those years ago, then 40 years of laws would have been written differently.
It's like the standard plug in the US. Was that the objectively correct choice for what a plug should look like? No. Is there possibly a better configuration that some other country is using? Yes. Would it be worth it to make the change now and make everyone in the country change all of their plugs and electronic devices? No.
lol on every point.
There's a tendency among certain people on HN to act like the conservative justices have no rhyme or reason and are just a bull running mindlessly through the china shop breaking precedent at random or specifically to hurt specific groups of people.

I'm not a fan of every ruling that they've made, but this should have come as absolutely no surprise to anyone who's been paying any attention to the arguments that this court has made over and over and over again. Their legal and constitutional philosophy has been very consistent:

They believe that Congress makes the laws, the Executive branch enforces them, and the Judicial branch interprets them. They believe that the Executive branch and the Judicial branch have been compensating for Congressional failure for too long and they have been very clear that they're intent on undoing that and rolling the system back to how they believe it should be.

There's an argument to be made that this theory is incorrect and/or harmful, but they've been remarkably consistent in applying it. Anyone who's been listening to them saw this coming years ago.
It would be the funniest "textualist" outcome, certainly.

Every time I hear some disparaging comment about "the penumbra of the constitution" from the conservative justices, I can't help but roll my eyes because of that.
I continue to find Mark impressive. I think there's something quite true about the "trying to create God" remark.
> In other words, it was the executive branch that had taken more power previously.

If I may disagree: it was the legislature that gave the executive branch power, and the judicial branch that essentially approved such an arrangement (unanimously) in the original Chevron ruling.
no nix pkgs, what's even the point
I used one of his GitHub driver repos to make wireless work on a realtek driver. Rest in peace.