30944836

>It is the court's job to ensure the law is enforced as written.

The supreme court has no enforcement mechanism. It has no army, no police. Abiding by Supreme Court rulings is by tradition only.

>Where ambiguity exists, it is the court's job to interpret the law. That's literally the entire purpose of a court.

This is also by tradition only. The Constitution doesn't specify this, nor are there any laws that say this is the job of the court.

>because I agree with the Court that Congress never intended to grant the EPA that authority.

Luckily nothing stops Congress from making laws that clarify what they granted the EPA. If they were so fussed with the EPA doing what they were doing, why didn't they leap up and pass a law that told them to stop?

Why is it the court's job to tell congress what they meant to say? Is congress mute?

That's a two way street. It's not that China has Apple over a barrel. There is a MAD aspect to the relationship. Apple is definitely trying to get out of China as a manufacturing dependency. They'd rather not be banned from the market, but they are preparing for that. Let's rip the band-aid off, I say.

>China banning American services is to the detriment of Chinese users and competition in China, there's no reason to emulate censorship.

This is not true. China financializes everything, and pumps capital into projects at rates unseen and unmatched in the history of the world. There is plenty of competition, as evidenced by the fact that China has apps that are fare more efficient and feature rich than anything in the US. See: WeChat.

The interest rate was hike was baked into the price already. Now there's a re-shuffle where people with higher risk tolerances start buying up stocks that are on sale.

Would be great to put "Major League Soccer" in the headline here. MLS also stands for many things.

>Somewhere, off in the distance, a coal or gas-fired generator is producing a significant majority portion of that electric energy

For every car that is produced, two things are true:

(1) It takes fossil fuels to make and deliver them. (2) It takes fossil fuels to run them.

For every internal combustion engine car produced in 2022, both (1) and (2) will true for the entire life of the vehicle, which in the US is around 12 years.

For every electric car, only (1) is guaranteed to be true for the life of the car. (2) is a choice, one that we can change in the 12 years that vehicle in on the road.

Thank you for this. It is a reminder for me to think more long term than just my short life so far.

I don't know how anyone over the age of 30 could write this headline with the word "could." I know there's data behind it, and that we have to be careful not to assume things without the data but...

Have they been outside in the summer, in the midwest? In the mid-1990s you could nearly read a book by the light of lightning bugs. Now's nearly dark.

I noticed the text of your comment ins grey, which means someone downvoted you. I disagree on first take of your comment, because QA to me doesn't represent a lower-tier of anything. It's a tech job. Women being in tech is good. Indian people being in tech is good. Will you share a bit more about your thinking? Why do you see this as being discrimination?

Sidenote: I once glanced around a team I was working on a few years ago and found most of the product/program managers were gay or lesbian. Didn't strike me as discrimination, since there are, of course, gay and lesbian hardware engineers, gay and lesbian software engineers... it just happened that we all found each other on a particular team.

So that's why I think that's what's going on here, but I'm eager to hear your thoughts, as they differ from mine.

Article doesn't make it clear what the definition of paycheck-to-paycheck is, so I'm wondering if behind all this is that famous, infuriating "budget" of the $500k earner that still feels poor, somehow:

https://i2.wp.com/financialsamurai.com/wp-content/uploads/20...

This outlay list is so stupid it borders on rage bait. That's the feeling I get from this article.

It makes sense from a pre-purchase perspective, but in a post-purchase state -- what's done is done; regretting a purchase has no impact on the world.

>many people buy teslas for the statement it makes about their views and priorities

You're right about this. That's a stupid reason to buy a car, though, and indeed a stupid reason to buy anything.

>Every time this guy tweets, I regret my purchase more and more.

You are certainly free to feel however you like about your own purchases, but I have to say, I don't understand it. Either you like the car or you don't. If you do -- great! Drive away. If you don't -- sell it. Don't see what the WFH policy of Tesla has to do with anything.

Tesla employees are adults. They are not trapped by poverty wages. They are professionals. They can leave if they don't like it.

I'm a die-hard WFH'er and also not a CEO. Musk should run his company how he feels best.

That the term 'Apple Tax' exists shows that there is a reputation hit and shows that consumers are price conscious in ways that do not take into account supply and demand as a sole or primary factor when determining their brand sentiment. That Apple is the most profitable in comparison to other companies says nothing about how profitable it could be if the negative brand perception didn't exist.

I don't see where this statistic controls for people who didn't graduate or for people who didn't take classes for which they would not be successful.

This average GPA could represent grade inflation. Or it could represent increased information symmetry between the difficulty of classes and the students themselves, paired with the students' interests, determination, and aptitude.

TL;DR: Grade inflation or survivorship bias?

Yep. Even better, if they flood the market with additional units and sell them at the same price, it's the resellers (scalpers) take the hit, and not them. Sony is probably selling them at a loss and intending to make it up on the software (game) sales. This means doing anything to decrease the demand, even a little, reduces their ability to make money on the part of the business that is intended to make the money.

>they have every right to claim the profit that currently the bots are taking

Consumers don't see it this way. They often latch on to completely "irrational" cues in forming opinions of a brand. See: "Apple Tax." Note: I put "irrational" in quotes to indicate that consumers exhibit un-intuitive behavior. It's not actually a value judgement about the behavior itself, only indicating that in a purely supply-and-demand driven market environment, these behaviors would not be exhibited.

The situation is so much more complex than this, and involves a mix of legal agreements, corporate philosophy, and consumer psychology.

You might benefit from reading this article on Price Anchoring:

https://www.priceintelligently.com/blog/bid/181199/price-anc...

>Not sure why they don't raise the price to whatever the bots are selling at.

Because if they do this, the response will be "Sony is greedy charging people all this money for something that only costs them $x to make."

I am not accusing you of this, just linking this to statements and thoughts that often arise in this context. A very typical response to questions about why something costs what it does is, "It's just supply and demand. Econ 101." But it's not just Econ 101. Supply and Demand is covered in Econ 101, but economic activity is far more advanced than supply and demand. Brand perception, customer good will, supplier agreements, retailing agreements.. all of these are major factors in determine "what" the price of an item is when it appears on the shelf. This is the work of entire teams at companies as big as Sony.

>So what exactly is the benefit of moving to touch screens / voice control?

When it works -- and it works in most of the situations you mentioned (spoiler alert: I work in this space) because it's designed to -- it's safer than using any physical controls at all.

I get that adoption of the half-ass solutions is frustrating. But if we are truly targeting a future where being able to manipulate car features is to be as safe as possible, voice is the best way to do that, at least until we have a solution to beam thoughts directly to the car's computer.

That's not really possible, given that the mere omission of facts, or the placement of facts next to each other influences the conclusion.

Besides which, people think in stories, and presenting just a list of facts isn't going to be read by anyone.

>This is more like: build and connect with people for their coolness, and let the occasional job opportunity present itself.

This is an excellent summary. I'll add: people like helping people. They like getting people jobs, they like seeing other people succeed, and they like mentoring people, even casually. Use that to your advantage, and don't forget to lend a hand to the next person on your way up the ladder.

>Not to mention using a touchscreen to adjust the temperature while driving is incredibly dangerous compared to a dial you can feel for without taking your eyes off the road.

I understand this concern and opinion. I just wish that people who had this opinion realized that their car has a very modern voice interface that can reliably understand commands for temperature changes.

I know, I know, it's not the buttons you're used to, and these systems used to be very bad. But give it a shot sometime. I was impressed with Tesla's implementation, and I imagine the rest of the industry has caught up too. The best part is, it's the safest method of all, because it doesn't require taking either your hands or your eyes off the road. So if safety is your jam (and it ought to be!), this is really the best solution.

>had a friend from the first job help me get a job

This is the part of the story that OP needs to key in on.

OP: Network. Network Network Network. I've been at 2 FAANG in 7 years. I don't write code. I make good money. Friends got me jobs both times.

Do whatever you have to do to make friends with people in the industry where you want to work. Go to the bars they hang out in. Go to meet-ups. Go to lectures open to the public. Network on HN.

Sure. But none of that speaks to whether to the alleged usefulness of Bitcoin. It has failed in every way to prove itself useful in any context it has been billed for.

This is a classic case of "The market can remain irrational longer than you remain solvent." Whether Bitcoin continues to con investors into believing any of those theses is not directly related to whether those theses have tunred out to be reliable.

Because Linux's support for HiDPI (specifically, fractional scaling) is limited.

I did almost the same as you, particularly with notifications. It made me realize how much of my attention I had given to random apps. Now the default "any app can ping me at any time" just seems insane and stressful.