News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

hanging

Re:Ask HN: Who is hiring? (December 2021) on Monday December 06, 2021 @10:26PM (#29468798)
There are 257 open positions with titles that lead with "Senior" {Scientist|Engineer|Manager}. That seems extreme. Does no element of the organization develop from within?
Re:We Must Save San Francisco on Saturday May 15, 2021 @04:59AM (#27163583)

  the ones that worked against construction of dense housing and public transit
I can't think of any public transit construction that has been denied, period, no matter how badly envisioned or constructed.
Re:Have US Gun Buyback Programs Misfired? [pdf] on Saturday May 15, 2021 @04:46AM (#27163533)
"We conclude that GBPs are an ineffective policy strategy to reduce gun violence, a finding consistent with descriptive evidence that (i) firearm sales prices are set too low by cities to appreciably reduce the local supply of firearms, (ii) most GBP participants are drawn from populations with low crime risk, and (iii) firearms sold in GBPs tend to be older and less well functioning than the average firearm.

  Please don't capitalise the term 'black' here
The San Jose Mercury has just changed their style guide to do exactly this (capitalize Black when used in a racial identity context)[0]. When using "white" in the same context, it remains uncapitalized.

[0] example: https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/07/03/protesters-march-to-s...

This particular judge is an Obama nominee with an activist track record[0]. I expect this will be stopped by a higher court before it takes effect.

[0] https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/02/justice-still-denie...

  GrubHub... lost $33.4 million over the last 3 months. (In fairness: COVID-19.)
I don't understand the qualifier. Hasn't Covid-19 been a boon to delivery services? If they can't profit during these artificially beneficial market conditions (boosted demand and endless supply of minions to do delivery), how can they ever profit?
The Court didn't support it.

Check out the summary [0] elsewhere in these comments (not mine, but I found it helpful).

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23173858

  executive orders can decide what the law means
You should tell the SCOTUS that. They overturned 55% of Obama executive directives that reached them, and his administration had the most overturned unanimously (yes, even Ginsberg and Sotomayor) of any Presidency.

>>Also, the U.S. Constitution's requirement that State governments be (small-r) republican

  There is no such requirement
Dude. This is literally in Article IV:

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, ..."

  extremely partisan Wisconsin court has now struck down that law in a blatant act of judicial activism
"Extreme partisanship" is more evident in your complaint about a "striking down" that didn't happen of a "law" that doesn't exist. The Court upheld existing law and struck down executive actions that violated it.

By the way, Supreme Court justices here in Wisconsin are elected on statewide ballots, not nominated for life like Federal judges. Your basis for calling them "extremely partisan" is, what, exactly?

Re:Don’t waste your time in crappy startup jobs on Tuesday December 24, 2019 @06:26PM (#21875629)
(2012)
Re:Appeals court rules ACA’s individual mandate unconstitutional on Wednesday December 18, 2019 @09:36PM (#21831592)
But this ruling means it can't be done ever again (barring a Constitutional Amendment).
Re:Appeals court rules ACA’s individual mandate unconstitutional on Wednesday December 18, 2019 @07:17PM (#21830875)
Full title: "Appeals court rules ACA’s individual mandate unconstitutional; lower court to decide whether rest of law can stand without it"
Title taken from that used in the print edition of the San Jose Mercury, 11/5, page A7.
What about non-Uranium isotopes?
Note that this is an Initiative Statute[0] (not a Referendum). This allows them to write a broader package of laws (rather than just "undo" any previous bill) to implement a broader wish list.

When reading the text of proposed law, note that "engaged" means with an active rider/fare, not all time available accepting rides on the app. 25 hours of actual engaged time in a week sounds improbably difficult to achieve in most areas.

Note that this is an Initiative Statute[0] (not a Referendum). This allows them to write a broader package of laws (rather than just "undo" any previous bill) to implement a broader wish list.

When reading it, note that "engaged" means with an active rider/fare, not all time available accepting rides on the app. 25 hours of actual engaged time in a week sounds improbably high.

[0] https://protectdriversandservices.com/wp-content/uploads/201...

Appears on the front page of the San Jose Mercury 7/15/14 as "Valley has a new whiz kid: Elizabeth Holmes may give Zuckerberg a run for his billions"

Older »