> Given that the phrase “adjust the imports”—again, in a statutory provision that did not use specific words such as “tariff ” or “duty”—was unanimously held by this Court in 1976 to include tariffs, and given that President Nixon had similarly relied on his statutory authority to “regulate . . . importation” to impose 10 percent tariffs on virtually all imports from all countries, could a rational citizen or Member of Congress in 1977 have understood “regulate . . . importation” in IEEPA not to encompass tariffs? I think not. Any citizens or Members of Congress in 1977 who somehow thought that the “regulate . . . importation” language in IEEPA excluded tariffs would have had their heads in the sand.

The roll-call vote for HB7738 (IEEPA) was not recorded [2], so we seemly can't confirm today how any sitting members voted at the time. But there are two members of Congress remaining today who were present for the original vote: Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Ed Markey (D-Mass). They clearly both agree with the Court, while having different opinions on the tariffs themselves.

Statement by Grassley [3]:

> I’m one of the only sitting members of Congress who was in office during IEEPA’s passage. Since then, I’ve made clear Congress needs to reassert its constitutional role over commerce, which is why I introduced prospective legislation that would give Congress a say when tariffs are levied in the future. ... I appreciate the work [President Trump] and his administration are doing to restore fair, reciprocal trade agreements. I urge the Trump administration to keep negotiating, while also working with Congress to secure longer-term enforcement measures.

Statement by Markey after previous decision in August [4]:

> Today’s ruling in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit makes it clear that President Trump’s chaotic tariff policy is illegal. ... Today’s ruling is an important step in ending the economic whiplash caused by Trump’s abusive tariff authority.

N=2 is scant evidence, but it seems like both sides of the aisle "had their head in the sand", or Justice Kavanaugh's historical interpretation is a bit off.

[1] p.127: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1287_4gcj.pdf

[2] g. 22478: https://www.congress.gov/95/crecb/1977/07/12/GPO-CRECB-1977-...

[3] https://www.ketv.com/article/lawmakers-from-nebraska-iowa-re...

[4] https://www.sbc.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2025/8/ranking-m...

I agree with other commenters here that typing gives me more flexibility, in particular when writing arguments. I’ll format each point as a bullet and rearrange the list until I’m satisfied with the flow.

The notebook is essential for recovering tidbits learned along the way, e.g. what tricky steps did I need to get that one dependency to build. Weekly notepads are coarse enough to search by memory and contain enough context to get oriented quickly when going back several months.

Cloudflare's post boils down to Hanlon's razor: a plausible benign interpretation of the facts is available, so we should give some scrutiny to accusations of malice.

Are there specific relevant facts being omitted in the article, or other factors that diminish Cloudflare's credibility? They're clearly a qualified expert in this space.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the BGP leaks (all of them from the month of December, in fact) were the result of secret US military intelligence operations. The fact that militaries generally use cyber vulnerabilities to achieve their objectives is not news, and the US military is no exception. Keeping specific exploits secret preserves a valuable advantage over competitor states.

One could argue that Cloudflare's post helps to preserve USG's secrecy. We can't know publicly whether USG solicited the article. But even if we assume so (again assuming malice): Is Cloudflare wrong to oblige? I don't think so, but reasonable people could disagree.

Merely pointing out Hanlon's razor doesn't fundamentally change the facts of the situation. In Cloudflare's expert opinion, the facts don't necessarily implicate USG in the BGP leaks without an assumption of malice. Assuming Cloudflare is malicious without justification is just deeper belief in the conspiracy that they're arguing against.

If Cloudflare is distorting the facts, we should believe (rightly) that they're malicious. But I don't see any evidence of it.

EDIT: Clarity tweaks.

I agree with siblings that nothing jumps out (to my non-expert eye) as "very extreme".

EDIT: Removed long-winded snark after a more careful reading of the linked document.

Pretty much sums up this one. Can't say that I agree if/select/stop are "modern" features.

The unfortunate reality is that a large cadre of people cannot handle such tools, and those people still have extremely valuable contributions to make.

I say this as a full-time research engineer at a top-10 university. We are not short on talent, new problems, or funding. There is ample opportunity to make our systems as simple/"pure" as possible, and I make that case vigorously. The fact remains that intentionally limiting scope for the sake of the many is often better than cultivating an elite few.

Basically my entire full-time job is spent prosecuting this argument. It is indeed true that many programmers are smart, but it is equally true that many programmers _are not_ smart, and those programmers have to contribute too. More hands is usually better than simpler systems for reasons that have nothing to do with technical proficiency.

I have been searching for a while for good tools to split/regroup diffs in a patch series. hunk.nvim looks interesting. Do you know of similar/competing tools?

I frequently hit a problem where removing a spurious hunk from an old commit causes cascading conflicts in all subsequent commits. Are there tools to propagate hunk removal into the future without the manual conflict-resolution pain?

Thanks again!

My family once had to navigate Medicaid. I was well-resourced, understood the expected outcome thoroughly, was motivated to get it done, and committed the time to follow the required process. When our initial application was mishandled due to inaccurate guidance, it took over 2 years of persistent failed communications with the various county, state, and federal agencies, back-office middlemen, doctors, and legislators to get any response beyond "apply again and hope for the best", which we did several times to no avail. In the mean time, having a Medicaid application open changes the availability of medical care, as some doctors will not or cannot by law accept additional Medicaid patients. Eventually by some mild social engineering I procured direct access to a specific empowered bureaucrat who had knowledge of a separate set of applicable rules/processes and resolved our case immediately.

Most people in poverty do not have the time, attention, or stamina to persist through means testing on top of struggling against whatever landed them in poverty in the first place. Every time I visited the county office, I would hear someone complaining about how they had applied 8 times without success for a program everyone in the room agreed they should qualify for. Means-testing is designed, by popular demand, to make accessing benefits difficult for the sake of spending less. UBI, for all its faults, at least addresses that problem.

Coincidentally Tcl also inspired my first deep dive into Vim. The test automation framework at that company required meaty Tcl expressions packed into CSV cells. Tcl was mind-boggling enough when properly formatted, so hand-editing squashed 1800 character long expressions on a single line was way too much. I'm fairly certain the assignment was part hazing and the framework part "job security".

Jokes on them, I spent 2 weeks on a side quest to make a Vim plugin that could add line breaks and indent a Tcl expression into a split temporary buffer for editing and squash it back to the right cell when I was done. Halfway through the summer I had completed the entire backlog. The manager got a reprimand for being a jerk and I spent the rest of the summer making the framework less painful.

One could read this paper as Salesforce publicly weighing their own reputation for wielding existing tools with competence against the challenges they met getting those tools to work. Seemingly they would not want to sully that reputation by publishing a half-baked experiment, easily refuted by a competitor to their shame? It’s not conclusive, but it is relevant evidence about the state of LLMs today.

To get there, we would need to assume that the Supreme Court, including only 3 Trump-appointed Justices, is both unwaveringly partisan and unwaveringly supportive of dictatorship.