sjtgraham

I built apps like these on GOV.UK over 10 years ago for the Ministry of Justice. We built our own form wizard library that let us validate long forms in steps and break them out into multiple pages because Ruby on Rails didn't support doing that out of the box. It was a very important principle back then that everyone should be able to make use of these digital services regardless of whatever users were using to access them.

How can pay ostensibly be lagging behind big tech at Rockstar, yet GTA 6 allegedly has a budget of $3B? Granted not all of it will be allocated to development cost, but still.

I'm surprised YC funded this — not because it's a bad idea, because it isn't. But because surely one of the first questions was: what happens when Apple decides to shut it down?

Before that fact causes you to lose sympathy for the case, note that almost every significant criminal case affirming constitutional rights involves a defendant who did something unsavory, if not reprehensible.

Not always. Often times prosecutors pick cases with bad fact patterns to be test cases when they want to attack a right. A recent example is Biden DoJ choosing to take US v Rahimi to SCOTUS in an attempt to wheel back the NYSRPA v Bruen decision.

Speaking of the forefront the UK has had interbank realtime payments (Faster Payment) since 2008. It also used to have something like Pix, i.e. bank account referenced by user's phone number called Paym from 2014, until it was discontinued due to lack of demand in 2023. Faster Payments is still operational.

I would rather speak an actual AI rather than an offshore operator using AI to disguise their accent.

I didn't know anything about any of the above.

What did you do about it at the time?

It's wild how instantly recognizable AI generated text is in any context.

The key difference is a parking ticket isn't $500.

But AB 645 is designed to punish and deter rather than compensate, which creates a genuine constitutional vulnerability under California's Article I, Section 16 jury trial guarantee.

The structural problem is that revenue goes to program costs and traffic calming, not to anyone harmed by speeding, which makes the fines punitive in character under any substance-over-label analysis.

The lack of DMV points and criminal record weakens the argument somewhat, but under California's substance-over-label approach those omissions aren't dispositive. They merely show the legislature knew how to stay on the civil side of the line, not necessarily that it succeeded.

If a court finds the penalties punitive in character, the owner-liability structure becomes a compounding problem: California's state due process protections are arguably more robust than federal, and imposing a punitive fine on a registered owner without proof they were driving, while burden-shifting exculpation to them looks increasingly difficult to sustain.

The "exhaustion" isn't a technical crisis. It's a landlord problem.

These aren't niche services. They are the backbone of how major VPN and proxy providers operate.

This isn't datacenter IP space being labeled as residential — it's actual ISP networks being leveraged as proxy pipes

The "this isn't X, it's Y" construction is a bright red tell for AI slop. Posting AI slop is just bad manners.

link?

Why should users care about Anthropic's servers being overloaded?

It was one of the best places to live in up until about 10 years ago.

Places I have lived in: London, Santiago, Rio de Janeiro, Miami, New York, San Francisco.

You get what you pay for.

Incorrect. OP's view is present day 9th Circuit precedent.

Could be dev fused.

How does the Supreme Court’s elimination of Chevron deference affect USCIS’s ability to narrowly interpret the EB-1A regulatory framework, particularly at Step 1 of the Kazarian analysis? I am specifically interested in two areas: (1) whether, under a strict textual reading of the judging the work of others criterion in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), participation in code review where the beneficiary evaluates and approves the technical work of others in the same field should qualify without USCIS applying extra regulatory limitations, and (2) whether USCIS can continue using its historically restrictive approach to comparable evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) now that courts are no longer required to defer to agency interpretations. I understand that even if these issues favor the petitioner at Step 1 they may not change the outcome of the final merits determination under Step 2, and I am trying to determine how a post Chevron, strictly textual approach might influence Step 1 outcomes for petitioners whose achievements do not align neatly with the ten listed criteria.

This is a very weak letter. Oracle is using the mark in commerce, and the 2019 specimen is presumed valid unless affirmatively disproven. The fact that Oracle doesn’t charge licensing fees for use of the name is irrelevant. Calling something JavaScript ‘JavaScript’ is nominative use, and any attempt by Oracle to enforce against such truthful descriptive use would fail under nominative fair use.

Make sure you're lean and muscular before you lose it all.

This is of the classical genre of HN cynicism framed as advice that if you were to follow you're pretty much guaranteed to never go anywhere in life.

and before that was TextMate.

You can ask for 3 years again on the renewal and sometimes USCIS make the mistake of giving it to you even though they are not allowed (unless it's a new engagement) according to the statutory text

The evidentiary standard is preponderance of evidence, i.e. there is a greater than 50% chance what is claimed clears the statutory bar.

RFE's and rejections don't cause problems by themselves. A denial can cause problems if the reason for denial is fraud or misrepresentation.

The clue is "other remuneration". USCIS will accept stock based compensation for founders under comparable evidence if you have raised money, i.e. your equity has a fair market value set by a professional investor in an arms-length transaction. Your total compensation will still need to objectively high compared to peers in your geographical area (supported by data).

A knighthood is not a hereditary title.

It’s not true. There are two steps to EB-1A: the statutory criteria, functionally identical to the O-1, and a final merits determination where the examiner evaluates the totality of evidence to determine if you belong to the small percentage at the top of your field. This is a far higher bar than O-1. Additionally, each petition before USCIS is evaluated independently, except for subsequent O-1 petitions with substantially similar facts. In such cases, USCIS policy and the APA’s prohibition on arbitrary and capricious action generally require approval absent extraordinary circumstances.

This restructuring is essentially a sophisticated maneuver toward wealth and power maximization shrouded in altruistic language.

There is nothing wrong with a sponsor if it affords cash to spend on food and refreshments for attendees. I believe there are right and wrong ways to sponsor these events. You have to keep in mind developers are one of the most marketing skeptical audiences extant, but it’s possible for it to be done well.