pokeymcsnatch

Transactions on the exchange don't take place on the blockchain. The data they're "proofreading" is probably in a traditional db.

I was thinking that at the very least, that'll be Exhibit A for anyone who might file a suit over this.

I think the only conclusion that I'm jumping to is that it was malicious. At best, it's a bad and very likely unconstitutional policy.

Framing it as "asking" is dishonest- a cease and desist is a demand that you stop with an implied legal action if you don't. It didn't say "hey if this progresses, you might be criminally liable"- it calls out this specific tweet as potentially criminal and threatens federal charges.

As a side note, I tried to read the tweet again and it's been deleted, so who knows. Maybe all this was made up and maybe there was more to it or maybe DHS disappeared her. Either way, without more context I'm 100% unwilling to budge on this being an abuse of power.

> The fact that it's just a letter and a finger wag implies that the government might know it's not a "true threat".

Which makes this action unconstitutional. I doubt there's any kind of immediate legal recourse, but it doesn't change that fact.

It's not terrorism, and LE are not lawyers or judges, but they have a fundamental duty to have an understanding civil rights. Sure, maybe not understand the nuances of more complicated stuff in the moment- but that wasn't the case here. DHS obviously took some time to "investigate" and had ample opportunity to run all this by a government attorney or judge and didn't because the entire point is to curtail speech. Every beat cop knows "speech" is very broadly protected with very few exceptions, and this wasn't some random beat cop, it was a federal agent and so our expectations should be even higher.

Again, no one was arrested or charged. The courts were never involved on purpose; it was an extra-legal abuse of power.

It does protect you from the government asking you not to engage in speech. The fact that no legal action was taken is what makes this behavior blatantly unconstitutional. If it was against the law, DHS would have arrested her- instead they made vague threats about charging her under a law dealing with conspiring to murder federal law enforcement. Any government policy that creates a chilling effect on a protected right is unconstitutional, regardless of any charge or court case.

> Under the imminent lawless action test, speech is not protected by the First Amendment if the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely

This very obviously doesn't apply in this case.

The virtual object could be relative to the person interacting with it rather than a stationary zone in space. With sound waves, for example, it could be something like a tightly focused beam combined with motion/finger/hand tracking... As your hand moves along the "object", the beam is constantly re-aimed (at the hand) and re-adjusted in real time to give you the sensation of feeling around the profile. No suit required.

So, you're definitely right- go to someone with actual medical training first. But a physical therapist's job is to get people back to basic functioning. From there, a good fitness instructor can help a person with stretching, light exercise and strength training, and stuff like posture/positioning and meal planning to maintain and improve on the initial work put in with the PT. A fitness instructor/coach is a fraction of the cost of a PT, and if you maintain a good relationship, you can just kind if drop in for guidance as needed vs going to weekly dedicated sessions.

But yeah, they can be literally anyone. A good one understands simple (bio)machines and pays close attention to how a body moves AND is a good teacher.

Edit: "A PT will get you to functional, a fitness instructor will get you to capable"

I mean, I feel like you're being purposefully obtuse in trying to make some kind of "see! There's limits to all rights" point. I gave you what I believe is a reasonable and straightforward philosophical approach to the 2nd amendment.

What does a typical modern day infantryman carry as part of a standard kit?

Not Javelins and anti-personnel mines, those are application- and mission-specific. A soldier doesn't just show up at the armory and load up with whatever high explosives they want; they have a standard issued set of gear, and then mission specific gear divided up among the squad.

Armored infantry transport with mounted machine gun and or cannon turret? Anti-air counter measures? I have no idea how that fits in an individual soldier's kit. At a minimum, they're not bearable arms.

It doesn't mean all those other specific items aren't protected, but if you want an answer on an item-by-item basis, I don't know what to tell you.

> Guns in the US are fetishized

I see this thrown around all the time, right before the term "ammosexual" comes out and right along with the allegations of compensating for dick size.

My counter-ancedote is that I haven't seen it, honestly. Guns are a hobby for some people, and I imagine that's been the same forever, right? Maybe a growing hobby, but to call it fetishization dismisses the vast vast majority of people who just like to peacefully enjoy their interests.

Also... what's changed with guns in that time frame? I wasn't trying to be dishonest in saying that. Modern ARs don't have any significant difference from the original Armalite model. Same with AK variants. Non-autoloaders haven't changed in well over 100 years.

Carry regulations specifically have loosened. CHL holders are statistically model citizens. They commit significantly less violent crimes than the general public, and significantly less than even trained police officers.

Regulations on purchasing have increased drastically over the last 60 years. It's harder to buy a gun now than it ever has been in this country.

There's 0 evidence the 94 ban had any effect. Violent crime was already on a downward tend, and when the ban sunsetted 16 years ago, that downward trend continued until the last 2 years. There's several links just in this comment section that backs that up.

"Assault weapon" is a political term with no solid definition. If you mean banning semi-automatic guns, that's at least a meaningful proposal. Again though- this class of weapons have been around and readily accessible for over 100 years. Mass shootings are a modern problem. Why would banning them now be the answer?

Until the Orlando shooting, the VT shooting, committed with two handguns and 10 round magazines, was the deadliest in US history. Charles Whitman killed 14 people with a bolt action rifle from the UT bell tower. I'm not saying these disprove your assault weapons ban solution, but it's certainly not as straightforward as you're making it out to be.

My thoughts on this... Considering the purpose and context of the 2nd, it essentially protects a contemporary citizen-soldier's "kit". The stuff he/she needs to join up in common defense with their community, which includes survival gear, protective gear, and of course, a weapon.

Today's citizen-soldier would carry an AR-15 or variant. If there's one modern gun protected by the 2nd, that's the one.

> The problem is so obviously guns

The guns haven't changed in 60 years, and in fact regulations have increased across the board on both purchasing and manufacturing.

But, let's say it is "so obviously" the guns- how is "what is the solution" some kind of naive or ignorant question? Do you know the solution?

I've seen similar mechanisms here in the US but usually they're much bigger. Like you can curl all your fingers around it easily, and typically not blocked off like that.

Most common is your [1] though.

Electrical/embedded guy here. My similar law is "if you can blink an led, you can do anything".

I sent a message. I'm really interested in the HN discussion of this.. it's disappointing to see it just drop off the site.

So uh... I wouldn't normally do this, but this post isn't showing up anymore and so discussion has stopped. Why?

I stay at a level of selfishness that I'm comfortable with. I do what I can to make the little things I can control better, I lead by example when I get the chance, and I understand that I'm not going to change society so it's (selfishly) not worth it for me to be a zealot.

I don't have kids, but I'd like to. I know even that's the "selfish" answer, but I can attempt to justify it by teaching them to be good stewards and thereby doing something positive about the problem. Calling it passing the problem on, but they'll have better tools than me to cope with it because we're building those tools right now. At the very least, I'd hope my daughter would be smart enough to understand that being "part of the people killing all the wildlife on earth" is a gross simplification of an incredibly complex social and scientific environment.

Surely you're the enlightened one and everyone you know is willfully blind.

Or maybe they're pragmatic and begrudgingly accept that to maintain any semblance of modern life, they have to participate in however society functions *now*.

I'm in no position, financial or otherwise, to go off-grid, ride my bike everywhere, delete my car, home cook every meal with locally grown ingredients. Or to decrease my energy consumption through buying less VPS time, buying and using test equipment, parts, protypes made overseas with no pollution regulations. I can do better than I'm doing now, but not by much unless there truly is some massive, global-level, snap-of-the-fingers change. Reason being, if I do, it's essentially self-harm, like a social suicide. I suffer, I lose jobs, contracts, my livelihood, relationships, etc while the rest of the world happily moves on without me. Which yeah, it fits the idea of your of complaint.

The majority of your acquaintances who you've written off as stuck in the dark ages don't have the ability to make the extraordinary changes that you demand for removing that label. Your statement was more philosophical than demanding specific action, but ignoring the reality of humans and human society so you can shit on us from your tower is not helpful.

For anyone watching this thinking it's clever and great- it's incredibly dangerous for the cow. Cattle can easily get their feet stuck between the pipes and getting them out is really ugly. Like... torch-cut pipes burning away flesh ugly. If you see this, shoo the cow back in.

A cow that regularly attempts to cross cattle guards is first to sale or slaughter.

Edit: And now I'm that guy on the internet that I hate, who saw an amusing animal gif and immediately went into buzzkill mode :-/

What a ridiculous comparison. Being blocked and banned from what is essentially a public forum, despite having something of value to add to the discussion, is absolutely in opposition to the concept of freedom of speech.

He may have meant "small truck" instead of light truck? "light truck" has a specific definition and it's probably not what most people would think when using or hearing the term. A Prius is about the same weight as a lot of small trucks, or at least what small trucks used to be before the weird side-effects of fuel-efficiency regulations:

  2005 Tacoma: 3,140 to 4,4100 lbs
  2005 Ranger: 3,028 to 3,606 lbs
  2003 S-10: 3,016 to 4,039 lbs

There's quite a few people (in the US) that use "jeep" as a general term for any Jeep-sized offroading vehicle.

A little off-topic, but as someone who's just started producing documentation in Sphinx, what are the problems/downsides that you've run in to?

I've used it for two projects so far: documenting a relatively small python module, and for documenting a RESTful API. I do a lot of embedded work, so I'd like to use it as a place to document a piece of hardware in it's entirety, from schematics/layouts to firmware and build toolchains to actual use of the device. Do you (or anyone else reading this) have any comments on that use case?

I think my main complaint at the moment is that it doesn't play nice with Markdown, so I had to re-format a bunch of pre-existing documentation for it to work in Sphinx. ReST seems to render alright in Gitlab though, so that's a plus.

I mean... manufacturing a working modern firearm in their garage is probably much more achievable to the general population than rolling out any kind of encryption software. Anyone with some basic hands-on competency can make a gun.

With respect to composting- we're also issued a yard waste bin that's for a composting program (a good idea), so some kitchen scraps can go in there (I'm renting and good compost takes longer than I plan on staying here), but food waste/kitchen scraps aren't a large part of what we fill up our landfill bin with. It's mostly food packaging that's definitely too leaky/gross for the recycling bin and general household waste from stuff like emptying the vacuum cleaner or soiled paper towels.

Necessary infrastructure extends beyond just providing for recycling- households are going to produce waste that doesn't make economic or environmental sense to recycle, and all the encouragement and financial incentives in the world aren't going to stop that. Encouraging people to be less wasteful is important, but we need to stop demonizing landfills and use of the landfill bins because that sentiment has perverted the whole household recycling process.

It's gotten so bad here that a few months ago, they had city representatives on the radio threatening fines for people that put non-recyclable waste in their bins, as if that's the solution to mixed-recycling being uneconomical. They went as far as to say that it was malicious- that people were putting non-recyclable stuff, like used pizza boxes (their example), in the recycling bins to purposefully sabotage the whole system. The disconnect is huge and at some point the holier-than-thou attitude and the short-sighted laws passed with it are going to blow up in our collective faces.

> There solved your moral dilemma.

Recycling has built up such inertia as the "moral" path, regardless of its inefficiencies for most materials, that it's become an unsustainable clusterfuck that we can't move away.

Where I live, it's been codified- municipalities must recycle, and also must discourage landfill-bound waste. The result is that I've been issued a 64-gallon mixed-recycling bin that is picked up once a week, and a small 36-gallon trash can that's picked up every two weeks. There's two people in my household and we both are very conscience of being wasteful- not as some kind of environmental whatever, but it's just in our moral framework. A 36-gallon trash can holds about 2.5 full kitchen garbage bags in it, so if we produce more than 2.5 garbage bags of waste in a 2-week period, we have to hold on to it for another garbage pickup (reducing our available volume for that period then). Anything out there then sits in the sun for 2 weeks stinking and attracting raccoons/rodents until the next pickup.

The result? Anything remotely resembling "recyclable" gets tossed in the recycling bin. Food/grease on it? Put it in the bin. You know where the stuff in that bin goes now? It goes to the recycling facilities and then sits there in huge piles because no one will buy it anymore because the whole system was propped up on bullshit the entire time.

To top all that off, the law also prevents these now-inundated recycling facilities from moving their material to a landfill for proper disposal. So it literally just sits there and we have absolutely no solution for it. It would be political suicide to advocate the loosening of recycling laws, no matter how broken they are, so you'll never have a representatives willing to fix this problem.

That's the cost of having a functioning society. I don't have kids, yet I still pay school taxes because even though I'm not participating in that particular aspect of society, I still benefit from it.

Public biking infrastructure wouldn't be possible without the roads and right-aways we already have for cars and pedestrians; someone only using a mile of roadway on their daily commute is benefiting from the entirety of the transportation infrastructure that everyone has been paying into equally despite their level of use.

The guy biking or even walking to work every day I'm sure orders food occasionally, buy groceries, pays for utilities, or otherwise participates in commerce, all of which require roads and vehicles. He's getting a massive benefit from something he doesn't directly use.