HillaryBriss

> gleefully supporting the investigation because it threatens Google's future.

what about gleefully supporting the investigation because it will create opportunities for competition, create room for other small companies to have at least a fighting chance at success?

or maybe both?

> ... the issue that is going to cause Google the most problems

I am certainly biased because I seem to see more negative HN Google comments than positive ones. But, I'm starting to wonder if taking money from Google will cause politicians problems in 2020. Will we see candidates bashing each other for being too cozy with Google? Could taking Google money even become a third rail?

there's also Android's troubling anticompetitive behavior against SkyHook location provider:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/09/skyhook-google-m...

and the restrictive conditions imposed on android OEMs:

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/02/new-android-oem-lice...

yes. and please let it be noted that MD associations in California opposed a law that would have allowed Nurse Practitioners to operate autonomously (as they do in some states)

the real genius of the AMA was finding a way to drastically slow the global MD population as it tried to correct the imbalance by entering the US and setting up practice.

the answer used to be: yes, there's always a case for skepticism and critical analysis of a scientific topic

but in today's enlightened discussion climate one must also consider the magnitude of the shit-storm of personal attacks one will face before voicing that skepticism. you even have to consider that before you make a comment like this one.

don't today's students simply photograph the exams while they're taking them?

in my residential area most of the social activity is dog walking and neighborhood meetings where people discuss whose car or place of living was broken into and how to get the police to actually show up

> which I politely explain is effectively less money than I make now, due to costs of living

a rule of thumb I hear from a financial adviser: "Why work in a huge first tier city for 10% more money when you can move to a second or third tier city where housing prices are 50% lower?"

per Wikipedia, the difference is even larger:

LA Metro area: about 13 million

Austin: about 1 million.

my humble guess is that the genie is out of the bottle: the vast majority of these LA drivers are daily commuters. now that these drivers are used to taking these routes, most of these residential neighborhoods will remain saturated permanently. removing the routes from Waze won't relieve much traffic pressure.

If the city's failure to prevent gridlock at major intersections across the city is any guide, LA will never get a handle on this problem. It will never have enough DPT and police to enforce any proposed solution.

It can be controversial. It can pit the wealthy against the working class: a well-off hillside neighborhood may demand that its streets be off-limits to through traffic. But this would mean that another, poorer neighborhood's residents are denied an important route to work. And the question comes up: aren't these public streets? Don't the streets belong to everyone?

The police would not be required to add resources to enforce these laws. But without enforcement the signs would make very little difference to LA drivers.

at this point i'm just trying to understand better what your proposed change to the system is. AFAICT, it's:

1. remove CBP's current right to summarily deny entry to visa holders (which is to say, remove that right from the aggregate of current US residents)

2. require the CBP (and thus current US residents) to argue all cases of entry denial at a trial in a court of law (after the visa holder has been granted free entry to the US)

3. expand the visa holder's right to include an inviolable guarantee to enter at the time of arrival (which might, in some cases, be revoked in the future, but only as the result of a court trial)

4. (possibly also, though I'm not sure you'd agree) provide government subsidized lawyers to all visa holders who may face a trial questioning their right to remain

i'm wondering how bad this is

they didn't pronounce these students "innocent" or "guilty."

this resembles the situation when a police officer arrests a US citizen. they do that thousands of times a day in the US without first determining innocence or guilt. it's just the first step. and US citizens are generally required to cooperate with law enforcement officer directives. the fact that police have certain, constitutionally limited powers doesn't mean the system has abandoned "innocent until proven guilty."

What should the punishment be for a government that fails to implement such a system? (e.g. UN censure? the imposition of economic sanctions? an invasion?)

This indicates that entry to the US is not guaranteed by a visa:

Issuance of a visa does not guarantee entry to the United States. A visa simply indicates that a U.S. consular officer at an American embassy or consulate has reviewed the application and that officer has determined that the individual is eligible to enter the country for a specific purpose. The CBP Officer at the port-of-entry will conduct an inspection to determine if the individual is eligible for admission under U.S. immigration law.

https://www.cbp.gov/travel/international-visitors/visa-waive...

So, each of these cases would need to go to trial?

I chose the words "merely denying someone entry to a country" because to me it seems much less severe than a prison sentence and/or denial of possessions, and the imposition of a criminal record.

From the country's point of view, this policy seems like a conservative filter for entrants who might violate regulations, cause damage or even harm the existing residents. But, yes, there are false positives and false negatives to any such policy. And, of course, such a policy might include the provision for an appeal.

What standard should a country have to meet in order to exile someone from what that person considers their home? What is the legal definition of home for these purposes? What are the rules that countries and individuals ought to adhere to?

I thought exile meant that a person's country of citizenship is ejecting that person, making it illegal for that person to remain.

Isn't "innocent until proven guilty" a standard related to criminal punishment? This is merely denying someone entry to a country. That's quite a different outcome than a prison sentence.

Are there any countries that guarantee entry to every person unless a court denies that person entry? Is that a standard that any country adheres to?

+1 Thanks for the informative historical comparison. I appreciate it. Interesting. I do have a bit of trouble drawing parallels though.

I mean, the US is not requiring, say, that goods imported to US ports be exclusively carried by US ships, as the English did. The US is not taking possession of any of the many Chinese owned port facilities which currently operate in a large number of US cities. The US is not demanding that only US merchant ships be allowed to carry cargo across certain regions of the world's oceans. And, China has not, for instance, sailed up the Potomac and stolen any US vessels.

Most of this is playing out in terms of taxes and tariffs. It is almost totally bureaucratic and regulatory in nature.

> US could easily block ...

But does the US even have enough inspectors and inspections, enough bureaucrats, enough reliable data about all those factories and farms and goods? The fact is that the US doesn't even know what's being imported.

calling these things a trade "war" is, IMHO, not all that useful. it doesn't help us much to understand the phenomenon. in a true war, people are actively killing other people, and violently destroying infrastructure and capturing geographical territory. many many lives are lost quickly.

IMHO, we might better call it a tax hike, a new regulatory regime, new trade restrictions, a rebalancing of domestic priorities, an attempt by government to increase or reduce a trade deficit, or something else. and we may well decide it's foolish and bad and stupid. but it's not really a war in the true sense.

another risk factor for cannabis users is contamination by pesticides. many of the illegal grow sites in California national forests have been contaminated by Carbofuran, a banned pesticide. this chemical is applied to the plants. these operations still supply a large fraction of consumer marijuana demand. if you're gonna toke, know your weed supply chain.