echion

> Using the title "engineer" in conjunction with "submitting the critique and calculations [...] to members of the public for consideration and modification [...] of traffic signals", I believe, is the critical part here.

I hear you, and agree that when he says "I'm an engineer", we have a certain set of laws that apply to that speech.

I'm saying there is another aspect which is the the crux of the reply-to-top-level comment to which I objected: that Final Report is saying "doing [math and stuff] on [public things] is engineering, and you did [math and stuff], so you're doing engineering without a license". I don't think my "the Final Report is saying..." is unfair: check the Final Report sections 8,9, and 10.

I bet there are a lot of confounding issues in this particular case, but, very narrowly, what I'm saying is that using publicly-available data and speaking (without saying "I'm an engineer") of applications of "special knowledge of the mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences" cannot be illegal or fine-able, yet this is pretty literally what sentence three of section 13 (Final Order, Page 6) says is happening.

He clearly would. Just doing the things is deemed "engineering", even if he called it "monading".

> He's perfectly at liberty to [share the information]

No, he's not according to the violations cited in Final Order, page 6, section heading #14; in particular:

   By reviewing, critiquing, and altering an engineered ITE formula, and submitting the critique and calculations [...] to members of the public for consideration and modification of Beaverton, Oregon's and worldwide traffic signals, which signals are public equipment, processes and works, Jarlstrom applied special knowledge of the mathematical, physical and engineering sciences to such creative work as investigation, evaluation, and design in connection with public equipment, processes, and works. Jarlstrom thereby engaged in the practice of engineering under ORS 672.005(1)(b).

...and summarizing:

   By engaging the practice of engineering [...] without registration, Jarlstrom violated [laws]. [...] By again providing the public with his traffic engineering calculations for the modification of Beaverton's traffic signal timing, Jarlstrom again engaged in the practice of engineering and, specifically, the practice of traffic engineering. He thereby violated [laws] on a third occasion.  By providing his publicly released traffic engineering calculations to the sheriff of the 20 county where he advised changes in traffic signals, Jarlstrom again purported to be authorized to engage in, and did engage in, the practice of engineering. He, therefore, violated [laws] on third and fourth occasions.

Speaking of UX and hiding, you can hide the menu bar, so you don't have to lose control unless you like it:

  echo "jQuery('#header-container').hide();" >> ~/.jupyter/custom/custom.js

> just because [the working class has] been wronged doesn't mean that their solutions are right.

Reminds me of:

"...the old man is always wrong; and the young people are always wrong about what is wrong with him. The practical form it takes is this: that, while the old man may stand by some stupid custom, the young man always attacks it with some theory that turns out to be equally stupid." -- Chesterton

That's not a good excuse for not implementing a standard. It's also a little like saying "private investigators are still the most reliable way to know whether a person is at home": it's true, but not really a better thing to implement.

At first I thought "shares information with third parties and that they can [copy your email]" (emphasis mine) meant that the third parties can see & copy your email. I can't find anything like that language in Nylas' privacy policy (https://nylas.com/privacy-policy/) and so I guess your "they" meant "Nylas". Given their precise business model is making synchronized copies of your email inbox, that doesn't sound very unreasonable to me.

Wait, you're tarring op with Brexit and Trump, but op's the fanboy?

[edit] To be fair, op/article mention no statistics to support the assertion that "developers are switching from Mac OS X to Linux", so on that basis I think it's fair to say the piece is pretty anecdotal or fluffy. But there are plenty of reasons why people switch from OS X to Linux (see other comments, for example https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13317879 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13317234 ).

https://jolla.com/jolla/ is still a thing

"In children younger than 14 years, rates of swimming injuries were similar to those for trampoline".

"Injury rates attributable to bicycling and use of playground equipment were higher [than trampoline injury rates in comparable age groups]"

Sounds a bit overblown.

I love virtual worlds and don't fetishize nature, but there seems something essentially different between a world created by physics and a world created by humans. It would be a shame to miss out on either.

> A rebase should not be part of any everyday workflow and must be reserved _only_ for exceptional situations

Git rebase is absolutely a vital part of the developer toolkit. If you're not using it, you're missing out on a big timesaver and git feature.

I think you must be talking about rebasing public commits/history. In the article he is specifically talking about private history and has a nice big warning against rebasing public history. Linus has explained the distinction pretty well before: http://www.mail-archive.com/dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/... .

Kindle does have an experimental browser that's marginally functional.

It describes calculations or operations, so functional code still seems to perform or describe some actions.

Constraint logic programs seem more of the grey area I think you're talking about. Is a set of constraints "code" (c.f. https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Prolog/Solving_a_Logic_Puzzle#... )?

Leci [API] n'est pas une code.

There's no guarantee, but there are many benefits to striving for this ("git bisect run", CI test results).

The sentence is close to literally true, but what I think you're questioning is the implied "[at a price close to the current price]" at the end of it.

> I don't think you can say that someone broke real laws and then excuse it because public opinion or a subjective idea of public "service" somehow trumped the laws. The U.S. is a nation of laws. If something doesn't work as expected, laws are changed.

The usual process is the adversarial legal system in the US, which does allow a fair amount of leeway for changing laws. I think there are a class of bad laws that people think are very difficult to change by this head-on method, however.

It can be hot and dry in summer in New Mexico. Not great for leaves.

"The loss of numerous leaves from trees is not uncommon in New Mexico in June." -- http://aces.nmsu.edu/ces/yard/1997/063097.html

Last time I visited there were two guys with jackhammers taking up half of the concrete stairway to a McDonald's while it was still packed and busy: no safety equipment or barriers. I lived in Hong Kong for a couple of years. Shenzhen is great, but the air pollution is a holdup for anyone looking to relocate there (or Hong Kong). Otherwise it's a maker's paradise.

PyCharm is in a pretty good cost/benefit spot [I'm not affiliated]...are there any IDEs people actually prefer for pure Python development?

Thank you for documenting this so others don't have to go through the pain. The best thanks people could give would be to file bugs for each of your annoyances that are still relevant. Now that the problem is actually a bit more reproducable, the bugs should be relatively productive uses of the maintainers' time.

The word "incorrect" here seems unjustified.

"less well-informed" would probably be a more reasonable claim, and possibly verifiable.

I'm still unclear as to whether the linux apps can be deployed to a docker engine running on a windows host, and, vice-versa, whether docker windows containers can be run on a linux host. The announcement seemed to be clear that both of these are the goal. But your GP post https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8458603 causes me to doubt.

Is there a missing comma in each sentence of the goal? It seems like there should be one after "use" or after "engine":

1) [after "use"] Package [on a Windows client] your Windows app in a docker container, use same tooling you would otherwise use [on a linux client], to deploy to a docker engine running on a Windows host Package [on a Windows client] your Linux app in a docker container, use same tooling you would otherwise use [on a linux client], to deploy to a docker engine running on a Linux host.

2) [after "use"] Package your Windows app in a docker container, use same tooling you would otherwise use to deploy to a docker engine [running on Windows or Linux], running [the packaging step] on a Windows host Package your Linux app in a docker container, use same tooling you would otherwise use to deploy to a docker engine [running on Windows or Linux], running [the packaging step] on a Linux host.

I added the implications I understood to highlight the difference the comma placement makes. If there is no comma it's pretty ambiguous / confusing to me on which platform the docker engine is running. I believe from this post of yours that I have misunderstood the announcement, and that windows apps will be able to be made into docker containers that can only run on windows docker engines.

I assumed the OP meant "resize [by dragging the window borders]".

Kissinger won it jointly for a concrete agreement ( http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1973/... ). The rationale for Obama arguably had no such concrete achievement: "The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."' . The full rationale is at http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/... .

It's a bit of a dupe:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8310536 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6384699

They do have systems of marking applications of prospective students approved by a coach.

We might be in the "post-pythonic" Python era. There was a discussion a few months back on #python to the effect that judging "pythonic"-ness was a shibboleth indicating the judger was not the best Python community member. Wish I could find a log.

The title leaves a lot to be desired. "Software" is more than a visible interface. "Discovery" is more than articulation.