The cryptography is standard AES-128 in OCB3 mode. It's been around long enough, and has had enough security scrutiny to at least discover a few minor DoS vulnerabilities, that it isn't entirely unreviewed.

For the cipher itself, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OCB_mode#Attacks

For example, running `systemctl suspend` will not terminate active SSH connections before putting the destination machine into a sleep state, and thus Ctrl+C (which isn't processed by SSH) will do nothing until the remote host is woken up by some mechanism.

Theoretically, the grid is supervised by the California Public Utilities Commission, which has wide latitude to set standards and regulations for PG&E and others. The Public Utility Code is the highest law in the state of California[2], so IMHO a large part of the blame for PG&E's failures fall on CPUC's failed oversight[3][4]

[1]: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=40913

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Public_Utilities_Co...

[3]: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/CPUC-head-Michael-Peev...

[4]: https://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/pge-probation-lift...

[1]: https://drewdevault.com/2021/02/25/Gmail-is-a-huge-source-of... , https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26265329

  > Translated to a human-readable timestamp, 54566975 
  becomes:
  > 
  > Friday, September 24, 1971 06:29:35 GMT

  $ TZ=UTC date --date=@54566975
  Fri 24 Sep 13:29:35 UTC 1971

(via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackletter)

And having at least one daytime rotation agree that "well, you're expected to be on-call during business hours on Saturday" isn't nearly as crazy as "you can't relax at any time during the weekend".

> I have a friend in the US who told me they have an app on their phone where they can just tap a button and the next day they can refill their benzo prescription, and it's been like that for years without having seen a doctor again.

Is this the "request a refill" feature that every US pharmacy offers? Granted, benzodiazepines are less restricted than stimulant drugs¹, but a doctor in the US need to at least review a prescription twice a year.

Chronic (daily) of benzodiazepines is bad, and doctors will not² start new patients on this.

There's still a lot of legacy patients who are on chronic benzodiazepine treatments -- doctors should work with them to wean them off, but it's very challenging and disruptive.

Requiring a patient receiving a benzodiazepine at a non-daily level (e.g. for seizures, anxiety, occasional insomnia) to go back to see their doctor when nothing's changed several times a year is just pushing medical costs (money/time) on the disabled.

¹: e.g. Adderall, which can't be refilled

²: Providers are trained not to these days, at least

> 10. The Library does not maintain a history of what a library user has previously checked out once books and materials have been returned on time4.

> 11. When fines accrue on a user's account, the Library does maintain records of items that have been borrowed but returned after the due date, or are still outstanding on the user's record. When overdue materials are returned and all associated fines are paid, the information associated with the library card number is deleted.

> 4 Library users may choose to opt in and enable My Check-out History. By doing so library users choose to give explicit consent to the storage of their Check-out History from the opt-in date. Library personnel will not access or release Check-out History unless required by law to do so. Library users may opt out of this service and delete Check-out History at any time. (Noted - November 30, 2011)

https://sfpl.org/about/privacy-policy#text-40586

(previously worked there, not speaking on their behalf or from private knowledge)

The key bits:

> The Court finds that Section 7431 is unconstitutional because it limits the power of a future legislature to define app-based drivers as workers subject to workers’ compensation law.

This was the key section of prop 22 which defined app-based service providers as non-employees.

> The Court finds that Section 7465, subdivision (¢)(4) is unconstitutional because it defines unrelated legislation asan “amendment” and is not germane to Proposition 22's stated “theme, purpose, or subject.”

This was the section that imposed a 7/8ths requirement on modification to the statute.

From the article:

> When I first started making the case for land use reform, we had two legs to our argument. One was basic economic theory — more supply equals less scarcity equals lower prices. The other was cross-sectional analysis — metro areas with laxer land use regulation see more construction and lower prices. But we can now add a third leg to that analysis in terms of detailed empirical work. [...]

>> We study the local effects of new market-rate housing in low-income areas using microdata on large apartment buildings, rents, and migration. New buildings decrease rents in nearby units by about 6 percent relative to units slightly farther away or near sites developed later, and they increase in-migration from low-income areas. We show that new buildings absorb many high-income households and increase the local housing stock substantially.

Proves the submission's point, I guess.

Ah, I totally missed that! I'm admittedly a bit tired, and that line was above the first set of boxes, where nothing loaded -- I scrolled down to the "Competing" side. This appears to have been a bug, because when I refreshed the first set of boxes had content in them.

Maybe it'd be nice to make it more prominent, set off in bold text somewhere, and mentioned before both quizzes?

(to be clear: I wasn't personally bothered by it, nor was I in an environment where it was problematic)

> I regret to inform you that you are wrong. I know that you've likely heard this from someone else -- perhaps even someone respected -- but it's just not true. The law says no such thing. Again, I encourage you to read it. The law does distinguish between "interactive computer services" and "information content providers," but that is not, as some imply, a fancy legalistic ways of saying "platform" or "publisher." There is no "certification" or "decision" that a website needs to make to get 230 protections. It protects all websites and all users of websites when there is content posted on the sites by someone else.

also:

> First off, there is no "neutrality" requirement at all in Section 230. Seriously. Read it. If anything, it says the opposite. It says that sites can moderate as they see fit and face no liability. This myth is out there and persists because some politicians keep repeating it, but it's wrong and the opposite of truth. Indeed, any requirement of neutrality would likely raise significant 1st Amendment questions, as it would be involving the law in editorial decision making.

Granted, I have the Twitter "adult content" filter off, so perhaps that's just on me. Was just a bit surprising :)