jhp123

9 ms·

61.
by jhp123 2y ago
Pew has it at 32–28 in support of the ban[0]. I think that's pretty low for a bipartisan effort where the opposition hasn't really had a chance to air it's case. [0] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads&#x2
62.
by jhp123 2y ago
I didn't mean to imply that pg was saying that these incidents were unjustified or performative. I just think it's telling that the actual real-world events he discusses are not examples of the supposed overwhelming trend he'
63.
by jhp123 2y ago
if you're going to talk about history, it really helps to ground your narrative in real people, events, or statements. This all comes off as a history of vibes, and I don't remember the same vibes at all (maybe because I wasn&#x27
64.
by jhp123 2y ago
Tiffany Effect
65.
by jhp123 2y ago
So the claim "German perverts open bestiality brothels" was true in January 2013? Where were these bestiality brothels located?
66.
by jhp123 2y ago
each side accuses the other of bad faith, but only one side is sabotaging the international body that is supposed to adjudicate trade disputes
67.
by jhp123 2y ago
> The US Congress is a disgrace to basic principles of competence, honesty and good governance. In historic or global terms, no. Congress is squeaky-clean compared to your average oligarch. > Better to have someone transient but compe
68.
by jhp123 2y ago
Many high-level politicians and businessmen are surprisingly able to attain top levels at sport and other competitions, perhaps due to the same overwhelming virtue that vaults them to the top of society in the first place. Chairman Mao famo
69.
by jhp123 2y ago
I disagree. Words have meaning, you can't just use your own personal definitions. The modern definition of "gender" is based on the concept of gender identity and includes more than two genders [0][1]. If you want to make you
70.
by jhp123 2y ago
why would you say "there are two genders"? You haven't heard of nonbinary gender?[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-binary_gender
71.
by jhp123 2y ago
the science was like 95% right from the beginning. High seroprevalence heterodox theory was wrong. Natural immunity heterodox theory was wrong. Hydroxychloriquine and Ivermectin theories were wrong. Lockdowns ultimately counterproductive wa
72.
by jhp123 2y ago
> It is somewhat surprising that unification is cleaner and easier to implement in an loopy imperative mutational style than in a recursive functional pure style. I came to a similar conclusion, my implementation uses recursion but also
73.
by jhp123 2y ago
I believe that the Price Anderson act sets aside $10 billion from the nuclear operators as a kind of insurance fund. After that the government would foot the bill. Fukushima's cleanup costs are over $100 billion.
74.
by jhp123 2y ago
you've misread the comment, weakened rule of law and lesser regulations are two different things that (according to the comment) are being exchanged. For example firing Comey had nothing to do with regulations.
75.
Johnny LLM Can't Read Code(jasonhpriestley.com)
26 points by jhp123 2y ago|35 comments
76.
by jhp123 2y ago
the examples probably avoid talking about the dynamic APIs because they are super ugly and very stateful. It's hard to say that Web Components are the future when your demo shows 200 lines of manual DOM reconciliation.
77.
by jhp123 2y ago
The idea of content creation as a full time career is literally ancient, e.g. musicians have been paid for thousands of years. The Napster-era ideology that "information wants to be free" is the outlier.
78.
by jhp123 2y ago
Deliberate practice seems to be very important in sports. And the modern regime of sports practice, where people specialize early and follow a strict regimen over years, produces results that leave earlier generations in the dust. Almost ev
79.
by jhp123 2y ago
if they need more cash they can sell more stock. Taxing entrepreneurs will lead to worse outcomes for entrepreneurs. That is obvious. Every tax has a cost. But we need to fund the government and it is not fair for workers to pay for everyth
80.
by jhp123 2y ago
This all seems very easy to deal with. Pay employees cash not equity. Founders can negotiate with investors to take enough cash compensation at each round to cover their tax bill. Investors can use financial instruments to hedge their risk.
81.
by jhp123 2y ago
I don't believe this stuff at all. Your average AP student has better study habits than Evariste Galois, and about a 0% chance of understanding Galois theory by the age that he invented it (19).
82.
by jhp123 2y ago
"if owner-occupied housing becomes more affordable, that makes most Americans poorer" This is true only in nominal terms. Shelter is the largest expense for most Americans, an across-the-board rise in shelter cost would drive sign
83.
by jhp123 2y ago
I remember when the Trump team was claiming that they wanted to simplify the tax code. They held up a postcard and said that you'd file your taxes on this. Then they passed the tax bill. My taxes went up, Trump's went down, and ev
84.
by jhp123 2y ago
The President's authority to command the armed forces comes directly from the Constitution, Congress can't pass a law to take that away.
85.
by jhp123 2y ago
This example came up during oral arguments, Trump's lawyer agreed that assassination of a political rival could be a protected official act[0] [0] https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/seal-team-6-assassination-hy...
86.
by jhp123 2y ago
Your constructed example would fail even under pre-MQD Chevron because banning companies is not a reasonable interpretation of a "technology". Maybe you find the case obvious (unlike the SCOTUS judges, who were split) because you
87.
by jhp123 2y ago
as tptacek's link makes clear, "major questions" was a muddied and rarely-cited corner of the law in 2016. The "major questions doctrine" per se made its appearance in the 2022 decision and was in fact the main purp
88.
by jhp123 2y ago
I'm sure he'd join you in minimizing the importance of precedent today but my comment was a direct quote of Alito
89.
by jhp123 2y ago
in every case in which there is a prior precedent, the first issue is the issue of stare decisis. And the presumption is that the court will follow its prior precedents. There needs to be a special justification for overruling a prior prece
90.
by jhp123 2y ago
MQD comes from the 2022 EPA decision. It "announces the arrival of the "major questions doctrine"", that is a direct quote from the decision. None of this power grab is obvious at all or they would be unanimous decisions

More ›