Deprecate9151
Deprecate9151 on Hacker News
I want to call this out because I see this advice a lot (and it's also my backup plan).
Trade work can be a fantastic way to earn a living, but it is HARD work. It will break your body if you do it for your whole life. There is a reason plenty of people jumped to office work the first chance they got.
Don't go into the trades blind, take care of your body, or you'll be like my grandpa and need help uncurling your fingers if you fall asleep making a fist.
They could open the cases, but this decision hinged on the permitting process not following the law that it needed to consider emissions, which the Rights of the Chile was a component of.
It is not a given the reasoning used in this decision could be used for oil and gas projects that followed a proper permit process at the time they were granted. There is more reason to believe this case would NOT apply in that situation.
It may functionally stop all new projects (although I doubt that it will get that far).
I don't see anything implying that existing projects approved under the old framework would need to be re-assessed and shutdown though. That was my main point.
It does not seem so, the artcile indicates the court focused on procedural issues related to the impact assessment required for the permits to build the new oil locations. The issues seems to be focused on the fact they weren't done, or were incomplete. I would imagine only pump locations with similar deficiencies would be in trouble.
Reading the article, none of that seems to be in scope for the decision. The decision seems to focus on the fact these new locations didn't adequately meet their existing impact analysis requirements in the first place, not that the impact was deemed unacceptable.
And reading up after this comment led to me learning some people make a distinction that latches are level triggered and flip-flops are edge triggered.
I think I remember my digital logic professor using both. I don't recall there ever being a clear cut distinction like edge vs level set being made though. I wish I still had my notes.
I'm not sure if this will help since it sounds a bit different than what I experienced, but try changing the battery. Our copy had some odd behavior when it started dying, but hadn't completely failed yet.
I think for the pharmacists its simply economics. It's cheaper to have 3 or 4 pharmacists and a bunch of much lower payed techs on staff to do the work manually then develop and maintain automation while complying with existing regulations. I know some hospitals have automatic medication dispensing, so I'm assuming they have much higher volume where it makes sense.
I was at a company where that exec won. In this case it was the Infosphere suite to replace a fully mature Informatica/Teradata environment and fix all the "issues". Obviously the issues were all design and management, not technical.
3 years a tens of millions later the whole project is shut down with no value delivered except a single data store and a couple API endpoints. That exec went back to his IBM sales job.
Last I heard they were still paying for and maintaining all of it because that endpoint was used in a key product offering.
I used to work at a large insurance company with a COBOL core system. I completely agree with this. They paid for people who knew all the undocumented idiosyncrasies and foot-guns in the code. Not just "Knowing COBOL". A decent programmer could read a COBOL program and follow it.
They wouldn't know that the reason the key export fell over when extracting data for your 10K filing because someone had decided/assumed/whatever that a certain record count would never go over 3000, so they hard coded the program to just error out if it went above that value.
It doesn't, I'm just expanding on why a specific cell meeting the program specifications "usually" wouldn't really move the need for the FCC analysis.
That isn't a quibble, the 100/20 requirement was a key requirement they set themselves.
Regardless though, I was wrong about the buildout reasoning. The FCC just doesn't believe, based off the information provided by Starlink, they had a strong enough likelihood of success with the plan provided to stay in the running.
Yeah I messed that up. After reading more the denial was focused on the fact that Starlink didn't refute they were not consistently delivering speeds and latency that matched the tier they bid on, and their plan to bridge that gap wasn't convincing to the reviewers or the Commission.
It is difficult, but the program (theoretically, since the program isn't at that stage yet) has checkpoints to address failure to actually deliver.
This stage was to focus on if the bid accepted based off of the short-form proposal was progressing and likely to deliver as described by reviewing additional information provided in the long-form application. That is going to be easier for tech with an established delivery history.
Can't disagree there.
That is why I actually like the approach in the RDOF. It has regular progress check-ins built in, instead of the seemingly no strings attached grants given historically. This stage two review was "are you likely to succeed based on progress since stage one", but there are further delivery checkpoints that come with penalties and bonuses for under and over delivering.
They didn't decide now. The program was created as a two step process initially. Starlink succeeded in the first round, but was denied in the second, more in depth, review that lead to the rejection. This was basically an appeal of that rejection.
The second round was designed to eliminate providers who didn't seem able to deliver on their promises even with the subsidies. It was made to prevent a situation where either party (but mostly the US Gov and tax payers by extension) was on the hook for unsuccessful delivery.
I'm not sure what happens with the funds that would have gone to Starlink.
The Commission decision does address this. Unfortunately the section is redacted of specific details, but it appears Starlink argued that it's second gen satellites would be launched via Starship and address these issues.
However, they didn't successfully launch Starship yet as they described in that plan, and only announced Falcon 9 would launch second gen satellites after they were already denied based off of the initial plan.
The dissenting letter unfortunately just says "no they didn't", but doesn't point to any documentary evidence. It's hard to accept it at face value when compared to the long form explanation. Especially when much of the "corrective action" taken by Starlink has come after the initial denial.
That argument is a red herring. The RDOF program is concentrated in specific geographic areas. Starlink onboarding subscribers in other areas doesn't really have a bearing on this program if they can't prove they can extend that to the areas in scope and hit the service levels they bid at. It might even hurt their argument if performance degrades as they focus on areas outside the RDOF locations.
More traditional offerings have a much easier time demonstrating they can do that, even if they haven't started physically building yet. It's very easy for them to say x amount of fiber capacity at this location will meet the program specs, and this is how fast we can install it.
For this grant the 100/20 needed to be consistently available in specific geographic areas. So if the cells bring down the performance averages are concentrated in those grant areas, it makes sense for them to fail to meet the program criteria while still having a product that hits those metrics elsewhere.
That was not the terms, there were buildout requirements attached that started when the bid was accepted.
https://www.usac.org/high-cost/funds/rural-digital-opportuni...Looks like Starlink was supposed to be 40% built with their participation starting in 2020, that are consistent with their winning bid (in this case 100/20). It seems they clearly failed by that metric.
It's definitely endemic, I was just commenting on a particular subset of extremism.
This letter is particularly concerning when you consider there are individuals represented by this org who also believe in the Constitutional Sheriff theory. They want to be lords of a fife, not law enforcement.
Have you read, or at least read about, The Silmarillion? Your assumption about their trauma is very correct.
Sure, maybe there isn't, I can't argue that with my knowledge.
What I am confident on is there won't be significant societal change with that level of evidence. Most of those health issues have "easy" reasons they can be associated with (right or wrong), and it's going to be tough convincing people that in vitro effects are enough reason to significantly curtail (nevermind ban) plastics.
This is a big part of the struggle with in vitro vs in vivo studies. We can have a repeatable result with in vitro effects, but can't confidently say what the macro effect will be. We might be able to say it doesn't "directly" cause none, some, or all of those, but we can't definitively say it doesn't contribute at all.
Personally I'm of the opinion that is evidence large scale studies are needed on live subjects. I'm not educated enough to know if that is feasible or reasonable, but I am confident you can't be "sure" until that is done.
I encourage you to learn more about the history of labor relations, especially since the 1700s.
Strikes are to thank for that.
It's going to widely vary by local jurisdiction. In the US though, generally building codes would end at the recepticle. If this was hard-wired it would probably be an issue for the inspector, but otherwise it would be out of scope.
The technical term for it is "disgorgement" and it does exist in some contexts. I agree it is shockingly absent in far too many.