The [2016 Tesla promotional] video carries a tagline saying: “The person in the driver’s seat is only there for legal reasons. He is not doing anything. The car is driving itself.”
Well there you go. It seems clear that most of what Tesla has said is compatible with the application of the word "supervised" without really changing the meaning much. But a few statements, and the overall implication, very much contradict that.
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).
'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.)
400 MPa is not better than the best structural steel. And 1000 MPa is way higher than the best structural steel (compressive strength and tensile strength are essentially equal for steel). Most structural steel has an ultimate tensile strength of around 500 MPa. Ultimate tensile strength is the comparable strength parameter when discussing rupture/fracture.
400 MPa is better than the best structural steel. 1000 MPa is not for structural steel, it is for high grade steel, the sort you make submarines out of. Why would I list 400 and 1000 for the same value?
Steel is weaker in compression than tension. It's more isotropic than say concrete, but the difference is meaningful in practice.
We're not discussing rupture here. That's for when the pressure is higher internally than externally. We are discussing a submarine, which is a pressure vessel under compression which must also remain buoyant. The specific yield compressive strength is the value which matters.
When someone says "structural steel" they are normally talking about something similar to A572. A572 comes in multiple grades, with grade 42 being the lowest. Grade 42 has a yield strength of 42 ksi (hence grade 42) and a rupture strength of 60 ksi by spec. 60 ksi is 414 MPa. Even A36 (which is basically the weakest structural steel commercially available nowadays) has a rupture strength of around 60 ksi and a yield strength of 36 ksi. Hence, even the weakest "structural steels" have a rupture strength of around 400 MPa.
When I use the word "rupture" I am talking about the material property, not the specific submarine loading condition at play. When comparing steel, which is a ductile material, to carbon fiber, which is a brittle material, you should use the steel's rupture strength instead of yield strength. Steel is for all intents and purposes an isotropic material, and the difference between tensile strength and compressive strength is not material in practice (because steel in compression is nearly always governed by macro-scale geometric issues leading to buckling rather than the material strength in compression being exceeded).
It’s funny because if you delete your last sentence (or just remove the sexes) this post could be a choose your own adventure prompt for anyone to drop their own views/prejudices into.
You are, in fact, in charge of your teenager as a parent. They are, in fact, still a kid. Controlling your kid’s access to things which you deem harmful is, in fact, not abusive. Setting appropriate boundaries does not, in fact, mean you are not treating your kid as a person who has their own sense of self. Most kids will not, in fact, hate you for setting boundaries and being their parent.
It is quite impressive that nearly everything you’ve typed is incorrect.
This is a terrible argument. You just repeated the claims and said that they're false, giving no reason to believe this over the claims that you're disagreeing with. If you want to convince anyone, you should explain how you came to the conclusion that these things are false.
They're no longer a child. That is why they have a different nomenclature - teenager. They are not "a kid".
Treating an adolescent as a child is damaging to their mental state [0].
I already said boundaries are a thing: You are there to guide them. But you are not there... To control them. Because doing so, is damaging. And as a parent, damaging your family is both heinous, and a crime.
To put it another way: The law sets boundaries on how you can drive. This guides you, to keep you and others safe. It does not however enforce control over you. Your choices are still your own. A parent aims to guide an adolescent, who is no longer a child.
This is an argument for not applying parental controls to YouTube for teenagers, while the guy I was replying to is explicitly asking for parental controls for YouTube for teenagers. I think "teenager" is too broad to have a productive discussion here. Maybe we can agree that sometime between 13 and 19 you should definitely stop trying to impose parental controls on your kids.
My parents did this to me, and while I loved them, I left home as quickly as I could at age 17 despite them more or less begging me to stay.
We are great now, it wasn't a huge issue or anything, but I wasn't going to stick around while my mom searched my whole room from top to bottom every week.
If you're lucky. That means they have a good moral compass and figured out that you were the anchor on their lives.
I'm especially worried about the point where parents are accompanying college students into their inerviews. Which is an slowly, but alarmingly rising phenomenon.
Yes, people exaggerate, but I have not gone to see mine in person since 2009 and I have not talked to them since 2016. In fact at uni, I initially didn't understand why anybody would want to go home for Christmas - it was many years later that I realised that my childhood wasn't normal.
I despise “articles” like this. It is an article based on a Reddit post of another article which 1) quotes a couple Reddit users and 2) links to the original article linked to in the Reddit post. It has almost zero original content and zero substantive original content. I’d rather read AI slop.
One's goal when studying is to optimize learning as a function of time. When note-taking is forced, this goal becomes impossible for me. I spend time taking notes when I could be spending time on more impactful study techniques (videos, practice sets, etc). To be clear, I think the notion that "notes are useless" only applies to specific groups of people. The bottom line is that everyone learns differently, and forcing a certain approach is an awful idea.
> How have you been disallowed from discovering what works best for you?
I would not say that I have been directly "disallowed," but undeniably, there are bandwidth constraints for students. If I'm taking multiple hard courses, I only have so much time to spend. If I am spending my time note-taking, which my teacher requires to turn in to him/her, then I have less time to do other, more productive things with my time. I think naturally, freedom spurs efficiency. Free and competitive markets are more efficient than command economies. Arguably, this same principle holds true on an individual level.
>> If I'm taking multiple hard courses, I only have so much time to spend.
You’re in high school. No course is hard.
>> Free and competitive markets are more efficient than command economies. Arguably, this same principle holds true on an individual level.
This is a silly statement. Free and competitive markets are not always more efficient than command economies, and they certainly aren’t as you move away from a market to a market unit. So, no, your erroneous principle does not arguably hold true on an individual basis. There is a reason that corporations are structured more like a command economy than a free market.
Not only do my peers and I find many of these courses challenging, but AP classes are widely recognized as college-level coursework taken in high school. I will have completed 17 of them by the time I graduate.
That said, my argument doesn't depend at all on whether these classes meet your standards for being "hard." Even if you believe you'd ace them with flying colors, they're still time-consuming and rigorous for most high school students. Focusing on semantics about the word "hard" instead of the point I'm making suggests there's little substance to your rebuttal.
Finally, if no course is hard, as you claim, why is note-taking even necessary?
>> The whole reason Chevron came into existence is because it's impossible for Congress to pass explicit regulations for every little thing as soon as it's needed. So agencies were instead given broad legislative mandates like "keep the water clean" or "manage fish stocks" because it was impossible to enumerate every circumstance.
This misunderstands Chevron and the effect of its abandonment. Chevron stood for the proposition that the executive branch could generally interpret laws without judicial review (subject to a minimal standard which was nearly always met). What this meant in practice was that any agency could change its view on what the law means (and therefore change what the law is because courts were generally required to accept the new interpretation) whenever it wanted and that new view was binding law. This undermines two core principles of the American system: separation of powers (the judiciary says what the law is) and the rule of law (laws should be applied equally and consistently).
Eliminating Chevron returns us to the proper state of the law: the executive branch proposes a reading of the law, the other side proposes another, and an independent court considers both and states what the law is. And that’s the law going forward. It cannot be changed absent legislation. Congress passes a law, the judiciary says what the law is, and the executive executes it. If the executive wants to enforce a different law then it must get the legislative branch to pass that different law.
This is not a conservative talking point, it’s a talking point for anyone that thinks the President is not a king. It just seems like a conservative talking point to you because it was overturned during the Biden administration. Recall that Chevron came to be because of a Reagan administration interpretation.
Consider what the state of reality would be if Chevron remained good law today under the Trump administration. Trump’s interpretation of a statute would be what the statute says.
For example, 8 USC 1401 provides that “The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date;”
Do you really want the Trump administration to be able to what any of the ambiguous terms mean in this provision? What do you think Trump’s interpretation of the “geographical limits of the United States” is? What about what “honorable service” means?
This is incorrect. Chevron deference wasn't giving the executive branch sole power to interpret ambiguous statutes as you claim (despite your scary example). The so-called Chevron deference doctrine was simply that the Supreme Court ruled (~40 years ago in the Reagan administration) that if an agency is responsible for administering a statute that's ambiguous, that agency's interpretation should be deferred to.
But the real problem comes in because 40 years of laws were written both both parties with Chevron deference in mind. Not only did Congress not take action to overrule Chevron, consistently for 40 years, they intentionally wrote ambiguous statutes to give agency's the power to interpret those statutes, mostly because enumerating every possible circumstance was impossible.
Take managing fish stocks. What fish stocks? When should fishing seasons be? What's the inspection mechanism? How are licenses and quotas issues? How are they enforced? How should all this be reported to the public, Congress and the president? What about fish stocks that border international waters? How should they be managed?
Chevron acknowledged what was already happening: it was impossible to write legislation that way. Congress didn't have the bandwidth to initially write it, let alone maintain it as circumstances change.
The Supreme Court (rightly) recognized that without Chevron deference it would be impossible to an agency manage anything because any ambiguities or any simply unofreseen gaps would be used to neuter the agency in the courts. It made it impossible to have such agencies and that's the whole point of overturning Chevron. The very wealthy don't want Fedearl agencies. The whole thing is a libertarian wet dream and over the coming years we'll see the consequences as the same people poison the water supply and the food supply, overfish alal fishing stocks, crash the economy through unregulated financial markets and so on.
>> The so-called Chevron deference doctrine was simply that the Supreme Court ruled (~40 years ago in the Reagan administration) that if an agency is responsible for administering a statute that's ambiguous, that agency's interpretation should be deferred to.
This is a misstatement of what the law was. Under Chevron, the agency’s interpretation MUST be deferred to, not should. This is an affront to the separation of powers.
Agencies are not neutered. Nor are they prevented from interpreting ambiguous statutes post-Chevron. They are prevented from being the final say on interpretation. This is good, just, and in line with America’s constitutional regime.
Your bigger problem here is "accomplishing foreign policy objectives using tariffs" is not an authority Congress has delegated to the executive branch, and, in fact, this cuts against his argument (that he is instead responding to an "economic emergency", despite the performance of our economy and the fact that he's responding to conditions that we have been working with for generations).
You have somehow put yourself into a position of having to argue that an enumerated power of Congress actually belongs wholly to the executive so long as the executive has some constitutionally legitimizing purpose for the application of that power. I think you must be doing this for sport, just to see if you can wriggle out from the contradictions.
If “racism” can be a “public health emergency” (https://abcnews.go.com/US/york-governor-declares-racism-publ...) then surely the gutting of american industrial capacity qualifies as an “economic emergency.” One that has serious national security implications, too. Surely it falls within the “emanations from the penumbras” of Congress’s delegation.
And I never said the tariff power belongs to “wholly to the executive.” My view is that economic warfare between countries falls within the scope of Congress’s delegation of tariff authority. And under existing precedent, that’s a sufficient “intelligible principle” to avoid non-delegation problems.
Yeah I don't think this "the other side called racism a public health emergency so we the word no longer means anything" argument is going to get you very far in court, but maybe you just think it'll get you somewhere here. Either way, under current law, the administration's foreign policy objectives have virtually nothing to do with their (limited) tariff authority.
https://www.reuters.com/technology/tesla-video-promoting-sel...