2,503 karma · joined February 1, 2016
SCOTUS can decide what the “strict bounds of the law” is, within our current system of government. But it is wise to heed what the people want the law to actually be - since their consent is truly what matters. Any government is ultimately powerless if the people decide it is so.
Because if it was as bad as they claim, they wouldn’t be letting people off the hook like this.
The kindest read here is that you are unaware of the FCC’s comments on the matter.
Unfortunately, the government actually did do something - they put their thumb on the scale and implied severe consequences if the network did not follow through.
This is a massive difference. It is extremely chilling.
The left used their speech to encourage consequences for those whose speech they didn’t like.
The right is now using the power of the government to silence speech they don’t like.
That is a massive and important difference, and it is blindingly obvious.
But it’s still perhaps an unfair point to make. State/Lake is one of the busiest stations in the system, in the heart of the downtown corridor. It is not a simple “update” - it’s a full, in-place rebuild. And, that rebuild includes adding elevator connections from the elevated platforms down to the subway below. The elevated infrastructure in question is about 130 years old, and they have to keep running the trains over those tracks the whole time.
It’s a massive engineering problem, even before you add in the additional costs of paying crews to work overnights so that the whole CTA doesn’t come to a grinding halt while they do it.
If you search around a bit, you can find the construction costs for other overhauls the CTA has done recently, which far more agreeable price tags. If this one is huge, there’s probably a very good reason why.
The real question is: why don’t people want to talk about it? I’ve found it typically falls into three camps:
One group flags these kinds of stories because they’re exhausted, and can’t stomach any more. I feel bad for this group, and I understand the impulse.
Another group flags because suppressing information about what the administration is up to aligns with their personal ideology. This is the more dangerous group, and I’m always sad to see people coming out in support of awful stuff like this.
The last group flags it because it annoys them, and they don’t want to engage with it. It makes them uncomfortable and they feel it doesn’t impact them. They point to the HN guidelines and say it’s not relevant. It is, they’re just lucky enough to have not been affected personally by anything yet.
I pity the last group, honestly.
Perhaps we have different definitions of “infinite,” but either way I’m pretty sure nobody’s demonstrated that yet.
“Our case is so weak, that a trial could pose a huge risk to our finances. So we’ll choose to forgo our day in court and settle instead. And that means you’ve violated our right to defend ourselves because LOOK WHAT YOU MADE ME DO.”
This amount of spin is breathtaking. Puts every politician to shame, really.
I’m willing to mentor folks, and help them grow. But what you’re describing sounds so exhausting, and it’s so much worse than what “mentorship” meant just a few short years ago. I have to now teach people basic respect and empathy at work? Are we serious?
For what it’s worth: sometimes ignoring this kind of stuff is teaching. Harshly, sure - but sometimes that’s what’s needed.
And yet, this is fundamentally the position the CTO took.
> That's just laziness on the part of the engineer who says that - it's not only unrealistic, it's intellectually lazy not to understand communication better, and it's going to apply to everyone they talk to, not just executives.
Of course all sides should try to understand better. But one side has a much bigger impact by putting in a little more effort.
In any case though, you’ve managed to nicely illustrate both of our points, so kudos on that.
And so in that sense, I agree with you - from the perspective of the engineer in this example, yes: try to figure out what they meant and don’t get lost in the details. It’s a good example of not trying to control things that are fundamentally out of your hands.
But the other side is: this blog post (and the linked one explaining the “kernel” idea more deeply) is written from the perspective of the CTO! And it’s framed as a strategy - “encourage your engineers to learn how to intuit what you mean, and not what you say” (paraphrasing, of course).
I think that’s where it rubs me the wrong way. It subtly puts the responsibility for effective communication the receiving end. If we are considering it from a pragmatic standpoint, it’s just far more efficient for the CTO to say what he means from the get-go.
I mean, honestly even with the example: how much harder would it have been for the CTO to say “is it possible to go faster with something off-the-shelf rather than build our own?”
If you follow the link within the article, he goes on to say:
> The most frequent issue I see is when a literal communicator insists on engaging in the details with a less literal executive. I call the remedy, “extracting the kernel.”
Most engineers I’ve worked with have been “literal communicators.” Of course, both parties can always improve. But part of being a good leader is having excellent communication skills, and that includes anticipating how your audience will receive your message. The bulk of the responsibility is, and should be, on the leader to avoid misunderstandings in the first place.
> So, I'll pose this question to HN and see what you all say: If you have kids, why not more? (if you're too old/young, just imagine you're the right age)
> I'll go first: We'd both like to have more kids, but we honestly don't have the time for another. They really do eat up loads of your time.
I think you've largely answered your own question, by reflecting on your own circumstances. I suspect there are plenty of people who would not mind having more kids per se, but simply cannot afford to (in terms of time, or in terms of money, etc).
We are planning on a second kiddo, and I can barely fathom how we'll make it work with what little time we have left. At least in the US, we simply don't have a society that makes it easy or feasible to have kids - financially or otherwise.
But it’s still quite sad to see us becoming a laughingstock.
In a somewhat convenient turn of events for pro-Musk camp on HN: Musk is now deeply embroiled in politics. Thus, any discussion of him is inherently political. And of course, politics is largely "off-topic" for HN.
So in addition to the usual flagging and downvoting of Musk-critical comments and stories, they can also be flagged and downvoted for being "political."
I don't foresee it changing anytime soon. Not at least until enough techies finally understand that virtually everything is "political" to some extent, and I don't expect that to happen until we hit the riots-in-the-streets stage of Musk's current political project.
What were those vote totals, again?
“Appeasement” was precisely how I interpreted the actions, as well.
However, I’m surprised that the university administration is naive enough to think that’s a viable strategy. Taking a hard-line stance isn’t going to convince the Trump administration to reinstate the grants they just cancelled, or remove them from the investigation list they just announced.
Better to grow a backbone, and defend the free speech rights of students (even if that speech seems objectionable) while there are still rights left to defend.
Rolling over will do nothing but hasten their demise.
Optics. It’s just optics. It makes the admin look “tough”.
“ Sec. 2. Implementation. (a) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), assisted by the Attorney General and the Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), shall coordinate the termination of all discriminatory programs, including illegal DEI and “diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility” (DEIA) mandates, policies, programs, preferences, and activities in the Federal Government, under whatever name they appear.”
So… not exactly a strawman.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/endi...
Put differently, “The ends justify the means.”
It’s a dangerous bargain, even in the best of times. And what a price we’ve paid in this instance: the rule of law, in exchange for TikTok videos.
I sure hope it was worth it.
It’s tempting to view this as “support”, but a simpler explanation is that it was just pragmatic to wait one additional day for the incoming administration to carry out enforcement actions.
That one-day delay was neither a miscarriage of justice nor was it a political statement. It was just timing.
Really, we should ask why on earth congress decided that the 19th of January was the deadline.
I can’t truly understand how frustrating it must be for everything to be so focused on the US all the time. And I see this sentiment expressed often.
But let’s be real: this piece is almost certainly being circulated precisely because of what’s unfolding in the US.
We shouldn’t confuse what we wish were true (that the US is not the center of gravity for world politics) with what is true (that the US is the center of gravity for world politics).
…and I think the reply answers the question (although I find the answer a horrifying thought as well).
My point is - I don’t think the person replying to you was endorsing the idea, just giving a plausible explanation for why there’s not an immediate uproar: perhaps some folks in government are actually okay with that. :(
We can quibble about the exact shape of the regulatory state, but it has given us clean water; breathable air; innumerable safeguards in the products we buy and the lives we lead. Simply destroying it is a deeply unserious approach to governing and is a disgrace.
For what it’s worth: I continued to engage because I used to be like you - argumentative, hyper assured of my own intelligence, and certain I was correct about everything. I wish someone had pointed out earlier that I was being a massive asshole.
Hence, trying to politely engage with you a bit. I feel like it’s the kind thing to do.