I found shapes that do not work well with the simulation: a very wide and narrow shape (like a needle) oscillates wildly and does not seem to stop or to even slow down.
U.S. law requires that agencies perform this public disclosure of their analysis so that interested parties in the general public have an opportunity to meaningfully weigh in before the proposed regulation becomes an actual regulation. It's an incredibly valuable aspect of accountability if you are someone affected by the regulation.
A more recent law also required that CISA create a regulation on this particular subject. (It's explained in the regulation itself.)
If you want simpler regulations, the issue isn't that we're missing a law to ensure regulations are simpler. The law requires that exactly this happen all the time: Your(?) legislators in Congress are constantly writing laws that direct agencies to do exactly this.
Of course, if they didn't and regulations were simpler, all of the ambiguity would be decided by courts instead. The world is complicated with or without complicated regulations. So we can either have less-ambiguous but more wordy laws, or we can have more ambiguity, more court cases, and judges unpredictably deciding how to resolve the ambiguity.
Just to clarify the headline, it's Congress and President Biden who are requiring critical infrastructure to report ransom and other cyber incidents, per a law enacted inside must-pass legislation in 2022: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/117/hr2471/text/enr#l.... The law requires CISA to issue a regulation for how that would work in practice, which is what this is.
This is a similar idea to how I understand the Elephant Carpaccio exercise by Henrik Kniberg & Alistair Cockburn (2013), from what I've been able to Google. The key idea is that work should be broken down into "vertical slices" where vertical means that the entire user story is captured, or as it's described at https://uploads-ssl.webflow.com/5e3bed81529ab12a517031ab/5ec..., "very thin slices, each one still elephant-shaped." The first vertical slice might be a mockup or very-low-fidelity prototype of the complete project and subsequent slices are enhancements following user stories. Horizontal slices might be, say, system components or other subtasks that leave you without something prototype-looking until all of the slices are complete. At least, this is how I've interpreted what I've read about it.
Mind giving a concrete example? I read through the entire thing but couldn't make heads or tails of it. Is the point that your user stories should touch upon every aspect of your app, while still being incremental?
I think the idea is that for a slice of an elephant to be "elephant shaped," it has a bit of all of the key parts of an elephant - a bit of the trunk, a bit of a heart, stubs for four legs, whatever else makes an elephant an elephant. But what do the elephant's organs map to? I agree that the information on Elephant Carpaccio that I've been able to find doesn't really answer this.
My best guess is the idea is that it maps to aspects of a user story like "get input from the user," "do some business logic," "show output to user." So even the first slice is a working prototype in some superficial sense. The elephant organs might be app components (UI, database, etc.), but in the first slice you don't have a complete UI (maybe you have text input) and you don't have a production database (maybe you just have an in-memory dictionary) and you don't have robust business logic. You have the whole stack, but each part of the stack is incomplete. That's what I think makes it a vertical slice.
A horizontal slice (what not to do) would be one complete elephant organ. Maybe that's a production transactional database. So in the first slice you have a complete database or you've written the final business logic, but none of the other things that you would need in a mockup/prototype/MVP or an integration test.
This article seems to be extremely confused about the difference between increasing the supply of dollars (printing money or other tactics of the Federal Reserve) and deficit spending (moving already-created dollars from the public, including foreign holders, to the government and then right out to the U.S. public again).
I'm confused as to how that's different. Essentially the US can deficit spend an extraordinary amount, even if that deficit is financed, bc the US can simply print money to pay back the debt - without most of the drawbacks that normally come when you money is created out of nothing, BC the US dollar is the Global reserve currency.
Is there an example of this happening? I'm supposed to believe that we ask for money back from foreign countries that have stockpiled dollars as their reserve to finance domestic spending - instead of just printing money.
We don't ask for dollars back. The government asks for a loan that pays interest and lots of people gladly want to make that loan - like probably your retirement investments. This is where the national debt comes from. If we printed money there would be no national debt.
Precisely. In fact a lot of reserves aren’t even dollars but are actually us treasury debt denominated in dollars. Treasury debt is treated as cash in most of the world because the treasury market is so liquid and it’s guaranteed by the 14th amendment of the constitution. no one wants to see the 14th invoked because a) it means our political system is so broken we are willing to default, b) it’s possible some conservative court would deny the clear language and take the backstop that insures the debt away. The 14th amendment though is basically supported by printing money rather than borrowing, which is the (c), as it’s diluting.
The README covers a lot of ground: internationalized domain names, internationalized local parts, SMTPUTF8, Unicode normalization, not performing SMTP checks, not permitting obsolete email syntax, and missing UCS-4 support in Python 2.7.
Worth pointing out that the article is about rich politicians elected from around the country. The 700,000 residents of Washington, DC do not have an insider trading problem. Wish the article and the HN headline didn't blame DC for other states' problems.
Of course. DC however has an unfortunate history of being ruled more like a colony than a part of a democracy, a consequence of racism, and talking about the city as if the residents don't exist is a part of the problem and perpetuates that consequence of racism. I don't think Cupertino has that problem.
