mjamil

Yes, I was really arguing that. Thank you for correcting me. My incorrect belief was based on too myopic a view (I’m in the Ninth Circuit’s jurisdiction and forget sometimes that the rest of the country exists) and too broad an assertion (that all speech related to teaching is protected).

The case you pointed to was about speech “that criticizes policies and decisions of university administrations” and grants relief for that set of circumstances. That wasn’t the case here. I’m sure you can cite to this, but is there a holding where the case was simply about the subject matter and not criticism of administration policy?

Are you arguing that a teacher at a public university doesn't have 1FA rights when teaching or giving their opinion on a subject they're an expert on?

I am skeptical if that is indeed your arguent. If university professors believed this, they would not take jobs at public universities; they tend to place a very high value on their ability to conduct research and express themselves freely on whatever subjects they choose.

Clayton, you've made this claim a couple of times. Do you mind citing specific decisions?

I disagree. Case history is absolutely not clear about the difference between government encouraging action by companies vs. forcing said action, and whether the former is explicitly permissible.

I read the decision. It's not so great imo by federal bench standards. Judges who write sweeping statements like, “If the allegations made by plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history,” should not be taken very seriously. I'd say the Japanese Americans interned during WWII may like a word, given that they were allowed to neither practice the Shinto religion nor use Japanese in public gatherings.

Jeff, where's your interpretation of events surrounding the president's resignation based on?

My understanding was that the journalism school extended a written 5-year tenure-track offer to a candidate signed by the journalism school head. The offer was then mysteriously revised (still with school head signature intact) to a 1-year non-tenure-track offer without the knowledge of the journalism school. When the candidate asked for an explanation, they were told it's because she's a Black woman that has worked at the NYT, and that the powers-that-be at A&M objected to her hiring. She then received a verbal third offer for a 3-year contract.

The candidate made all info available to a local paper, kicking off a firestorm. This led to a (funny, imo) call between the president and faculty where the president claimed she did not know where the multiple offers came from and why, and who had communicated with the candidate about the black/nyt stuff. When asked - in that case - whether the first offer was still good, she demurred. The faculty clearly lost faith in her leadership at this point. She resigned the day after this meeting.

The candidate wisely has chosen to work elsewhere.

Is there some data backing the assertion (that this Web site appears to be relying on) that adolescents learn better from other adolescents?

Perhaps because you want to import something you don’t want to rewrite? There’s a lot of tested C code out there.

John, any other thoughts to share on changes in the department? I’m curious to hear your perspective.

No, nashashmi is implying hnews_account_1 is an adherent of the same Muslim splinter group (known as Ahmadis or pejoratively as Qadiyanis; see [1]) as Abdus Salam [2], the sole Nobel Laureate that Pakistan has ever has. Salam was a prominent 20th physicist who predicted the existence of the W and Z bosons and the electroweak force.

nashashmi is gaslighting here by demonstrating two logical fallacies: both an appeal to authority ("Other nations also did this awful thing, so it must be OK") and putting forth a straw man argument ("I don't have any defense for what Pakistan did, so I'll accuse someone of bias").

I see no bias by hnews_account_1 here. I agree with hnews_account_1 in that the neighboring country they refer to (presumably India) would indeed have happily claimed Abdus Salam as one of their own and trumpeted his achievements; after all, Salam was educated in pre-partition India. In contrast, most Pakistanis today do not even know who Salam is because the Pakistan educational hierarchy deliberately ignores his achievements.

If anything, the notable bias (here, as shown by nashashmi, and in large, by the Pakistani establishment) is against the religious community that Salam belonged to. Since 1974, the Pakistani government (which polices who belongs to which religion, and forces you to declare your religion in government interactions) has imposed discrimination against this religious community by declaring them non-Muslim and preventing them from practicing their religion openly. Terror attacks against this community are common [3].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmadiyya [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdus_Salam [3] https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/press-release/2020/11/paki...

Not: Pig is not a documentary; it’s a fictional drama starring Nic Cage.

During the last two years, my family has ordered 46 times from them, and - other than three instances - the order has been perfectly executed. For those three, we contacted Chipotle, and we got an apology and partial credit.

Conclusions:

* My family eats too much Chipotle.

* YMMV. Apparently, the branch we order from is run by a manager that cares about accuracy for online orders. That clearly isn't true across the board.

* Chipotle probably knows this, which is why they're generous with credits.

My 11-year-old just claimed that "The Wings of Fire" animated TV show - Ava DuVernay's adaptation that was in production at Netflix - has been canceled. Googling confirmed the news, and immediately thereafter led to news about the layoff.

My daughter's reaction was mild outrage; she's a huge fan of the book series, and of dragons in general. Mine was laughter (and a little sadness); this was the first time I'd learned major news about a tech company through something one of my kids told me, and it certainly won't be the last.

Nit: Jamie Dimon (and not Diamond).

Less of a nit: You apparently care about liking your workplace. Sample size of 1, but I know of (a) no-one who went into finance who enjoyed their tenure; and (b) plenty of folks that retired early from their tech careers and none from their finance careers. (Most have moved from i-banking to PE or VC, but they’re still slogging away.)

Is anyone working on a microkernel design for privacy-sensitive devices (like phones) that would prevent outright this class of kernel-level arbitrary code execution exploits? We're stuck with iOS and Android for the foreseeable future, but is there hope that we'll get this right some day?

Actually, would a microkernel design even be sufficient? Given that hackers exploit deserialization, memory safety, and variable type confusion issues, there's still plenty of avenues for data corruption and data leakage.

Mr. Sharp is apparently not so sharp. He carried out the attack from his home network. He connected directly for enough time that his bare IP was logged. The rest of the time, he carried out the attack using a commercially purchased VPN solution that was trivial to trace back to him via the purchase record. He lied to the FBI. (I have yet to understand why people talk to law enforcement instead of staying silent so as to not implicate themselves.) And, for no apparently good reason (meaning, there's no claim of him shorting the stock), after the raid, he seeded fake news that drove the company's stock down 20%.

I disagree that "enlightened" societies don't rely on mediating access to information as the defining tool of control; our difference of opinion is perhaps that you think of this purely as limiting information spread, where I think of it also as shaping the information for their own ends. The governments of the UK and the USA, to state two examples you mentioned, have used these tools effectively as propaganda channels repeatedly to sell their vision of armed conflict. The second Iraq war wasn't that long ago.

I'll make a tangentially related argument: Starting with the printing press, and through the advent of telephone, radio, television, and now the Internet (mainly via the Web), controlling messaging via these media (or controlling these media directly at times) has been as much a tool of control for those in power in democratic societies as in autocratic ones.

I'm in a post-Thanksgiving charitable mood, so thank you, Jack. The execution hasn't been perfect (as has been commented on ad nauseam), but Twitter is the closest to a worldwide-accessible [1] Speaker's Corner [2] I know of, and that - despite all the completely valid criticism - is a valuable public service: mediating access to information has been the defining tool of control for those in power pretty much since civilization began, and I, for one, will always pick an imperfectly moderated cesspool over the prior status quo where a church or a government told me what's true and what to think. FWIW, you've also championed transparency and decentralization for your platform more than any other SV social media titan [3].

[1] If you have access to the Internet, that is. [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speakers%27_Corner [3] https://twitter.com/jack/status/1204766078468911106

I DM my staff on slack “after hours” [1] all the time, and set the expectation that they should respond when appropriate at their discretion. That could (and often does) mean the next business day or even later. Or it could mean ASAP; they’re adults, and have the judgement to make the correct call.

[1] Obviously, this policy is not targeted at staff in different time zones, which makes their remedy meaningless.

Is a climate dentist (a) a typo (i.e., you meant denialist); (b) a clever reference to Seinfeld and anti-dentites; or (c) a valid phrase that I’m unfamiliar with?

A non-paywall version covering the same phenomenon: https://news.berkeley.edu/2021/06/03/is-earths-core-lopsided...

GP is being humorous, and cracking a joke about consulting companies and their productivity.

Perhaps to live up to the stated commitment that an internet connection isn’t required.

Wrong. I’m not bothered by privately owned assault rifles because of the homicide rate. And, this time, you went to a straw man logical fallacy. I said Fairfax was better than the rest of the US, and not a favela. So, I’ll go back to my original question: what’s your standard for feeling secure?

Risk is relative. What’s your standard for being secure? The homicide rate in the US is 4.9/100k people, which is lower than the global average. Is your standard for security measured by this metric? If so, you should feel quite good; the rate in Fairfax county is 1.9/100k people. Or is it that you’re allowing the emotion aroused by the splashy headlines you linked to color your judgement?

That’s awful. I’m sorry that happened to you. But I’m not sure I understand your argument. If one or both of these drivers were legally in the US, what would law enforcement do differently? From my reading of your situation, it sounds like you had the misfortune of twice encountering under-insured drivers, and had to deal with the consequences. How did you make the (il)logical jump from that to, “Illegal immigration harms people?” It sounds like a causal logical fallacy to me, but I’d appreciate being corrected if you think I’m wrong.

Some general problems your situation unintentionally alludes to (not perhaps in your state, but common in the south) are criminalizing the issuance of drivers licenses to undocumented people (which literally prevents them from obtaining insurance), and the fact that these people are working in the shadows and thus being underpaid (and thus not being able to pay for insurance).

The problem of under-insured drivers (estimated about 13% of all drivers) is real. Many folks have proposed ways to quantify and address the problem (e.g., [1]).

[1] https://www.naic.org/cipr_topics/topic_uninsured_motorists.h...

It’s worse than you think.

1. One’s standing on a temporary visa (whether a B-visa as a tourist or an F/J-visa as a student) is always subject to such arbitrary fates by both DHS and DoS personnel. This includes the arbitrary and - more painfully, non-appealable and non-reviewable control a single CBP (part of DHS) officer on whether you get to enter the US each time you attempt to do so. That’s the problem this kid ran into. But it starts even earlier: visas are denied in a similarly non-reviewable and non-appealable way by a single FS (part of DoS) consular officer. A staggering percentage of those [1] are denied in the above-mentioned categories. There’s plenty of folks here on HN that can tell you this has happened to them or to someone they know and could vouch for personally.

[1] https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/Statistics/Non-Im...

2. A US permanent resident (informally known as a green card holder) is subject to the same scrutiny by CBP at each entry as someone on a temporary visa. So you can still get deported on your 100th return to the US after 30 years of living here. But you do have legal recourse to have such a decision of inadmissibility reviewed by an immigration court. Great, you might think. But your chances of winning anything in immigration court are largely determined by who you draw as an ICE (part of DHS) prosecutor and an immigration (judges are under EOIR, part of DoJ) judge. The prosecutor has the (limited) ability to decide to fight such an appeal. (This is how Dreamers, for example, aren’t all being deported: they are low-priority ICE prosecution targets, even now under Trump. DACA, under Obama, was a liberal presidential whim: it was an executive order telling ICE prosecutors to indefinitely postpone Dreamer prosecutions.) And how liberally an immigration judge interprets ruling law is very geographically correlated [2].

[2] https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-immi... https://trac.syr.edu/phptools/immigration/court_backlog/depo...

3. The judge isn’t the only arbitrary actor under DoJ. EOIR has no independence from the executive branch, so immigration court judges are subject to a president’s policy whims. Judges’ decisions are reviewed by an appellate body (BIA) but that’s also part of EOIR and thus DoJ. And the AG (head of DoJ) can arbitrarily take any pending immigration decision out of the hands of an immigration judge or BIA panel and then decide it on their own. (Former Trump AG Sessions accelerated the usage of this.) Current Trump AG Barr has recently delegated this power down to the head of EOIR, thus adding yet another individual with the power to make arbitrary decisions [3].

[3] https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.washingtontimes.com/news/20...

4. Both AILA (the association of immigration attorneys) and NAIJ (the judges union) wants to end the arbitrariness and establish a pattern of decision making based on legal jurisprudence and precedent. They want to accomplish this by moving EOIR under the judicial branch instead of the executive. AG Barr’s response has been to attempt to decertify the union [4].

[4] https://www.npr.org/2019/08/12/750656176/trump-administratio...

Please read the Crimson article. Only CBP was involved, both in the interaction and in the public relations around this.

A bit meta. That was a really well-explained description of a non-trivial problem. I wish there was (or I knew of) a curated collection of bloggers that wrote this well about software.

Any conversation about individuals having the right to control their lives (including the means to end them) seems to me to be a good thing. Similarly, on a larger scale, I also find talking about the (often shady) efforts by various governments to control population to be a welcome thing. Vonnegut's "Welcome to the Monkey House" touches on both topics; it's worth a read.