4,019 karma · joined April 20, 2012
This is a joke, but uncomfortably close to the way junior people interview:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ProgrammerHumor/comments/4k994j/if_...
In an ideal world, everyone who had Covid would not be able to smell, and then we could justify doing a second, more reliable test on them. Anyone would could smell would be ok.
Small plants require less capital. They're easier to manufacture. They can iterate faster. They have less environmental impact, and therefore fewer regulatory hurdles. They require less labor to build and a smaller supply chain.
I expect that the engineering is harder, because scale can bring efficiencies. But still, I think the winner is going to be a small device, not a behemoth, if only because a small device can come online years earlier.
This is absurd -- the total amount of data I needed to store in the JWT was about 10 bytes.
This inefficiency bloats requests. At a time when we're migrating to http/2, which which deliberately reduces headers to speed things up, JWT is going in the other direction.
Let's give credit where credit is due on this: https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20190625.97459...
If I were doing it, I'd budget 4-8 hours of work and close to zero cost.
There is some reference to a beta in 2018. Should remove that.
Also, a video of the thing in use would be helpful. Put it right up at the top. Show me something I can't do now. Include specific examples.
You should definitely charge for upgrades. Make the license for a particular version perpetual, but no upgrades after a year unless they pay again.
Most of your money will probably come from large corporate licenses. Think about how to structure them.
Github documentation is a disaster. They leave out critical parts. They don't provide examples. Everything they write is terse, confusing, and incomplete.
They have short little articles on how to do things, and for each sub-task they have a link to docs somewhere else. This would be fine, except the links don't point to anything useful.
To give an example: they say you can use the Github API to talk to Github Packages, but the link goes to their generic GraphQL documentation. They don't point to any reference material on the actual calls to the packages service. If it exists, I can't find it.
If you go to the main page in your account for Github Packages, it says that all you have to do is this:
mvn deploy -Dregistry=https://maven.pkg.github.com/mycompany -Dtoken=GH_TOKEN
That is just straight-out wrong. It does not work.
Seriously, Github, you need to fire your documentation team and hire some people who know how to write. Perhaps you should hire people who have actually used your tools to write the docs. Or just provide some freakin' working examples.
The reason you do it this way is that it's way easier to write bullets that it is to write sentences. It allows you to focus on substance instead of form. It's analogous to typing into a plain text editor and not worrying about formatting. Formatting, and form, do matter, a lot. But you can add them later.
I see some mention of a Tailwind template for the landing page, but how did you do the secondary pages and the admin interface? The blog?
Also, I see some mention of Vue. Did you do the admin interface differently than the main site?
There's another question that this situation raises: is a website a "place", a "service", or a "product"?
If it's a place, then place-of-public-accommodation rules might apply.
If it's a service, then it's likely to be treated like other services. For example, the ADA says that a barbershop must be accessible, but it doesn't say that the barber must cut the hair of a disabled person. (That would come under anti-discrimination statutes, not the ADA. I think. Not sure about this).
If it's a product, then there are probably no rules at all. There's no law that say that your faucet must be accessible to a person who can't turn small knobs, or that your book must have large-enough type to be read by the elderly.
Again, as I say, sorting all this out is going to be harder than you think.
But it really opens a can of worms. What's a place of public accommodation? With brick-and-mortar, it's easy; if you have a physical location open to the general public, it probably qualifies. But on the web? Does my personal website count? What if I sell t-shirts on it? What if I don't sell anything, but have forums where the public can discuss things? What about a site which is primarily about communications, i.e. speech? Does a requirement that you put ARIA labels on things amount to compelled speech?
What if accessibility standards change? Am I compelled to upgrade my site?
This issue is a lot hairier than the court imagines. Does the court really want to get into the issue of which websites need to comply and which don't?
The rules might not be fair. Our recourse is to try to change the rules, and failing that, threaten to withdraw from the agreement. That's what we're doing.
First, $12/pound is too expensive. Yes, I know you've got delivery and other costs, and it's best to start high. But know you'll need to reduce the price over time.
Second, consider pitching this to the keto market. Spinach + fat is a great keto item. It's really hard to order keto-friendly takeout. Might fill a niche.
I like doctors to be licensed. I'm normally anti-regulation, but this is an exception.
The real issue here is the onerous occupational licensing requirements in Florida. To be a nutritionist in Florida, you need a degree and 900 hours of work. That's far too much.
Occupational licensing has become a way for an industry to form a cartel. It's a major public policy problem, and the IJ is right to take it on. They've fought against it in a great many cases and had some success.
Unfortunately, though, the First Amendment is a blunt tool and doesn't work very well in this particular case. I wish they had a better tool.
My Tivo Thinks I'm Gay https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1038261936872356908
How many such apps am I running that I don't know about? And how many of them are exposing my system to malicious web sites, or to curious people in my office on the same subnet? I wish I knew.
I was involved in a gerrymandering case in the 1990s. The group that brought me in was challenging the Illinois congressional map, which had been drawn by Democrats. It was, and is, atrocious. Back then, the map was a deal between the white Democrats who wanted to hold some white seats that extended into the suburbs, and some black Democrats who wanted incumbent protection.
Back then, the Democrats were the ones across the country who were protecting racial gerrymanders because they wanted to ensure that any area with a substantial black population was never represented by a Republican. They drew the districts in Illinois to ensure as many black-majority districts as possible (and one Hispanic-majority district). The districts were completely convoluted. They made arguments that the Voting Rights Act actually required racial gerrymanders.
Our side challenged the districts. The other side, defending the gerrymander, was led by the Mexican-American Legal Defense Fund, and they brought in the Clinton Administration Justice Department as defendant-intervenors. That's right -- the primary defender of gerrymanders was the Clinton Administration. They were involved in similar suits, making similar claims, across the country.
Demographics have shifted a bit since then, and now we have more Republican gerrymanders than Democrat ones. But make no mistake -- the original convoluted maps were all Democrat, and virtually all Supreme Court gerrymandering-related precedent during the era came as a result of Democrat defense of the maps.
So don't try to claim that Democrats "play clean and fair". That's rubbish. They created this problem, and only now are shifting their views of gerrymandering because it is no longer working to their benefit. They, like most politicians, are opportunists.
Disclosure: I'm now the chairman of the Chicago Republican Party.
We look at gerrymandering through the lens of "fairness", and we find it unfair when one group cannot get reasonably proportional representation in the legislature. But we are all members of many groups. We belong to political parties, racial groups, regional groups, economic groups, social classes and personality groups -- how can all of them get a voice which is proportional to their numbers? There's no clear-cut solution.
This is the core problem with most gerrymandering jurisprudence -- it looks at at the problem mostly through a racial lens, and more recently, a partisan one. But the world is more complex than that. Voter's interests are not solely determined by the color of their skin or their political party.
The court is not saying that gerrymandering is okay. The court is saying that they don't have a solution, or at least not one that can be imposed by courts. The court is more constrained than a legislature in finding a solution, because the court must override state laws based on a reasonable reading of federal law, in this case the Voting Rights Act, or the Constitution. And unfortunately, both of those sources are nearly silent on the matter. It is not within the courts power to create law from nothing, notwithstanding Kagan's dissent.
In the past, we decided that the appropriate grouping for the election of representatives was geographic. It's not ideal, but it's the best of bad options. Our current gerrymanders are a perversion of that principle, and we are right to look for a solution that leads to cleaner, more compact districts.
The court has said that it's not theirs to decide the issue. I'm not sure I agree, because current gerrymanders are an incumbent protection racket, and that looks to me like a civil rights violation. But in any case, it is well within the power of Congress to fix the problem through an amendment to the Voting Rights Act, and they certainly should.
I could see how it would not be the state if it were separately incorporated, funded, and governed, just like a municipality.
So what's the rule that distinguishes entities that have sovereign immunity from those that don't?