garrettgarcia

It's clearly not untrackable. It's never been untrackable. That's how they know it went to Iran.

I'm still scrobbling after all these years.

The tool: https://nondelegationproject.org/ The working paper: https://pacificlegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/SR-1097-...

According to the Github page, you can just run `rm ~/Library/Safari/Favicon Cache/*`

> My biggest problem with leetcode type questions is that you can't ask clarifying questions.

Huh? Of course you can. If you're practicing on leetcode, there's a discussion thread for every question where you can ask questions till the cows come home. If you're in a job interview, ask the interviewer. It's supposed to be a conversation.

> I wouldn't even mind the studying on leetcode types sites if they actually had decent explainers

If you don't find the hundreds of free explanations for each question to be good enough, you can pay for Leetcode Pro and get access to editorial answers which explain everything. Or use ChatGPT for free.

> It's not a matter of skill, it's just my ability to take in certain types of problems doesn't work well.

I don't mean to be rude, but it is 100% a matter of skill. That's good news! It means if you put in the effort, you'll learn and improve, just like I did and just like thousands and thousands of other humans have.

> Without any chance of additional info/questions it's literally a setup to fail.

Well with that attitude you're guaranteed to fail! Put in the work and don't give up, and you'll succeed.

"Follow-up question since you solved that so quickly: implement a constraint solver."

Apple will more likely pull out of Europe incrementally (and eventually completely) as the cost of doing business continues to skyrocket. Other American targets of EU regulators will do this as well. Apple isn't a charity, it's a company. If parts of its business are no longer profitable, those parts will cease to be.

> and is making me want to not hang out here anymore.

Agreed. No matter which side of the issue one is on, the fact you and everyone else who explains the incentive structure is getting downvoted to hell and receiving eloquent responses like "Bull fucking shit dude" is really pathetic.

Is HN really just another emotionalist monoculture echo chamber now? We're downvoting everything we disagree with whether it's true or not? Count me out.

How are they not complying with the regulation? This is what compliance looks like.

Anything under $100k for this is pathetic.

I don't know why you're being downvoted. The political climate, and more broadly the culture of a society, is the crucial component to whether or not technological progress happens. Evidence of this is all around us, even today. Look how much more progress there's been in South Korea vs. North Korea over the last 75 years. That is a direct consequence of the differing cultural and political climates.

It may look like typical libertarian argument, but it isn't.

And the fact that taxes are collected coercively is just that: a fact.

Collected coercively by a government != stolen. Taxes aren't theft.

Au contraire: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inosculation

I do agree that branches staying separate is the essential property of a tree data structure.

I see your point about it not being a strict tree. It is tree-like, however, in the sense that the branches/edges only point in one direction: forward in time.

I've been wishing that this existed for a long time, and am thrilled to see that it does now!

Something that fascinates me about early technology is that a significant amount of it was invented prior to Homo sapiens.

Yet another reason to not take federal money

> It is certainly intellectually dishonest to claim that the government funding anything you don't like is a violation of your "intellectual freedom".

Agreed. I never claimed that of course, and neither did the authors. What they claimed is that government funding ALWAYS comes with strings attached, therefore the only way to have true intellectual freedom is to reject all funding. Moreover, the difference between government strings and private funding strings are that only government strings come under the threat of force.

That's a bit like saying, "I have a bicycle. I've never not been able to get where I need to go. Why would I need a car?"

I'm also confused by this. I taught myself touch typing in the 90's. I also had a required semester-long class that covered only typing my freshman year of high school (1999). Neither of my parents learned it, but I figured everyone younger than me knew how. Pretty shocking to find out that's not the case.

I can't imagine not being able to touch-type. It's such second-nature that I can hold a conversation with someone while typing out separate thoughts I'm having about the conversation on a keyboard.

> But couldn’t this be said about any source of funding? All funders, public or private, make decisions about the projects and people they choose to fund. This selection process is not an infringement on academic freedom.

The authors of the article are not claiming that this infringes on academic freedom, but intellectual freedom. They explain here:

"Intellectual freedom is the principle that all individuals have the right to think for themselves, to express their convictions on any subject, and to give their support, financial or otherwise, only to the ideas they choose. When government coercively seizes your money and uses it to subsidize some research program or viewpoint for any reason, it is violating your intellectual freedom. This is the injustice inherent in all government research grants. It is this that private universities like Harvard should now name and challenge.

Instead, they fight for “academic freedom,” which is actually the opposite of intellectual freedom. It asserts the right of universities and professors to teach, write and research whatever they see fit — and to do it at the taxpayer’s expense."

Deny reality all you want, it doesn't change the truth. The fact is that taxes are collected under threat of force.

One need not express an opinion on whether there should be more or less taxation to acknowledge this truth. As you said previously, let's be honest.

The article addresses this: "Intellectual freedom is the principle that all individuals have the right to think for themselves, to express their convictions on any subject, and to give their support, financial or otherwise, only to the ideas they choose. When government coercively seizes your money and uses it to subsidize some research program or viewpoint for any reason, it is violating your intellectual freedom."

What is unique about the government funding as opposed to private-sector funding is that government funding comes from money coercively seized from people, and private sector funding doesn't.

> This is like saying if Trump says you have to pay for air, then you have to stop breathing to have true freedom.

Can you explain what you mean? I don't see how this follows from the arguments in the article.

The court can deputize anyone they choose in order to make the arrest. It's just a question of whether someone in the executive branch shoots the deputies before they can.

No piece of paper can protect a people from enslaving themselves if they are determined to.

I just checked the statute and the 2019 ruling and was surprised to discover that you are correct.

2019 Ruling: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69777799/1/1/abrego-gar... Referenced statute: https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2014... Statutes on where an alien may be deported to: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim...

And ignoring an unfavorable one with no consequences will open even more doors.

> There is no rational reason for the administration to endure this

Endure? They caused this. The reason is because they don't think that enough people will care about the fate of one foreigner to hold Trump accountable. He's counting on the people not understanding or caring at all about the rule of law, and he may be right. Plenty of commenters here don't.

It's the best system that has ever existed.

The executive.