cogman10

It's not those things, it's money.

You can buy discipline, focus, and a sense of greater purpose. But it ain't cheap and few with the means to do it have the will to want it.

Consider my office. The original drafted designs for it had an airy look, full ceiling, windows connecting the rooms for added light, doors.

Every single one of those things got nixed because it meant $$$ and the people running my company didn't want to foot the bill. So instead what we ended up with is cheap carpet, no ceiling (I can see all the joists and the ductwork), and paper thin cardboard walls which you can hear discussions from across the building. But the conference room where the C Levels commonly meet is fantastically decorated.

Yeah, I used to have a lot more faith in companies being responsible, but no longer. Instead what we've been seeing is that companies cannot be trusted with vital infrastructure. Every single time they manage to integrate, they all turn into worse versions of Mr. Burns. Our economic system is setup to reward corner cutting and a race to the bottom. If an nuclear plant ends up melting down, our publicly funded nuclear insurance steps in to clean up the mess and the LLC goes bankrupt. Meanwhile, everyone that invested walks away with all the wealth they've siphoned, which they siphoned more of by cutting corners.

And what's nuts is they can walk away with those profits, buy another nuclear company, and repeat the same process until the same inevitable outcome happens.

We need reform. At a minimum we need make it impossible to have things like LLCs in charge of companies where failure result in huge negative externalities. The owners need to be at risk at going bankrupt. Without that risk, they'll just keep destroying everything so long as it makes an extra buck.

6 points according to the latest Siena Poll [1]. The gap has been narrowing ever since she won the primary.

Still likely to lose (IMO), but it's more competitive than we've seen in Florida for a long time.

[1] https://sri.siena.edu/2026/10/28/nytimes-siena-poll-of-likel...

That's a non-sequitur to the discussion at hand.

Yeah, they were super capitalists on episode 1.

Honestly, I think the main reason they were hard to sell as the series villains wasn't the capitalist part, it was the fact that they were scrawny and unintimidating. They were just sort of dorky rather than scary. The writers learned well to lean into that dorkiness in later appearances and DS9.

What made the borg intimidating was you actually felt like they were a threat. I mean, pretty early on they captured and converted picard.

> You have this regional Florida race

It's a statewide race.

> They see an issue with their Instagram account which gets fixed an hour later and they immediately think it's Zuck behind the scenes in his war room following her race and rally with a big red button on his desk to cut her off at the crucial window. Incredible stuff.

This isn't the first time Meta has pulled the plug on rallies and leftwing organizations [1]. It's also not out of character for them to try and push right wing narratives. [2]

[1] https://www.ms.now/news/instagram-shut-down-a-no-kings-accou...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Ana...

Well once I saw it wanted episode names, I was like "Nope, not for me".

I can't recall a single name of any episode, except for maybe measure of a man and inner light. But I could tell you exactly what will happen within 5 seconds of watching an episode.

> The latter episode hasn’t aged well because of one unnecessary romantic/sex scene.

Meh. I give huge passes for media based on when they were filmed. Stuff that doesn't age well is mostly just "well, it was ok at the time" and move on. TNG has very little in it that isn't really timeless.

Now, for stuff that was bad even for the time, that's the stuff that should rightly be condemned. For example, Code of Honor.

How dangerous caffeine is. You can also buy a bottle of Tylenol from Walmart, that doesn't mean it's particularly safe to OD on.

Lower dosages of caffeine kill you than the water dosages that kill you.

> And easily achieved through energy drinks?

Yeah, once you start pushing 1000mg of caffeine, you are getting into areas where if you have heart problems, you could be putting yourself in danger.

> Most energy drinks

But not all. So why strongly doubt it?

There are plenty of energy drinks which are fairly popular with huge amounts of caffeine and there's little labeling requirements to let people know that. Bang energy drink is a good example of that. 300mg per can, meaning 3 cans is putting you in dangerous territories.

I don't think there's long term evidence for negative problems. However, high dosages of caffeine are dangerous and have killed people. Those dosages are easily achieved through the likes of energy drinks.

The point of bring all this up isn't to expect the trump admin to do anything, it's an expectation of a (hopefully) future democrat admin to change forces and stop framing the ICE problem as a training or lack of body cams issue.

For sure, my point is that there's no way you can slice this as being justifiable. Even if you are pro surveillance and anti-leftist. ICE shouldn't be doing this, it's the job of the FBI.

At least you know I'm not using AI for my comments :)

Spying on political enemies and arresting citizens? That's completely outside of their statutory powers.

ICE is rogue* agency. They need to be disbanded. Fine if we still have an agency doing ICE work or whatever, but every single person employed by ICE needs to be fired, potentially prosecuted, definitely black listed from federal government work, and their funds returned for the blatant unconstitutional and dangerous use they've been put towards.

Put them back under the DoJ and have the FBI handle criminals, not ICE. Bring back the INS.

* Misspelled initially

Let's put aside whether or not surveillance is necessary.

The very big problem I have here is that ICE is not the agency that should be doing this sort of surveillance. Their role is immigration control, not leftist or citizen control. If they suspect there's some dangerous criminal problem going on, then that's the role of the FBI to investigate.

The specific reason they are doing this is because ICE doesn't use traditional courts for most of their actions. As such, they are fairly unaccountable.

ICE also isn't even technically criminal law enforcement, they are civil law enforcers. They are supposed to involve local law enforcement or federal law enforcement when going after criminals. Their roles are, instead, to dish out tickets. The fact that they've been militarized is a major problem. CBP is the only agency under the DHS that is supposed to have any sort of military equipment and general detention powers and those are only supposed to be exerted at a border.

Rulings are interpretations of the law.

2 parties bring up what they believe is the legal justification for their position in dispute and a judge rules on which is the correct position. If a party thinks the judge got the ruling wrong (interpreted the law wrong), they object and appeal.

There are also several exceptions to the hearsay rule.

Because it's very hard to stop accidental or incidental information leaks. For an opinion to be rendered, generally they also attach the case facts which lead to that ruling. Heavy redaction means it becomes almost impossible to use that ruling as precedent but also runs a real risk of exposing state secrets. For example, which judge made the ruling? Well if you get that you can start pulling information about the days the judge was active and a short list of the people the judge was hearing cases for.

All it takes is 1 accidental redaction or someone who did something silly like using a black highlighter on a PDF and now where the nukes are stored is public information.

There's also simply information that can be gleaned just based on the location that the hearing is taking place. This came from x court in x district, well then it's likely a nuclear silo is roughly in that county or surrounding counties.

This is basically it.

Imagine, for example, a case is about someone disclosing the location of nuclear arms to their spouse. Maybe even accidentally. If they are brought up on charges about this, national security doesn't want the fact that a case is about nuclear weapons to be public information. They further don't want it disclosed who was told about them (as the spouse wouldn't be subject to charges). That's basically where a secret interpretation and ruling would ultimately enter. The courts can't disclose what the ruling was nor what the case was even fully about.

Commenters on HN are not the same thing as companies launched through ycombinator.

Law and Order lied to us. Courts run on circumstantial evidence. A lot of cases turn on it.

For criminal law, prosecutors have to prove beyond reasonable doubt. If they have a gun, search history for "how to kill someone and get away with it", blood in their car, and someone that's been missing for an extended period of time. They can and have gotten convictions based on that. Hans Reiser was convicted under pretty much those circumstances.

> A HN audience will not appreciate this sentiment

I don't really agree. I think HN is particularly hostile to the likes of Flock cameras and other surveillance companies like Palantir.

But it's undeniable that spying on people along with other war/defense spending is very lucrative as governments love intel. All it takes is to be an amoral fonder to pitch to the amoral investors. It's a particularly easy pitch as well "We'll charge governments a lot of money and they'll happily pay because they love spying on their citizens".

Yeah, still illegal, but because they are new they have to work their way up through the courts to be affirmed as illegal once again.

These cameras need to be banned federally. It shouldn't be legal to own or sell access to a network of these pervert cameras.

So, I'd grant that it'd probably be a JEP for java (the initial JIT) but not that every change to the JIT would result in a new JEP. Java's JIT, hotspot, was integrated right before they started the JEP process. The JEP for the JIT would likely be pretty boring like "It's a JIT, it does this, in some applications we see this sort of speed up". Much like the AOT JEP https://openjdk.org/jeps/514

The Java governance allows for a lot more open ended projects with follow ups. Not that it's reckless, Valhalla is proof of that, but rather that once something is good enough they are pretty open to just shipping it as a preview feature and refining until it is worthy of being stable.

That's why, for example, we saw ZGC get merged, and then JDK after JDK seeing continuing development and improvement on ZGC (Or G1 for that matter). These GCs were fairly rough on their first release and now they are pretty much best in class.

I see a Python JIT as the same thing. Delivering the infrastructure for a JIT would need a PIP, but I wouldn't put in things like "acceptance criteria" beyond "doesn't break older code". I would expect such a project to get continual updates without PEPs.

You can find those JEPs, but frankly they are there for 1 of 2 reasons.

1. An outsider to the regular OpenJDK dev team proposing an optimization.

2. Advertising for a cool new performance tweak with potentially large impact.

You'll also notice that the JEP descriptions are very different from PEP descriptions.

Probably the largest JEP for the JVM, Valhalla

https://openjdk.org/jeps/401

Does not have the same level of requirements being asked of the Python JIT. Further, it's well understood that this JEP will "live on main" for quite some time in preview before it's accepted and merged.

What the JEP does, instead, is simply describe the feature and potential risks.

The vast majority of JVM optimizations do not get a JEP.

> clearly stated scope

The scope of a JIT is the entire python runtime. Not at the beginning, it can be more narrow, but certainly it can evolve to cover everything. JITs touch everything.

> success criteria

Impossible to measure. JITs don't universally make things faster and unless the SC was willing to accept "some programs will see around x% improvement" then it would be impossible to actually give them the criteria they want. There's a reason C++ compilers and their optimizations aren't defined by the ISO committee.

> support plan

Like most JITs, support for a JIT is an ongoing and ever evolving process. What's needed depends entirely on what's needed today. You usually need more than 1 or 2 dev working on it, which may be the issue here.

> It’s just that open-ended experimentation doesn’t belong in main, of all places.

Very strong disagree. That's simply the nature of performance optimizations for JITs. They belong on main because new optimizations and heuristics will always be generated. The role of doing a compiler is a long term experiment in performance, seeing what your runtime is currently doing and how it's being used and tweaking it to work better.

pypy isn't in a worse place because it's been running a longterm performance experiment.

> They have an ongoing duty to ensure that a critical piece of global infrastructure remains stable and trustworthy to consider.

None of the things mentioned actually do that, other than perhaps a support plan. There are plenty of critical infrastructure projects who all can manage to develop JITs. Python is the special snowflake that has decided to do JIT development incorrectly.

This is a runtime optimization/implementation detail. It's foolish to send it through a committee approval process. That's why you won't be able to find a single language with a JIT or advanced optimizations that has do it by committee.

I think this is a major issue with requiring a PEP for what's a performance optimization.

JITs are big nasty things that by their nature have to do a lot of things. You are basically saying "Give us a PEP for a new python interpreter and compiler".

What they do is fuzzy by their nature because optimizations are very rarely universally beneficial. It's a game of measuring, looking for regressions, and tackling the biggest problem next for whatever sample applications you have available. You always run into the risk of overfitting on top of all that (You may have made django faster, but you've made flask slower).

This is the sort of thing that, IMO, should not go through the PEP process. It's an implementation detail for the runtime.

Imagine, for example, if the JVM needed a bunch of JEPs for JIT improvements. They'd never get done. Or if any javascript engine needed ECMA acceptance before they could do a new JIT optimization.

Nope. Big oil has spent big money on propaganda for a VERY long time. Something that almost all right wing pundits and podcasters are funded by.

For the right to actually embrace solar, you need either big money in solar to start it's own propaganda campaigns or you need big oil to collapse to the point where they can't afford paying propagandists. Right now, they are making record profits so don't count on that anytime soon.