avs733

The reasoning for the internal administrative courts is because these (SEC, NLRA, etc.) are highly esoteric and detailed areas of the law. Having people be judges in these cases who are experts can be a positive so they don't get BS'ed and can resolve issues efficiently and effectively and consistently. That is very different from the experience of dealing with federal courts at large where a judge may be hearing a murder trial one day and a shareholder lawsuit the next. Those courts ALREADY have huge backlogs so adding this case load to them is likely to be disastrous as well as resulting in more manifestly unfair outcomes when one side is able to delay to the point where remedies aren't meaningful. The argument that they are political (your overturning) also applies pretty damn well to EVERY court these days, not just internal administrative ones.

I think a useful analogy is to how frustrated much of HN gets every time federal judges struggle to grok technology - whether it be the internet, software code, or privacy. Imagine if there was some sort of court dedicated to dealing with 'technology stuff' where the judges had a background in the relevant areas to make sure reality won the day. There is a place for generalists and a place for specialists. Maybe this isn't the best way to handle it but it is a way.

This is just an attempt to retell someone’s self mythicization as accepted reality…e.g.:

“It’s not the only time Tesla has been accused of selling vaporware after the fact. For example, Tesla has for years sold “full self driving” to Tesla customers at a steep discount, with the understanding that it its delivery is subject to regulatory approval. Many of the early cars, we now understand, lack the hardware needed to perform FSD with current technology. That’s why it was sold at a discount, to cover time, regulatory, and tech risk.“

I was involved in a study a few years back that looked (in part) at how engineering undergraduates defined entrepreneurship and startup. It fortunately the results from that part ended up on the cutting room floor to focus out main paper on something else…

Generally, to undergraduate engineers, entrepreneurship and startups are defined by the following things:

Being in Silicon Valley/San Francisco

Doing something related to technology

Being financially successful (yes…noting another finding was that they often subconsciously conflated revenue and profit, but only when told the financial data was from a “startup”)

Being controlled by their founder

I’m agnostic whether you are right or wrong but one side brings data and you just have an anecdote.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/16/us/child-care-centers-pri...

Personally, I've come to the following conclusion after dealing with the American health care system far to much in the last three years and several encounters with corporate America throughout my adult life:

There is no difference in the potential for waste, inefficiency, fraud, corruption, laziness, and outright stupidity between government and private systems. There is a difference in (1) my (and my fellow citizens) ability to influence between that two and (2) not having to pay for profit and the costs to me resulting from necessary profit on top of the rest of the shit sundae.

I consistently and strongly disagree with this. The police are a manifestation of our society. When they do bad things they do so in our name - whether or not you want them to do it. We have created a law enforcement structure that empowers these abuses to happen. Transferring the cost to them for acting the way society wants them to act is not the answer. We bear that responsibility and should bear that cost.

Clarifying…I meant the narratives in general, not this particular one. When your information sphere becomes narrowed, whatever narratives are within it tend to be reinforced and over time become inseparable from reality. Left and right, Russian and American, etc. it doesn’t matter it happens.

I've really begun to notice that there is a large group of people who see this not as a narrative but as objective and external reality. I see it often on this topic, that capitalism (definitional arguments noted) is not just inherently good - it is in fact inherent. However it seems to increasingly apply to many people's perspectives on social and societal concepts.

I love me some internet...have since I was a kid...but one externality of being able to find and interact with people who think similarly to you is increased coalescence around different realities as realities rather than narratives or perspectives.

They exist! Meant for backpacking/back country work.

I spent a summer as a wilderness search and rescue intern/volunteer/grunt/mule during college and was shocked at how much weight could have been saved with better gear. There’s just a minimal market for it.

Do you change a requirement for a BS degree to only require 6 instead of 9 credits of research?

Upside - students might graduate faster (this is one of many constraints on graduation) which saves them money and time.

downsides - faculty may have less students to help with research (which helps faculty succeed via research productivity)

complicating - students might do the research anyways, they can still get credit it just doesn't officially count for anything.

context: the department is responsible to both...the actual impact of both the upside and downside are functionally impossible to predict because they are part of a broader complex partially social system that will anneal itself in ways you don't expect, metrics of success for students and faculty are important to everyone, albeit through different arms of an org chart which results in them each advocating for their metric at the expense of all others, because their success is partially evaluated on that metric.

solution (this is sarcasm): remove a math course as 'required' that most students get transfer credit for and have to have as a pre-requisite for other classes. Only effect is on the 2% of students who actually have to take the course.

result: everyone sees change, which they want, without perceiving a risk of harmful side effects, and with no actual change to the status quo.

That all being said I think for many people the ability to have a bright line is because the abstractions involved in deeply understanding these types of trade offs are not a common part of life. We are (nearly) universally worse at the types of reasoning (especially reasoning with abstractions) that we don't do frequently.

The problem is that unless the data are credible and reliable, any interpretation of that data is meaningless. For or against one’s hypotheses doesn’t matter if the data is junk. If the data is junk you can’t move past that, it’s the end of the conversation because the data has no meaning.

That ignores random sample problems and the simplistic statistical analysis…so yeah it unfortunately does.

It doesn’t prove they are wrong, but it’s not credible to say they are right

Bigger picture - given the role news making and sharing in real time has always played in Twitter, it seems logical that services which may not provide obvious returns but which build a platform that journalists find useful would help do that.

So while this might seem logical from an outside perspective, two postdocs are common if not pretty much the norm for people hired as Tenure Track faculty at high ranking institutions in many fields nowadays. The name of the game is derisking - how much of a track record can you build before they hire you to confirm you will succeed.

What the spokespeople say is a claim…it’s not truth, we don’t have independent evidence of it, of course they would claim that.

Even if they did have human in the loop - what does that meaningfully look like? Are those humans given the authority to actually overrule the decision? Are they given the evidence to do so? Are they punished or perceive that they will be punished if they do?

I don’t think taking the banks answer to any of those questions at face value is responsible citizenship. Yes it’s what they said - no I don’t think that supports calling it reality.

I’ve mentioned this in other threads related to medical billing. My wife and I have had crazy medical bills for bizarre things the last few years. They are never correct, often they are basically fiction. The people you talk to just point to the bill as if it is inherently correct because it’s the bill. I’ve shown pictures of me on vacation on another continent that same day they charged me for a service…well the bills the bill. That’s not human in the loop, it’s a human shield around the automated decision making loop.

It’s a fixable problem, make incorrect billing an actual crime. It already is to mid bill the government, just not people.

We also use it as a quick todo list for things that don’t go into the family asana

Other note- asana, mostly for repeating and long term scheduled tasks has been a huge family boon for us