skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> The true unfortunates, though, were the ones who were talented enough to rationally hope to advance. These were people who grew up as the best tennis players in their country, but were stuck between 300 and 600 in the world, not quite contending for the Challenger Tour nor the qualifiers at grand slams, but winning just often enough to keep their tennis dream faintly alive.

Seems like a familiar pattern.
Billboard in SF just like the rest
Maybe, but since this ruling just happened today I think we will have to wait and see what happens.
Ah yes, AAAS
> they could be treated differently

Yes that's exactly what I'm saying. Epic should take this case up with all the phone manufacturers that would rather just put the Play Store on their phones. If Epic didn't want their games to be locked into the Play Store that's on them.

Most apps allow the user to login and access their data from any alternative platform. Google doesn't prevent this. Why can't they just update their games to allow this? They're correct that users should be free to play their games from anywhere. So... how is Google preventing them from implementing this?

Their failure to compete is nobody else's fault. I'm still just not getting what Epic is complaining about.
Making Regex from Scratch in Go
I have a problem with this “can easily afford” logic. This is not true, and this is not how taxation should work. You are just justifying stealing money from blue collar by bogus “they can afford it” logic.

A lot of NYC residents can easily afford extra $15 (their incomes are like 6 figures) why not just spread the tax to everyone to make it more equitable? And more revenue for MTA
Gerrymandering has removed much of the incentive on congresspersons to act affirmatively to pass legislation.
I'm confused about the late warning quote because the data page for MK2024 shows the first observation for the orbit fit was 2024-05-07.

https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/tools/sbdb_lookup.html#/?sstr=2024%...
I'm probably going to get downvoted to hell for mentioning downvotes, but it's funny to me that when this comment was on the submission for the actual supreme court ruling it ended up pinned to the top with 20+ upvotes, but since the merge with the Axios article it's been steadily ticking down, having lost 18 points in less than an hour.

I don't know if it's brigading or if it says something about the difference between readers of Axios articles and readers of full supreme court rulings.
I recently watched John Wick 1 and I was mostly stricken by how little CGI was used in the movie.

I kept watching, noticing small bits here and there, subtle things, but there was not much CGI compared to almost any other action movie I've seen in the last several years, especially not much of any obvious full green screen sets and fly-by-wire wuxia heroism BS.
I don't think our allies felt quite so flung about until Trump came along. Sure, administrations might engage a little differently from one another, but fundamentally they could count on the US for a very long time. Presidents did not, before Trump, throw NATO under the bus, for example.
Sometimes you need to refactor the code, even when it’s going to be a huge mess to do so.
The reality is that our political system cannot do what you ask of it. It is reasonable to allow executive agencies delegated authority from Congress to regulate the details of things with implied oversight of Congress

This is accelerationist or naive to think this is a good decision.
Any of those players can go on to make excellent hourly offering lessons to adults and wealthy children. Its a poor slog now but that doesn't mean the experience has no value they could get from it.
Yes, definitely. Send us an email and we'll give you beta access - we're building it right now.
When I was a child I dreamed of being a professional sportsperson - a soccer star or a tennis pro. Now in my late 20s, I shudder thinking of the pressure/stress, injuries and constant competitiveness that my life would have been if I had gone down that path.
That's really not true. In both ways, too. It's not realistic.

In the specific case of gluten-free vs normal flour, you might have a clean, safe kitchen but flour flies everywhere and it doesn't take much. The solution for a gluten-free kitchen is to only use gluten free products. I know of a restaurant that offers both gluten free and plain pizza crust and people who need to should know what that means: they try but it's not.

It's also not realistic as to "safely eating off surfaces". That's the goal and that's what test kits test for - but that's the point: the test kits are there because it's hard to achieve (and excess will result in contamination from cleaning products.)
I have been there, several times.

I got real estate license as it seems to combine my love for exploring new areas, meeting people, and freedom to set your own schedule. But I could not go full-time into it as I have kids and didn't want to be away showing homes on weekends or in the evenings.

Other times I tried to do part-time portrait photoshoots as you get to be outside. But again as a father, I didn't think it was worth it. But you can make decent income with just outdoors family portraits.

I feel a little sad about not pursuing these a bit more. But I am taking my kids outside as much as possible, getting them into photo- & video-graphy, and just having fun. This seems to make me not only happy but also more motivated at the work. Perhaps, you can pursue some outdoors hobbies before making any big moves.
> Why is it always people who haven't used React (or frontend dev in general) recently that feel the need to talk about how it's making "the most esoteric and unhinged choices possible?"

It might just be that, because they aren't married to the system anymore, they have a larger perspective than the people who can't see out of the system they are in.

The reality is probably somewhere between your and my extremes.
This implies the common false dichotomy though that public officials can only be either: elected in toxic, wasteful campaign cycles every 4 years; or completely independent of public oversight. Those aren't the only two mechanisms that exist to develop an administrative apparatus. They are actually two points on a spectrum, and in fact closer to being at either end of the spectrum.

One, quick example: You can have appointed experts who can be recalled by public input but never have to campaign for election. I'm writing this in short minutes with zero research so be assured there are countless possible systems that exist in the infinite space between the two binary options implied by your dilemma.

In other words, being elected to office is not the advantage of congress. The advantage we seek is public accountability. Public elections are a pretty fucking poor proxy for accountability though because we end up with single-issue voters acting out of rage and electing people who are specifically inept at their job.
I am not buying this argument.

America for better or worse (mostly worse) has a two party system that in practice functions as mostly a uniparty prioritizing defense spending, entitlements, and the economy, with some lip service paid to red meat/blue meat issues to ensure power is maintained. This means you can reliably predict what American policy will be in any given moment for any given president.

Besides, EU member states have had much more iteration on their governments, policies, regulations, and parties. It's not uncommon for a European country to have 7 different parties. And unlike the US, EU's don't hold their constitutions in a such unchanging high regard. Ours is purposefully difficult to change. France, for example, on the other hand, has changed its constitution twenty-five times since circa 1958.

edit: I took out He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named because it seems even here on the board of Very Smart People ™ we can't help ourselves when we see that name and ignore the rest of the point someone tries to make.
Being fundamental to character, love of God, and love of your neighbor are not mutually exclusive claims.

Someone could come up with a definition for each that excludes this need, but that is true of character and any subjective definition.
>Medicare fraud is really profitable (until you're caught)! There's a reason it keeps cropping up.

Seriously, if they'd just been content with a few million and jetted off to the Caribbean it would have never been noticed. All of these medicare fraud things are always in the multi-millions before they get noticed.
> Congress can’t write good laws (good = clean, unambiguous) due to a variety of reasons, most of which are just political and not practical reasons.

A massive reason in this case is that congress are not matter experts, laws are already large and unwieldy, and agencies need flexibility in their work as, as ponderous as they are, they're still more nimble than congress and need that in order to react to changes in the area they regulate.

> One other reason I think this decision is good - if we are innocent until proven guilty, then ambiguities should go in favor of the individual not the State.

I'm sure the individual will greatly benefit when the EPA's regulation of the next great carcinogen is struck down on grounds that congress has not explicitly restricted it.
Corporate governance is also decided by “experts”, rife with corruption & oligarchy.
Would love to hear more about a FOSS WMS - which aspects are you focusing on initially?
You should at least google (or ask chat GPT?) about Lit before calling it some hipster framework. Lit is the old Polymer.js and being under development for the past 10 years. Still small, still making the best use of web standards.

I agree with you about knowing a bit of most popular frameworks tho, they are quite interchangeable and very often adopt each others famous features. The biggest advantage of choosing Lit as your main tool is that it is the one that is more integrated with web components that won't go anywhere, anytime.
When it comes to composition, hooks are a godsend. I don't understand how so many dislike them, they were what made me finally go "wow, react is better than backbone / marionette". Well, that and being able to do <></>. Although to be fair marionette struggled with that sort of thing too (replaceElement anyone?).

Once you learn the basics, as long as you stick to them you can write code so fast / solid.

I haven't bothered with anything beyond hooks, so maybe that's why I'm content.
> it's also valid for Congress to decide to abdicate its powers.

It's not. There's long standing precedent, since well before Chevron, that Congress does not have unlimited ability to delegate its powers. E.g., in A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935) the Supreme Court said "Congress is not permitted to abdicate or to transfer to others the essential legislative functions with which it is thus vested." See also J.W. Hampton v. United States, 276 U.S. 394 (1928).

And this makes sense, because Congress is not a coherent unified agent. It's a messy institutions for distilling the wishes of the people.
Textualism when convenient you mean.
If every car in a major city was filled to capacity, I don't think we'd be having this conversation. A major part of traffic congestion is that a significant portion of people are driving their vehicles with a single passenger, sometimes two.

This is why we have HOV lanes that lower or make tolls free.
Is anyone going to make them actually comply? Yeah, didn’t think so.
Yes, oops - fixed!
How is the rule of threes connected to the rule of thirds?
>Devastating that expertise will no longer influence the application of law and policy

Not true.

Congress is free to continue to delegate to experts when it comes to writing laws and policy. What they are no longer free to do is write vague laws and policy and expect the judicial branch to inject their own favor when interpreting that vagueness. The judicial branch will once again do what it should have been doing all along: simply interpret the law.

Basically, Congress actually has to do its job and write better laws. And again, they are free to consult experts when writing these laws.

The judicial branch is actually once again functioning the way it was intended. It is restoring balance to the "checks and balances".
Why even have an executive branch? Surely everything can just be done through our efficient judicial system and wise legislative system
>I don't know if it was done purposely but it's amusing that "No." is the translation of the answer to a question that is (apparently) not a yes/no question

The article goes on to say in Japanese, "our sentences don’t have to be grammatically complete in order to make sense. This is especially the case for verbal communication." The point is that all of the examples given are a rejection
And a bunch of symbols
>a small group of elites who themselves are somehow free from the influence of those biological human desires and impulses...

They don't need to be. A person addicted to drugs is perfectly capable of creating laws prohibiting drug use.

The "impulse" equivalent for a lawmaker would be that once they feel withdrawal, they will spontaneously pass a law allowing drug use again.

Since (luckily) passing a law is far too complex to happen spontaneously, this scenario cannot occur.

ETA:

>which is why drug testing as a condition of employment was never implemented for political candidates, heads of bureaucratic government agencies, or corporate CEOs.

If drug use is "only" prevented for the 99% of people who do not fill these roles, that is still a massive improvement.
Well soon agency experts will focus on displaying their loyalty to Trump as their main job focus. But yes in theory what you're saying is true
Code search not just across the entire code base but across all of time.
Combine this with the project 2025 schedule F stuff and republicans got a stew going. This country is going to go down hill so fast.
I had a prof back in the 80s who used to joke that they were both small island nations with large degree of foreign trade and a history of colonialism.

(the joke is that it's easy to find deep parallels but that they were mosly coincidental -- it was really a criticism of 1980s stereotypical takes about Japan).
> 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.

Or, perhaps, we just need to alter some aspects of that government to run better. For example: changing the size of the House of Representatives to make it more representative. It wasn't supposed to be stuck at 435.

Switching away from first past the post voting would also help enable more diverse voices within the government.
> The safe thing to do is return a 404 with a few suggested links.

The 404 communicates to search engines, archive.org, ect, that the link is broken.

The human-readable text on the 404 page can contain a link to the correct page. It could even contain a few paragraphs too.

Should get close enough to your original idea without too many unintended consequences.
Its the crop circle script kiddies.

Maybe doug and dave have emmigrated to Las Vegas.
>I see medicare fraud nearly every shift…

I hope you report it. I work a medical adjacent job and we get yearly training on how to report medicare fraud, waste, and abuse.
> Arguably, the biggest wrinkle to this was Trump

You say this as though he isn't favored to win the next election and take over the presidency and all its policies in about six months.

Edit in response to the edit: I latched onto this because it's entirely relevant to the rest of your point. Trump is the Republican party today, and his foreign policy dictates the acceptable stances for the majority of Republicans in Congress. His foreign policy is absolutely terrifying to our allies.

I didn't latch on to Trump because he's a big name, I latched on to Trump because you deliberately glossed over him as though he weren't an enormous glaring example of how quickly our foreign policy can (and is likely to!) pivot.
Yes but the language is making it hard to use the tools given. It's easy enough to say it's a skill issue, and say they should have discovered RUST_BACKTRACE=1, but when you're learning the language and trying figure out how to use error objects in the first place the tools given don't work and just give me a string that says I'm doing a dumb shouldn't be so hard.
I’ve been writing Elixir professionally for ~10 years at this point. I find it to be extremely easy to read, but that’s because side effects by and large don’t exist, and when they do they are very obvious. Ive written quite a lot of Ruby, JS, Swift, Obj-C, and Java during my career and Elixir is miles ahead of those for readability.

With that said, I do think because the syntax being familiar for Pythonistas and Rubyists that there’s an assumption it works like those languages and runtimes. It does not. It’s a functional language, in a purely functional VM, and that causes a lot of grief to newcomers. There are many assumptions folks bring with them that don’t hold. I think you have to take a step back when you come to a functional language with an OOP background otherwise it’ll be painful.

I’d encourage you to just write it for a while and avoid things like GenServers. Get a feel for just writing functional (pun?) code. Id also suggest to avoid reading code by people new to Elixir as it’s often weird, or irregular, because they lack the experience to write things idiomatically; relying too much on OOP principles.

As an example, in Ruby you strive to write functions less than six lines (in general)— in Elixir this can be an antipattern. Because breaking up the function will unnecessarily abstract and muddle what’s going on. That in large part is driven by the fact there are no side effects; I can see everything that is going on. Whereas with Ruby side effects and meta programming are prolific, making the code extremely dense. Writing a method that’s 20-30 lines in Ruby almost guarantees it’s violating the single responsibility principle.

The one thing that did trip me up when starting elixir, that I now love, was shadowing variables. It makes things look like they’re being mutated but they absolutely are not. It’s just reusing the same name, not the same value.
Well, consultants also have marketable skills that don't depend on them fighting aging and injury and are actually making money on the road vs going into debt potentially with nothing to show for it. I'd say that helps one sleep easy and not feel so constantly anxious.
I am fine with subsidizing, but incentives should be aligned (like a per transit passenger or something).

CP turns incentives upside down - the worse congestion - more $$$ goes to MTa this is absolutely bonkers.
Not pypy?
> 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.

This is kind of true, but also belies the depth of the Chevron change. In this example, plaintiffs can now, for example, challenge how the "X%" calculation is done. What's an appropriate methodology?

In the past, courts deferred to the agency: as long as it's scientifically valid + consistent, it's up to the regulator, not a judge. Now, it's up to a judge.

So if I sue and say "you should use a 0.01 alpha for calculations, not 0.05" for your X% calculation, then a judge makes the methodological decision, not the statistician.

IMO, it's not really reasonable for congress to design statistical methodologies as part of the text of a bill.
Apple Planning to Debut New Battery Replacement Method with iPhone 16
I never tried to buy it myself, but I know I saw it on a organic market (in europe) advertised as such at least once. Basically, a extremely esoteric niché obviously.
That would suggest space is "made of" something, so what would that be? If it's made of something, how is that "carrying" the wave, causing it to distort in the presence of mass?
It is incorrect, but widespread among left-leaning pundits, that this ruling will force Congress to micromanage everything that would normally be left to the agencies. Agencies can still make rules. If Congress would like to be out of the details business, they can even write statutes that explicitly delegate rule making to the agencies. What this does is prevent agencies from acting in ways that are easily interpreted as _not_ conforming with law. The Chevron test told judges that they have to defer to the agencies _even when_ they conclude that the agencies are misreading the laws, as long as the agencies aren't being manifestly unreasonable. This has led to agencies very savilly expanding their power without any new statutory authority simply because they have good lawyers who know how to craft it in a way that survives a Chevron test. The SC just said something I find completely reasonable: from now on, judges have to interpret the law as its written and decide cases based on whether or not the agency is complying with the law. They cannot abrogate their duties to be the experts on legal analysis simply out of a desire to defer to the agency's interpretation. I think it's correctly decided because Chevron is an illogical mess -- why is it that in one situation and one situation only, our legal system treated one of the parties in a suit as inherently having more authority to intepret the law than a court itself? It is not persuasive to me that we should say "well, because the courts can't be experts," as this is not an argument that works in any other situation where a court must make legal rulings in the face of experts -- such as bankruptcy proceedings, antitrust cases, etc.
How do you suggest that Congress "rein in" a coequal branch of government?
The comparison is a good idea, but your conclusion from it goes in the wrong direction. What should have happened, is that Apple got slapped much harder.
I'll just point out that loving God and neighbor is a paraphrase of a specific quote from the Bible. That's why I mentioned it. The quote is "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: love your neighbor as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these.”
I have yet to see a production ready agent.
Why did the Supreme Court invent Chevron deference 40 years ago? To serve corporations. It's not called "Chevron" because it's about inverted V's, after all. The EPA wanted to interpret the law in a way that Chevron liked and the Natural Resources Defense Council did not like, so the Supreme Court said "no, no, the EPA gets to decide, we are but poor unqualified judges."

Why did the Supreme Court take it away? Because agencies started interpreting laws in ways that corporations did not like, so the Supreme Court changed its tune to "who are these agencies to interpret the law, we are the judges here."
Show HN: Turn Office templates into shareable forms
We built this for an internal use case and thought it might be useful to others. The creator can have a copy of the templated document emailed to them as an attachment whenever someone submits the form.
The /// did have a nice OS -- the perhaps unfortunately named SOS, which was an improvement over the original Apple DOS and was the basis for ProDOS which replaced Apple DOS on the 64K and greater Apple II models.