Think space launch is cool? Want to help make sure it's done safely?
We are seeking a talented and motivated Software Developer to join our application development team while serving as a forward-engineer for application systems deployed at U.S. Space Force locations in Florida. Ideally you'll be comfortable deploying and troubleshooting applications in Windows and Linux environments and have a strong software development background in .NET or a similar object-oriented programming (OOP) language. Strong communication skills and the ability to collaborate with a remote team are a must.
Because of the requirements, this is for US Persons only. If you're interested, we'd like to talk. Email me if you have questions at christopher.wacek at arctos-us dot com, or apply here with a note you saw this on HN: https://workforcenow.adp.com/mascsr/default/mdf/recruitment/...
I stayed here in approximately 2010, because it was the cheapest hotel near Madison Square Garden, and I will forever remember it as the filthiest hotel I've ever been in. I slept fully clothed on top of the bed with my coat for a blanket.
I too stayed there in 2010 to be close to MSG. My friends and I knew it was a shithole, and were sending each other terrible TripAdvisor reviews for laughs. Buried a dozen pages in, one review offered instructions for getting up on the roof- go to a certain floor, go into a certain housekeeping door, and take the stairs in the back. We followed the instructions and found an incredible and private view of the city. Fun night!
I also stayed there around the same time; my overriding memory is how grimy the bathroom was. It looked like it had never had a proper clean since it was first decorated.
This looks to me like the effect of a non-technical user using a CMS and hitting "enter" twice in the edit box after each paragraph. There's no "style" being used - it's probably a purely human enforced convention.
(there are tags, there are <br>'s between each paragraph inside the <p>)
but those <br>s are in between the graphs, and they line up with the layout. the last line of the graph does not have those breaks.
i just looked at the site on a different browser, and the anomaly i'm seeing in FF does not appear in the Safari. in Safari, it just has double spaced graphs. in FF, the last line in each graph is also separated by a double space.
in 2023, and we still can't have consistent layouts across browsers. FML
> Does the FAA have worldwide jurisdiction over launches by/for USA companies?
Yes it does. Per https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/commercial-space-transportation... "An FAA license is required for any launch or reentry, or the operation of any launch or reentry site, by U.S. citizens anywhere in the world, or by any individual or entity within the U.S. "
Duh. Twitter is obviously hurting for cash. Blue subscribers are paying them, almost literally for the privilege of doing whatever they want - no incentive to ban/suspend them.
He very clearly cares deeply about Twitter losing money. He was desperate to cut costs and increase revenue right from the start. He frequently whines about the cost of running Twitter. He has been stiffing a ton of Twitter's suppliers and not paying the bills.
And there's a good reason for this. He is using a his own Tesla shares as collateral for some of the debt.
“Altruistic purposes”, what would those be? I’ve only seen him censor his opponents, spew bog standard far-right talking points and make poor product decisions. How is that “altruistic”?
There's part of me that considers driving the hate machine that is Twitter into the ground and general irrelevance an altruistic purpose.
The world would be better off without Twitter, until they can figure out how to separate the hate machine from its useful purposes in a sustainable way.
Finally destroying the hellsite, for the benefit of all.
(As someone who (a) used to enjoy Twitter a lot, (b) always suspected that Twitter was quite bad for society, I have mixed feeling about its current implosion.)
(To be clear, he obviously is not destroying Twitter for altruistic purposes; the above is a joke. It should not be necessary to point this out, but one odd attribute of figures like Trump and Musk is that there are always people who insist that everything they do, no matter how obviously ridiculous, is actually intentional and ingenious, so Poe’s Law is in full effect here.)
Sucking up to autocratic rulers while claiming to be a free speech advocate is very altruistic (/s).
Saying Twitter was already in the ground and then praising the guy that dug the hole a lot deeper, is also suggesting that your assessment of him is not based on his business acumen.
Maybe you're hoping he's pumping your crypto bags? That's one of the things I consider him to be very good at.
Not really, only if we assume the market is rational.
I think the fact that Elon Musk it the most successful entrepreneur in the world is a testament to the contrary. And that being a successful businessperson has nothing to do with merit or skill, but a lot more to do with happenstance, and former wealth.
Our public policy on the global market has been neo-liberalism on full steam, the rich are getting richer, not because business people are getting smarter, but because government is deregulating exploitation as a matter of public policy. Somebody is bound to become extremely rich in this environment, and it just so happens that the people getting extremely rich are either the ones that exploit workers (i.e. Jeff Bezos) or the ones that fool rich investors (i.e. Elon Musk).
Lack of moderation is 10x a worse problem for revenue that offending the blue icons.
Moreover, it seems most of the activists don't want to contemplate that bigotry runs in all directions and saying things about 'men' or 'white people' probably should fall under the same auspices ... which is why even as irresponsible and inconsistent as Musk is, he leans a bit more 'loose' than not which is probably preferable than ideological forms of censorship.
I also feel that as a society, we're going to get used to 'foul language' and that it just doesn't have the resonance it might have had.
Someone spreading fake papers saying 'doctors are trying to kill you with vaccines', with a ton of followers, is actually more problematic than some random dirtbag's side-comment.
Anecdote to the contrary, I personally got banned from Twitter for answering the question “What do you think about them men?” with “#KillAllMen”. Now this is obviously not a real threat to use violence, but it got me banned nonetheless. To me it seems like Twitter is perfectly happy to moderate against the likes of feminists and LGBTQ+ activists.
The statement 'kill all men' is literally a call to violence.
Now of course (probably?) you didn't mean it as that, but it still falls well within purview of 'obviously moderated', probably immediately, by the automated mechanisms, and frankly, how could you expect anything otheriwse?
The fact that you're willing to admit your bigotry and blatant hate speech on another forum, as though somehow you're a victim, is probably an exmaple of how we tolerate trolling dirtbag bigotry, so long as it 'targets the correct side'.
Never claimed I shouldn’t have been banned (and frankly, I’m a little glad I was), just providing an anecdote that “saying things about 'men' or 'white people' does indeed fall under the same auspices” as bigots on the other political wing.
Full disclosure though, I do believe moderation should not be applied equally across political the spectrum, when one extreme goes against a protected minority, but I won’t go into further details here on HN, as it would go against the guidelines of not engaging in political battles.
>>The fact that you're willing to admit your bigotry and blatant hate speech on another forum, as though somehow you're a victim, is probably an exmaple of how we tolerate trolling dirtbag bigotry, so long as it 'targets the correct side'.
Well said, it's like a neonazi taking pride in having advocated genocide of all Jews. This is why the "protected minority" ideology, whereby how people can be treated is based on the alleged victimization of their group, is dangerous.
>This is why the "protected minority" ideology, whereby how people can be treated is based on the alleged victimization of their group, is dangerous.
I remain hopeful that US laws and regulations regarding "protected classes" will someday be successfully challenged by the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
My "perennialy [sic] problematic ideal" is that the history book you got from the library has been overdue since 1972, and the historian has a 1950s conformist America mindset, which is the basis of the basic, red-pilled model of white male resentment.
There is no "nuance" in that mindset. It is factually wrong. It doesn't work today. It wallows in nostalgia. The nostalgia is, in part, to make up for the fact that the red pill contains no culture: No art, no literature, no music, no theatre - nothing that makes America a global cultural beacon, and nothing that women would want to spend any time with. It is a loser mindset, and deservedly so.
Would you please stop posting ideological flamewar comments to HN? You've done it repeatedly in this thread. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
We've had to ask you this before, so if you'd please fix this, we'd be grateful.
I would gladly delete most of my comments on this thread. HN is a fine site and the way you run it is instrumental to keeping it that way. Still, you might give some thought to the healthiness of showcasing what are objectively fringe ideologies that would in other places be rightly be called out as, at least, adjacent to outright bigotry. There's another site that's dying because they think that stuff is good.
We've banned this account for posting flamewar comments and ignoring our request to stop.
Please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
Would you please stop posting ideological flamewar comments to HN? You've done it repeatedly in this thread. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
We've had to ask you this before, so if you'd please fix this, we'd be grateful.
We are looking for a passionate Lead Software Engineer to help build a team developing next generation assessment and repair capabilities for critical United States aircraft systems. You will have direct input into all software aspects of the technology and will be expected to help design, document, and develop appropriate solutions to enable the desired capability.
ARCTOS is a technology-oriented small business providing aerospace, defense, and digital solutions in the United States.
I don't understand why we're getting up in arms about this.
1. When you ride a Bird scooter, you agree to accept liability for all injuries, possibly with the exception of gross negligence (even if you didn't read the fine print, you'd be insane to think it didn't say that).
2. Peña sued the city for not maintaining a sidewalk and causing his injuries.
3. Bird indemnified the city for all liability involving Bird scooters.
Those three things together make the situation that "seems abominable", but they're really quite reasonable. Basically the city isn't liable, and neither is Bird, and it's not actually a surprise to anyone except those writing breathless news stories.
There's plenty to be up in arms about over forced arbitration and indemnity between well-funded corporations and customers just trying to get home safely after a night out.
Bird in particular likely knows 90% of their customers are violating their terms and conditions in some way. Between lack of enforcement from the government and legal indemnity from their customers, they have no incentive to improve the safety of their service.
Taken to extreme, why even have a legal system when you have to opt out of it to do anything?
Tbf I don't think the city should be liable. My quote is still remarkable if not absurd. Most people I know think our legal system is so convoluted and far removed from it's intention and I think the quote speaks to that
That's not how that works. You're welcome to compete by making a different RTS game, but you can't just copy theirs and offer it up for free and then say they should "outcompete" you.
Did you read the whole article? His most significant proposal is that modern democracies adjust their procedures to use something called "sortition" that dates back to ancient Greece.
In sortition, rather than polling the entire populace about complicated issues on which they are likely not well informed, we select a balanced random sample of people from the populace , provide them information, and then allow them to engage each other on the issue. Then we have those people vote.
This has several advantages:
1. It actually places "faith in a large number of people selected from all social backgrounds" depending on how large your sample, as opposed to letting elected politicians decide, which is the definition of "a small number of people selected from a potentially narrow social background".
2. It solves the problem where a huge number of people end up voting because of gut instinct or misinformation. Consider the passage of Proposition 13 in California which prohibits the raising of property taxes. If you poll the entire population, that referendum is going to win 100 times out of 100, because for most people the gut check decision is "no I don't want my taxes to go up". However, the correct way to consider that proposition is to get an understanding of how property taxes are used, how they are collected, what the procedures are for changing them in the legislature, etc. and then come to a determination. That determination might be "Yes", it might be "No", or it might be "we should not limit increases in property tax rates but instead limit increases to the real value of collected taxes, by accounting for changes in property values". [1]
[1] I'm not proposing that is the right answer, I'm just suggesting that you might arrive at that conclusion if you actually had time to study the issue. Almost by definition, the vast majority of people do not have that time.
I read the whole article, and my criticism was addressed at sortition.
> In sortition, rather than polling the entire populace about complicated issues on which they are likely not well informed, we select a balanced random sample of people from the populace , provide them information, and then allow them to engage each other on the issue. Then we have those people vote.
This is utopian, and fraught with difficulties. Who decides what constitutes balanced? Does anyone elect the deciders? How can a sample be both balanced and random? Through what forum do they engage? How do we ensure a genuine discussion takes place, rather than both sides talking past each other. How do we overcome the problem that the larger the sample, the harder it will be to have a discussion? How do we prevent the media playing a role in influencing the decision making?
The referendum campaign was poorly articulated on the Remain side, and played to people's most base fears on the Leave side. Remain should have known that touting the impact of Brexit on big business would fall on deaf ears with those that feel powerless in their own communities. That's an argument for making better information available during the course of a referendum campaign. Of course, had the Remain campaign won, as it nearly did, no-one would be questioning it, just as they didn't call for an overhaul of democracy in the wake of the (equally disgracefully fought) NO2AV campaign.
The problem with elected politicians is that politics is a career path. By the time you get to the position of being electable, you're likely knee-deep in shady deals, and when you get elected, the pressure only increases.
While there may be other downsides of sortition to consider[0], it at least seems to avoid this problem - since each issue is considered by people in isolation, there's no point in trying to make deals, since the next time around someone else will be chosen to vote.
That said, we have XXI century now - why not try and let everyone vote on everything? I think the idea is sometimes called "liquid democracy".
[0] - one downside that comes to mind is a lack of context and inability to form a coherent strategy; it's already one of the biggest problems with democracy, and that would only deepen it
Sortition is based on chance, instead of agreeableness.
Referendums are a great idea, but I think that the British yes/no vote was way too simple to game. Using hindsight to save the day, given that there appears to be no gameplan for where to go now, maybe the different options should have been explored before putting it to a vote:
* remain in the EU
* leave the EU, remain in the single market
* leave the single market
* leave the single market, destroy the chunnel
At least with a referendum like that, you force the people to have a content-filled opinion, instead of relying just on an empty "no". That also reduces the options for tea-leaf reading by the losing side.
I wonder if a referendum constructed in that way would actually make decision making worse.
As I see it, the public have voted to Leave, but some of the options for Leave are actually quite appealing, and would even appeal to some pragmatic Remainers (Norway-style EFTA agreement, join Schengen, negotiate trade agreements with the EU from the outside on a common basis with other EFTA countries, allow Eurozone to integrate closer).
By allowing the public to decide not only the decision but the details of the implementation (although I'm sure you weren't 100% serious with the "destroy chunnel" option) you increase the scope for voters to choose the worst one out of sheer spite.
I'm not sure what you mean with "make decision making worse". Are you suggesting that having the EFTA option explicitly listed might have made even less people choose "remain in EU"? I'd say that in that case, the government has been given a clear mandate on what route to pursue. Right now, I don't think the Leave side has any idea if the public wants the EFTA option, the "own island first" option, or the chunnel option.
Thinking about that last option some more, maybe it would make sense to put a nuclear option (like "destroy chunnel") on the ballot, to weed out the spiteful votes from the constructive ones. Even if you explain beforehand that the chunnel will never be closed -- some people just need to vent.
I'm saying that if we're agreed that EFTA is the moderate Brexit option, having nuclear options (destroy chunnel) on the ballot means that you effectively give a democratic mandate for the nuclear implementation (which let's face it, will always be appealing to a substantial minority, see Corbyn) and sideline moderate voices.
Saying that the public are in control of the direction of travel but leaving the experts in charge of the implementation (as long as it doesn't go against the wishes of the public, i.e. politicians can't just choose not to invoke Article 50, but saying they're free to explore constructive EFTA options) seems preferable.
Given his stance, I find it ironic that you'd equate Corbyn with the nuclear option...
As I see it, it doesn't really matter if we agree that EFTA is the moderate brexit option: the primary focus of the Leave campaign was on freedom of movement, and it was clear (even before the referendum, given the situation with Norway and Switzerland) that freedom of movement is an integral part of the single market treaties -- a point reiterated by Merkel and Tusk over the past few days.
So regardless that you and I may prefer for the Leave side to explore the EFTA route, it isn't in their mandate -- they won on a campaign of curbing free movement. Had the "moderate Brexit" been a separate choice on the ballot, they might have had a mandate to go for that option. But right now, nobody really knows how many of the Leave voters voted against free movement, and how many voted "just" against the EU.
Referendums aren't the same thing as elections - they don't come with a set of manifesto promises or a promised programme of government afterwards beyond carrying out the policy suggested in the Referendum.
The politicians making the promises may not even be in the government (it tended to be Leave.EU and Farage that focused on immigration, Vote Leave was wary of doing the same and focused on the economy). All politicians can do in a referendum campaign is talk about implied benefits one way or the other.
It's now up to the politicians to work out the best deal for our country. It's going to be a much smoother ride (and much better for the country as a whole) if free movement of people is allowed and we join EFTA than if the government tries to hold firm on that one, for sure.
> but some of the options for Leave are actually quite appealing ... Norway-style EFTA agreement, join Schengen, negotiate trade agreements with the EU from the outside on a common basis with other EFTA countries
While those are options that Britain could attempt to pursue if it leaves the EU, they aren't things that Britain can just choose to do. They are things that Britain can try to do after it leaves the EU (but may or may not succeed in, even if it tries.)
Think space launch is cool? Want to help make sure it's done safely?
We are seeking a talented and motivated Software Developer to join our application development team while serving as a forward-engineer for application systems deployed at U.S. Space Force locations in Florida. Ideally you'll be comfortable deploying and troubleshooting applications in Windows and Linux environments and have a strong software development background in .NET or a similar object-oriented programming (OOP) language. Strong communication skills and the ability to collaborate with a remote team are a must.
Because of the requirements, this is for US Persons only. If you're interested, we'd like to talk. Email me if you have questions at christopher.wacek at arctos-us dot com, or apply here with a note you saw this on HN: https://workforcenow.adp.com/mascsr/default/mdf/recruitment/...