jigglesniggle

I can only guess: It is likely judges do not know what they are adjudicating. Another bad case is a patent on driving I2C-enabled RGB LEDs via I2C. It's a patent on using a product as intended. It's like patenting the act of using a brake with a hydraulic line to stop a car.

The guy goes around trolling makers with it and forcing people to pay huge royalties.

What do you mean spend more than they take in? The USPS is in the black, save for some strange law that they must prefund pensions 50 years in advance (any company would be running a loss if they had to do this).

The USPS can't increase their domestic prices but there is good indication that they are charging more to offset this. There are complaints in this thread even about the cost of shipping abroad, as international shipping is not regulated like domestic postage rates if I remember right. So the USPS uses outbound international shipments as a cost center to make up for the subsidy to China.

The article states there is a ~$500M subsidy to China through UPU rates.

That's ridiculous. Your life would be better without those hardships. You don't know that forgoing those hardships would leave you with other, more difficult hardships; and in any case, if you went without the hardships that limited your access to school you'd be making more money and could deal with your new problems with money.

You've been brainwashed and deluded into accepting mediocrity.

If I don't have what I want and can't get it then how could I possibly have an abundance mindset? That abundance mindset stuff is like telling depressed people to stop being depressed.

They do subsidize through rates. The UPU is set up so that the last mile of a receiving country is charged to the sender as if it were in the sender's country. This is made up from other revenue the carrier in the receiving country makes.

This is kind of dangerous. The article is basically saying you should not demand more of society. I had problems in school and everyone brushed me off -- am I not right to be angry? Am I not right to demand I get the same consideration that others got? What do I need to do to do it, get back into school, and get the same free money?

The original statement by a justice implying restriction on freedom of expression was later recanted (note it was not directly a precedent setting ruling either). There are people in the US that see any restriction, even for hate speech or incitement of violence, as against the first amendment.

You might think they are extreme in their views but rulings restricting speech are very, very rare.

You restated your position instead of addressing my question and then added irrelevant speculation in a different direction.

The issue with supply chain tracking is the sharing of information. If every part of the supply chain is hacked then you have all of the info. You also need to look at it backwards: instead of "who has X" ask "where did X go" which is easier to answer. It starts at the source, the factory, which can know which serial was in which lot. Then you know where that got shipped, etc.

Maybe occasionally units get "lost" but you do have error bounds on their location.

You assume a device can not be tracked from creation to dsitribution. Why?

Ok, that sounds good. The example was more just to be illustrative. But there is the (slight) possibility of harmonics on the power lines, etc. There are EDA suites that can do such signal analysis on your board but they are quite expensive. If you picked just the wrong values there could be a filter system which amplifies noise from a power supply.

The trick is to get your board manufacturer to eat the return cost. If you can buy testing, do so; usually it comes with some assurance that the boards work, and they either make new stock or remanufacture what you send back. If you can point to a comprehensive testing instructions that the customer would have performed it should not matter if you receive the board and it works for you, for some reason it did not work for the customer.

I have to agree with sangnoir. I don't want to provide free engineering services. I want a working product. If you are explicit about component compatibility and provide a troubleshooting checklist (all ways it must be plugged in and turned on) then you should assume there is an issue. You should also treat the boards as interchangeable; if a board comes back, you test it and it's good, ship it out again.

A family friend will help me troubleshoot my electronics. So, I have seen the other side of this: I get something which is completely nonfunctional and send it back to the manufacturer who claims it is functional, and tries to bill me for the shipping both ways. That's why if I can not get a working replacement in 2wk or so I just send it back for refund.

For a real example: Are you using very well made power supplies? Maybe your board's power filtering could be better, and customers notice because they buy the cheapest supply that meets their power requirements.

It may be legal to apply for asylum but it is still a misdemeanor to enter the US without proper authorization. How these two things may interact is up for debate, but there is plenty of legal precedent that these "gotchas" are intentional.

Arguably if the migrants are not stopping to apply at a port of entry then they broke the law.

> he's not out to screw any customers or provide an inferior product.

Can he actually manage returns? His suppliers should be eating the cost of faulty boards, and the article makes me think they aren't. Continued problems customer side should result in a replacement.

In the US you have full rights to a return to the person who took your money for 30-90 days (depends on state). Requests that you use the warranty or contact the manufacturer are unenforceable. Considering this, it is unwise to wait for longer than that period before requesting your money back. The federal statute of limitations for being sold a defective product is 4 years, but that is a lot harder to enforce.

Remember the AMD Ryzen returns? Why wait 2-3 months for a replacement? Demand your money back from Newegg and buy another, they have to process the refund. Also -- most FFLs either state gun returns are outright illegal (a lie) or only accepted for 3 days (against state law) with a steep restocking fee (also against state law). This is the worst case I know of.

People stood up to the warrant-less searches but were disposed of one way or another. A good example is the Qwest CEO: he wasn't killed, but he was jailed after acting in his own self interest after his company was ruined.

There are occurrences that are less clear cut but still suspicious and that involve long prison terms or death.

>Put is this way: Why should I get my safety as a US person put at risk so someone can publicize their story that someone leaked something again? In that video at 1:00. He's trying to make it so classification basically no longer has meaning, if they defect to a journalist.

You're wanting to trade freedom for security. I disagree that that is a good idea. You also do not know that he is trying to do that; certainly he has not stated as such.

He exposed high crimes. That is why people think he should not suffer punishment.

>For the sake of encouraging understanding: I think constitution is used as a way to imply subjectivity of what feels right.

That is true in the sense that all laws are only what "feels" right. There is a long history of the US federal government twisting laws to give the federal government more power.

It really feels like you're trolling, the last statement does not seem to follow any way I try to read it.

I can acknowledge that yes, there are people out there who want to kill you and take your stuff. Defunding the defense apparatus of the US is not a valid solution. But neither is the status quo.

"Not good enough" is compared to how many slots are available, many of the people forced out could be good enough.

The stories I have been told of difficult classes in the EU are mind-bending. They seem to be incentivizing ~80% of the class to drop out. There is no way the majority of people are not suited for, say, IT. They may not want to do it, but that doesn't mean they are not capable of doing it.

Instead of attacking the content of the leaks or his claimed motives you are mainly attacking his character.

It should be obvious that he planned to take the data. Taking it without a plan would be a good way for him to fail to accomplish anything. The main detraction I can see is that he leaked without regard to content, even considering he may not have had time to look over what he had taken (e.g. there is some top level stuff about drones that probably could have been redacted with a quick scan of the documents).

He likely avoided commenting on improvements to remain apolitical; if he had not, it would be more ammunition for character assassination. Other countries may be doing roughly the same but most people's issue is not with the fact spying was occurring but that it was largely turned inward.[1] You do not know he would throw away the whole system. As previously mentioned, he likely had no time to figure out what documents were what and the impact of their release would be.

In any case, he was acting as if he expected his own government to completely ignore the protections it had built in to defend its citizens. That some of the domestic programs he exposed were since cancelled due to public outrage is telling.

---

[1]: Besides the unconstitutionality of inwards-facing spying it is also a red herring. We repeatedly see little in the way of domestic terrorism but because inward spying is so much easier to do it seems to make up a disproportionate amount of the information generated; information that is likely not representative of real threats.

The other side of this is that in the European system many otherwise qualified individuals will never see higher education because there is so much competition for the limited spaces available. I would hazard to guess that most people arguing that US education should be more European would not be able to achieve degrees in such a system anyway due to early test scores precluding them from attending.

By "programming language" he probably means something that has robust flow control mechanisms and metaprogramming facilities.

You can definitely tell there's a different "feel" to bash and Tcl, Python, Perl, Go, etc, yes? Shell languages basically evolved out of batch processing languages that were meant to only run programs in sequence and it shows.

Every action is an attempt to stimulate positive economic activity by increasing liquidity and decreasing volatility. Despite the various descriptions that can be used they all essentially create money, causing inflation, which incentivizes not holding on to money.

In theory this affects all equally but in practice and in agreement with recent memory, losing X% of a small amount to inflation or wage stagnation (i.e. what you or I experience) is more negatively impactful than a large player losing that same relative amount.

No matter how many times it is explained, at the end of the day people who are not me and who have no real valid claim to free money are being given free money and allowed to profit off of it.

The test for violation of the interstate commerce clause doesn't care about intent. So, quite interestingly, if car manufacturers hadn't decided to only target CA emissions standards they would have been able to bring suit against CA if creating two models of everything was too difficult.

Would the solution of only creating one model and selling that have been a valid reason for a federal court to dismiss such a suit? I think it unlikely, as that would give CA de facto control over a huge amount of economic activity outside of its borders.

I agree, but I like phrasing it as "only run commands with substituted arguments." There's some more discussion on this below. :)

In the past I almost exclusively used Python, but I'm starting to like Go.

I highly recommend running shellcheck on all of your bash code. It is what finally taught me the practical difference between [[ and [. There are some tests that will always pass in [, for example, but work properly in [[; one project never realized.

Nice project, look forward to seeing a HN post on it!

Well -- I was comparing Perl to Python in this case. There is roughly the same amount of boilerplate and both are easier to read than bash's redirection.

The wart is that you need IPC::Open3 or equivalent because Perl's intrinsics can not synthesize the pipe operator (though you will think that they can) if you need to insert yourself into the middle of a chain of commands.

Nowadays there are decent wrappers for calling Open3 but more commonly you just find people running one half of the command, buffering the output, and passing it to the second half.

I think you're reading my comment the wrong way: I meant to say that doing e.g. piping in Python is a lot of pointless work (pomp), as you agree.

This is perhaps one big benefit but not one that is exclusive to a sh-like language. Instead I would like to see a language with strong flow control or metaprogramming capabilities take on processes as a first class citizen. Perl is probably the closest but still has some warts related to redirection.

The best pattern I have seen is encapsulating business logic into Python or Go and then if really necessary piping it to another script. But, often, if you do this you can just keep the piping internal using data structures.

Unix-pattern facilities work very well for interactive use, which tends to be simple, exploratory, and trial-and-error. But a project's build script may not be simple.

See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Faith_and_Credit_Clause and look at my other comment in the parent's chain.

No, that is "more against" the application of the interstate commerce clause than the logic I outlined above as it de facto is a prohibition on travel and interstate commerce. This is also explicitly covered by the full faith and credit clause (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Faith_and_Credit_Clause, the thing I couldn't remember). It follows that states must recognize each other's vehicle registration, driver's licenses, and marriage licenses. It also sees use in chasing people across state lines for bogus tickets and for removing people's rights via protection orders. It lends itself to contradictory outcomes because it essentially says "all states are right."

If you were to instead ask "can you sell a vehicle that can't be registered" the answer is "yes." You can also make your own car and in so doing ignore most safety and emissions requirements.

There is a notable lack of small car manufacturers and a lack of case law on some of this. Some do mostly cosmetic work on existing models, and some sell "kits" and may help you assemble it "yourself" so as to qualify for a shopbuilt title.

While this is interesting I see doing anything but launching programs with simple text-substituted arguments as too much for bash or sh. Run shellcheck on some of your own code, or the code of even a simple project to see how hard it is to really use bash.

Why I think people gravitate towards it is because languages such as python add too much pomp to launching a shell process. A language like perl is usually easier to use but everyone hates it now.

Yes, I thought it would be another library. I like seeing the use of gofeed.