HN user
Federal judicial opinions are readily available online. The circuit courts and Supreme Court--i.e., the courts which actually establish precedent--post all of their opinions on their own websites. If your concern is knowing what courts (at least federal courts, where PACER is used) are saying so that you can follow the law, it's all out there for free. What PACER hosts is the rest of the case records: exhibits, briefs, motions, etc.
The case which originated the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" analogy, Schenk v. US, was overturned more than half a century ago. And in that case, the proverbial fire-yellers were socialists distributing pamphlets.
This is a tangent to this post, but...
I happen to have a cat named Kiki who looks rather like the mascot for this project. Her health is failing, now. I just spent the night on my living room floor next to her. I'll, likely have to put her down, today.
I might use this project to make a memorial page for her.
The article says that California "will require identity verification at the operating system level starting in January 2027", but that isn't true. The bill [0] only requires that operating systems collect age information on account setup and then provide which of four buckets the age falls into. It's not requiring any kind of identity verification by the OS. It's just a box you fill in when you set up the computer.
I think that this is actually a reasonable approach. It minimizes the information shared and doesn't create any identity tracking regime.
[0] https://media.reclaimthenet.org/docs/california-ab-1043-digi...
I can find no evidence that California ever tried "banning high school calculus". The chapter in the much-maligned mathematics framework on high school [0] makes no such proposal, and indeed suggests consolidating the prerequisite classes to make it easier to reach calculus without acceleration in middle school:
An alternative to eighth-grade acceleration would be to adjust the high school curriculum instead, eliminating redundancies in the content of current courses, so that students do not need four courses before Calculus. As enacted, Algebra II tends to repeat a significant amount of the content of Algebra I, and Precalculus repeats content from Algebra II. While recognizing that some repetition of content has value, further analysis should be conducted to evaluate how high school course pathways may be redesigned to create more streamlined pathways that allow students to take three years of middle school foundations and still reach advanced mathematics courses such as calculus.
Nor can I find any evidence that they "reject the idea that some kids are more talented at somethings than other kids". Instead, their FAQ [1] includes:
All students deserve powerful mathematics instruction. High-level mathematics achievement is not dependent on rare natural gifts, but rather can be cultivated.
All students, regardless of background, language of origin, learning differences, or foundational knowledge are capable and deserving of depth of understanding and engagement in rich mathematics tasks.
This is not remotely the same as the silly framing of "if you can compute a derivative by 12th grade, it's due to racial discrimination". It's about not giving up on students who are undeserved by mathematics education as it is currently constituted.
I myself have mixed feelings on "de-tracking" mathematics courses. I benefited from accelerated math classes and would have been bored to tears if forced to take classes at the standard pace. But I also understand that accelerated classes have tended to allocate more resources to students who are already succeeding. It's a thorny problem. But this comment adopts the framing of right-wing propaganda rather than the actual contents of the framework.
[0] https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/cf/documents/mathframeworkch8.p... [1] https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/cf/mathfwfaqs.asp
I attended Google I/O in 2013 and was given a Chromebook Pixel, their $1300 laptop. The hardware was very, very nice, and I quite enjoyed using it for a while. One day, I dropped it and damaged the screen well outside of its warranty period. "Oh no," I thought. "This is probably going to be pretty expensive to fix." So, bracing for the damage, I called up Google and told them what had happened. They replied that there was no fixing it. They would replace the laptops under the warranty, but there was no repairing to be done. I was welcome to call around and ask local repair shops if they could do it. That went nowhere, of course.
I've been pretty skeptical of Google laptops ever since.
The author (who is also the submitter; it seems nearly all his submissions are his own blog posts) is not a physicist, so it's hard for me to take seriously his sweeping dismissal of the field. Then I see he links to his own Revolutionary Theory, and it starts to look like outright crankary.
That choice is doubly false. On the one hand, there was a diplomatic option. It was working until Trump decided to kill it. On the other, it's insane to think that you can bomb a large, industrialized country of 90 million people out of the ability to make nuclear weapons short of wiping them out of existence.
That's not what this is about. The bill explicitly defines "sexually oriented material" to include anything that "involves gender dysphoria or transgenderism".
This is what immediately popped into my mind. I remember using this back in the early 2000s.
Oh, I don't have much at all, yet. I decided to use a piece tree, which is what VS Code calls the data structure they used. I implemented part of that, then realized that VS Code does it that way partly because of limitations with V8. So now I don't even know if I want to go forward with using it or switch to something simpler.
I don't mean to tear down your project at all. If you want to make an editor, I think that's great. I'm actually working on a text editor of my own. But I think that you've fundamentally misunderstood the appeal of Emacs. It has little to do with the key-bindings, or even any particular part of the user interface. Many people don't even use them. Doom, a very popular Emacs distribution, enables Vim-like bindings by default. It's an old joke that Emacs is a great operating system in need of a good text editor.
The appeal of Emacs is that I can, at any time, with only a few keystrokes, dig in to how it does something and then modify it. The self-documenting and customizable behavior is extremely pervasive. Emacs Lisp is not just there for extensions. Every single layer of the application--save for core primitives--is implemented in it. All of it can be inspected, modified, swapped out, wrapped, hooked into, and basically do anything you want. There's absolutely nothing else like it.
Bari Weiss cut her teeth in college trying to get professors fired for criticizing Israel. She's hardly an advocate for free speech.
Using overall life expectancy here is misleading, as it includes the risk of childhood mortality. You have to look at life expectancy at a given age. According to the SSA's life tables[0], life expectancy for men at 65 in 1930 and 1940 was about 12 years. In 2020, it was about 17. A significant increase, but not nearly as extreme as you're saying.
From the Wikipedia article on the Cray 1:
"The 160 MFLOPS Cray-1 was succeeded in 1982 by the 800 MFLOPS Cray X-MP, the first Cray multi-processing computer. In 1985, the very advanced Cray-2, capable of 1.9 GFLOPS peak performance
...
By comparison, the processor in a typical 2013 smart device, such as a Google Nexus 10 or HTC One, performs at roughly 1 GFLOPS,[6] while the A13 processor in a 2019 iPhone 11 performs at 154.9 GFLOPS,[7] a mark supercomputers succeeding the Cray-1 would not reach until 1994."
Years ago, I installed the Facebook app on my phone. I immediately uninstalled it when I saw, horrified, that it had hoovered up all my photos and uploaded them to Facebook (there was no fine-grained storage permission at the time) "for my convenience". I never ran their app on my phone, again.
Location: Seattle, WA
Remote: Yes
Willing to relocate: Maybe to the SF Bay Area
Technologies: Java, Spring, TypeScript, React, Node, SQL, Rust, Python, Clojure, Solid-JS, Nix
Résumé/CV: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NzYmjFItbxdlewYL_Lz--ZnE24_CqXvH/view?usp=drive_link
Email: mail@requirenathan.com
I briefly worked on a product related to this. It was a chatbot meant to replace the human phonecall in just this situation. The user would get a text from the bank with a link to the chatbot. They ended up not being able to sell; the common complaint from the banks was that they'd been training their users to never click links like that.
I've just started with jujutsu, as well. Jjui fills a little bit of the gap. Among other things, it allows for quick selecting and splitting of changes. But it's no Magit. I'm thinking of having a go at making an emacs interface for jj myself.
I haven't tried Cursor, but I've been messing around with Aider (aider.chat) with interesting results. With it, you add files to its context and then describe the edits you want. It then writes a commit with (hopefully) those changes. You can use it with pretty much any model, though only close-to-SOTA models work well. I've had pretty good results with Deepseek Coder, which is tens of times cheaper than Claude.
Location: Seattle, WA
Remote: Yes
Willing to relocate: Maybe to the SF Bay Area
Technologies: TypeScript, React, Node, SQL, Rust, Python, Clojure, Solid-JS, Nix
Résumé/CV: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fxsejocFHalsDcW4VXSeBSSbMdstCs6P/view?usp=sharing
Email: mail@requirenathan.com
Thanks for the heads-up
Location: Seattle, WA Remote: Sure
Willing to relocate: To the Bay Area
Technologies: Typescript, React, Tailwind CSS, SolidJS, Node, Prisma, Python, Clojure, Rust
Resume: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1F4U8nGQQAbkM6j8wljxxvlit0_W...
Email: nsaritzky@gmail.com
I'm looking for my first job in software development. My training is as a mathematician, so I have lots of practice working on tough, abstract problems. I'm a ferocious self-directed learner and have worked on a broad range of projects. Most of my recent work has been focused on frontend, with some smaller React/HTML/CSS projects, and a bigger full-stack one using SolidJS. I'm for you if you're willing to take on someone at the beginning of their career who's driven, knowledgable, and quick on the uptake.
A solution that hits the happy middle for me is to ban, or at least restrict, advertising of sports betting. The way they've devoured sports coverage is what I find the most annoying.
Location: Seattle, WA
Remote: Sure
Willing to relocate: To the Bay Area
Technologies: Typescript, React, Tailwind CSS, SolidJS, Node, Prisma, Python, Clojure, Rust
Resume: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1P1MtUJjIbNnkRsP7YImocMzsmsb...
Email: nsaritzky@gmail.com
I'm looking for my first job in software development. My training is as a mathematician, so I have lots of practice working on tough, abstract problems. I'm a ferocious self-directed learner and have worked on a broad range of projects. Most of my recent work has been focused on frontend, with some smaller React/HTML/CSS projects, and a bigger full-stack one using SolidJS. I'm for you if you're willing to take on someone at the beginning of their career who's driven, knowledgable, and quick on the uptake.
I heard the question was difficult before solving it, and then I was surprised when I didn't hit any speed bumps. The overlapping case didn't even occur to me. It turns out I stumbled upon a simple solution: use two regexes. One to match the first digit, and one to match the last. Then the overlapping is a total non-issue.
Overturning Chevron will simply transfer that power to even more unfireable, unelected judges.
The transparency laws aren't the cause of the discontent. The cause is the fact that current employees are underpaid compared to new recruits. Businesses are just upset that they can't shaft their workers.
My guess is that some other law or tort would be a better fit, but I'll note that the "actual malice" and "negligence" are different standards with the latter being a lower bar. The former only applies to public figures.
I'm all for encrypted messaging, but this article seems to be almost willfully misreading the DoJ's intentions. They won't specify the case even though it's on the public record; I believe I have found it here[0].
The government's motion [1], as the article quotes, says that it "does not anticipate arguing—as Defendants claims—that Defendants 'specifically used an encrypted messaging application to evade law enforcement'". They concede that this would be irrelevant under the particular statute at issue. Instead, they argue that banning any mention of encryption is too much. They pose a couple of reasonable-sounding hypotheticals for when the encryption might be relevant. For example, "if Defendants attempt to attack the thoroughness of the Government’s investigation, the Government may need to present evidence that its investigatory avenues were limited by Defendants’ use of encrypted messaging." The article flippantly dismisses these without justification.
The judge's ruling [2] took the obvious middle path between the parties: the government can't bring up encryption as evidence of guild. If one of their hypotheticals actually happens during trial, they can approach the bench and ask to admit it then. This seems eminently reasonable to me.
[0] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63007873/united-states-...
[1] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.med.615...
[2]https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.med.615...