I agree standard bikes are a poor fit for luggage. There are cargo (e)bikes that can comfortably hold large bags (e.g. https://larryvsharry.com/products/ebullitt). They may make sense at major rail stations, but the logistics of keeping them in stock at the station would be hard, and of course this doesn't solve the infrastructure or physical disabilities/age problem.

Is this corporate Goofus and Gallant?

Goofus yells and gets upset when things slip. He demands that someone fall on their sword.

Gallant gets curious about what systems were in place to prevent this and why they weren't sufficient. He understands that nobody is perfect and that we succeed by cooperating.

Seems very inspired by gmock. Wondering if there's a comparison somewhere?

Even baseless accusations like this are likely to lead to capitulation by companies out of fear of reprisal from the rest of the trump administration. We can look forward to explicitly allowlisted winred advertising from here on out I'm sure.

This is the entire point. They 100% know what they're doing here. They will always just blame everyone else for their incompetency

If they 100% know what they're doing, it's not incompetence, by definition.

One does have to wonder about their motives tho

The incompetency is that they can't fundraise effectively on their own.

And they know their claims are bullshit here. But they think making up some nonsense bullshit and crying about it will let them bully folks as they please.

So far there's been virtually no penalties for being a nasty vicious little cry-bully anywhere. It doesn't always work but theres never a penalty. Smao they they try again here.

> If they 100% know what they're doing, it's not incompetence, by definition.

I think this assumes that the "thing they're doing" makes sense in the first place, but afaik there's no guarantee of that.

It feels like companies aren't being petty enough when it comes to governments mucking in their operations. "You're right, we don't want to appear to be participating in favoritism, our policy going forward will be to block all emails of a political nature by default. Users interested in seeing these messages can re-enable them in settings."

The only winning move with governments fighting bullshit proxy wars on your platform is not to play.

I wish they'd go lower. We are a capitalistic system right? So what they should simply say is that "Our metrics showed our revenue, user retention, and usage numbers were shown to be higher when we blocked this right wing donor spam and content and we have a fiduciary duty to our shareholders". And as a private company their First amendment right allows them to do so.

Watch the bitchfit thrown then.

What difference will this make though?

People who aren't interested will unsubscribe or manually mark as spam.

People who are interested and willing to donate were already receiving the emails and donating anyway, right?

It's not like there's a big group of people who would donate, but who are not technically literate enough to check their spam folder, right?

Are you being sarcastic or not?

Your last two questions are obviously sarcastic to me, but your first two sentences send the opposite message.

I'm thinking out loud through the logical ramifications of why anyone would be upset at a proposed change to the current practice.

Because if there were a large number of people who would be willing to donate, and the only reason they're not donating is that these emails are being sent to spam at elevated rates... that would kind of justify the administration targeting Google's spam filtering practices here, on grounds that Google's practices are having a material, negative impact on the democratic political process on a partisan basis, whether intentional or not, no?

If the spam filter is applied equally, but one actor is doing a filter-triggering action more than the other actor, then no, it would not justify the complaint.

If that means I can send a regular email to a gmail address from my own custom domain without being systematically classified as spam, I will take the win. Next win would be for gmail to police their own spamming activity. The gmail domain is the single largest source of spam I receive.

You seem to still be operating with an idea that general principles matter here, as opposed to merely naked authoritarian power. Is your "own custom domain" winred.com, or do you otherwise have the ear of one of the anti-American butchers currently defiling the White House? If not, then no.

Clarification question, since I'm curious. I don't believe I've ever received a spam message from a Gmail domain on any of my email addresses, some of which are posted publicly (support@etc.com addresses for businesses). I do see lots of phishing attempts from Gmail addresses attempting to impersonate Facebook ad support and similar types of very loosely targeted low-effort phishing. Am I an outlier, or are you seeing actual spam coming from Gmail addresses? To be clear, I'm calling spam unrequested marketing and nigerien prince type scams. I'm just curious, since that doesn't align with my experience at all.

Not general marketing emails, rather loosely targeted phishing or pointless spam email (one liners which I am not sure what point they serve other than nuisance) from leaked email addresses.

The benefit of having a custom domain is that I provide distinct email aliases to each website, which I keep track of, so I know which website leaked an address (and I also see those email aliases in the failed login attempts to my mail servers).

That also allows me to severe my relationship with a website if they start spamming me, so that may also create a selection bias since I am unaffected by the sort of spam resulting from the same email address being leaked to data brokers and used for marketing, because I delete the alias at the first offense. So I get mostly hit by websites that got hacked.

It won’t

My belief is that modules were designed for big tech companies that do massive builds parallelized across thousands of machines. Such an environment makes the complexity bearable and you get massive speedups from cached build artifacts. I think smaller companies and hobbyists kinda got screwed.

Where does this belief come from? For that you can already use Mozillas sccache.

But we are not talking about a malicious ssg, we are talking about a vulnerable ssg that somehow needs to be patched. Unless your ssg connects to the internet, this is a non issue.

> Unless your ssg connects to the internet, this is a non issue.

This, but for all software ever. In the nightmare realm we've apparently decided to settle down in we forgot the one way to make actually secure software: Run the complicated parts somewhere offline.

A security vulnerability is much less scary if the computer can't communicate with anything. It's the only way for us to get out of the pit of infinite work we've dug.

If the author of the SSG is compromised, I doubt they'd push fixes for their own exploits...?

Didn't all the asahi Linux Mac m1 drivers essentially get reverse engineered with little to no support from apple and no public docs? If I'm remembering correctly then I guess it's possible with enough effort and reverse engineering skills

It was reverse engineered from a driver. With no driver and purely some PCIE device registers mapped into memory you might as well be trying to guess lottery numbers.

I guess the driver was the one that runs on Mac that they were able to refer to? Not sure you have any links to blog posts about this process it sounds so cool

From https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39385382 Here's Hector Martin (marcan) talking about their tooling: https://asahilinux.org/2021/08/progress-report-august-2021/

Running macOS in a hypervisor controlled from a second machine (proxy mode + verbose==on) to watch drivers talk to the hardware:

https://asahilinux.org/docs/sw/m1n1-user-guide/#running-a-ma...

Thanks for taking the time to round up these posts for me!

But it took 5 years. And since the first model, there are many others. It is huge work.

* The vast majority aren't compiled into any given kernel

* Those that are are only loaded when needed

It's not that bad

Look forward to the supreme Court ruling that the FCC is illegal and actually owes carriers money for some reason

SCOTUS hates the DC Circuit almost as much as it hates the Ninth; this decision is dead on arrival.

If that were the case, then it would probably stand. The Ninth usually has the lowest, or among the lowest, reversal rate of any district: https://ballotpedia.org/SCOTUS_case_reversal_rates_(2007_-_P...

You hear a lot of lies to the contrary that it has the highest number of reversals, which is misleadingly irrelevant because the Ninth also has by far the greatest number of decisions. It's like saying that New York City has more violent crimes than El Paso, which utterly ignores the population difference between the two.

Your link says that the 9th is the most reversed circuit both in terms of raw reversals (196) and as a rate (79.4%).

Include the time frame when you talk about this.

2007-present, in this case

People making conclusions should look at the data, though.

In this case, every ciruit has a 64+% reversal rate, the sixth has a reversal rate almost identical to the 9th. I have no idea what a significant difference would be.

Maybe someone can explain a set of assumptions and the resulting variance.

I didn't choose the data set or the link, perhaps your admonishment should be levied against GP.

I agree that people should look at the data before making conclusions, which is why I posted that the data directly contradicted GP's claim that the 9th "usually has the lowest, or among the lowest, reversal rate of any district." It doesn't. Based on the data, it has not only the highest reversal rate but also the highest amount of reversals. I take no position on whether the 9th's reversal rate is significantly different than any other circuit's other than to note that it is the highest by all reported metrics and that when you hear that fact, it isn't a "lie" (as characterized by the GP).

That makes everything seem completely arbitrary and not based on anything besides personal feelings

You have just described law in the United States. :-)

> 2007-present, in this case

'07 seems arbitrary. 2017 would be a better date, given that's when Gorsuch flipped the Court conservative. (Though it really went full dumbfuck when Barrett started giving Alito and Thomas cover.)

Currently it looks like this:

    map<term_id, 
      map<pair<document_id, positions_idx>>
      inverted_index;

list<positions> positions;

Think you also meant to remove the pair in map<pair>?

Haha, apparently very hard to get this right. Fixed again.