You are incredibly rude for someone who is also incredibly wrong. It is strange that whenever we are one of those, we all seem far more likely to be the other as well.

Only the last two pages before the appendix is "the rule-making document", and the 4 pages of appendix A - just six pages in total. The rest is a dialogue on why the rules are needed and provide context to understand the intent of the rules. The rule starts at "X. ORDERING CLAUSES" on page 394 and is less than 2 pages long in total. It will also be necessary to fill in references made to "Appendix A" which is an additional 4 pages (397-401).

It's not surprising to me that both you and the other poster couldn't figure this out -- it's very easy to miss a section so small when it's titled similarly to sections like "IV. ORDER: FORBEARANCE FOR BROADBAND INTERNET ACCESS SERVICES" which are mostly discussion. That contains language like:

> Petitioners ask that the Commission reverse, vacate, or withdraw the RIF Remand Order, and request that the Commission initiate a new rulemaking to reclassify BIAS as a Title II service and reinstate the open Internet conduct rules. Collectively, petitioners make several procedural arguments for why the Commission should reconsider the RIF Remand Order. Common Cause et al. and Public Knowledge each assert that procedural deficiencies in the process the Commission used to adopt the RIF Remand Order are cause for reconsideration. Common Cause et al. argue that because the Commission failed to open the record to receive comment on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, it failed to adequately consider harms of reclassifying BIAS as a Title I service on public safety, pole attachments, and the Lifeline program.

Which is clearly not an order - it is a discussion with a goal towards justifying parts of the order.

There are also only 434 pages. Not anywhere close to "693". It would be very rude of me to point out that you might be "unable to read past the table of contents". To the contrary, I understand that it's easy to misinterpret the indexing of the table of contents as pages rather than sections, and I have empathy for someone making that mistake, even if it does demonstrate that someone probably hasn't tried to use the table of contents to actually read the document.

Then I suppose it's the fault of the App Store reviewers. The point is that Android handles the activity stack on the OS level and has much stronger control over what a back button does.

PDCAAS is a reasonable standard to use, pro-rated against total calories.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_Digestibility_Correc...

I think HN exists at an intersection of individual hackerism and business. If a project is clearly by-hackers-for-hackers it gets a lot more leeway for unsustainable concepts / implementations. But this is building a business on adversarial interoperability, and many people who LOVE the concept and technical achievements will still post mostly critical things about the business model because it’s fairly clearly a very very challenging business model.

That’s not a “threat” - they’re in no danger.

1-2% of the population may be a sociopath / psychopath — but its still considered “abnormal psychology”.

If someone had proof that a device I made was hurting people, I wouldn’t try to destroy their life or kill them.

A lot of this whistleblowing doesnt even have jailtime as a consequence to those who failed their duty of care - often it just means they’ll make a few million less dollars but still be plenty comfortable.

We shouldn’t feel its “normal” to murder / torture / assault or ruin the lives of these whistleblowers any more than we think sociopaths are “normal”.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/06/ebay-execs-sent-... <- this is not just normal “human nature”. It’s the result of abnormal psychology.

Really he may be the best technical YouTuber for true nerds who don't want things dumbed-down but still want it to be reasonably accessible.

I say "just" not only because the theoretical logic is still fiendishly complex, but also because there are still real-world effects and flaws in your components which both rear their ugly head often (all abstractions are leaky). You can never completely ignore the analog world, but digital design is almost always much, much simpler than analog for anything beyond rudimentary levels of complexity.

Obviously if you're designing the silicon for digital components, you care very much about the analog reality of signals. But those silicon wizards are the ones who are building the digital abstraction of the analog world so that the rest of us can "safely" ignore it, mostly.

Weird and unfortunate that a framework made by Apple for Apple Silicon doesn't support targeting the Apple Neural Engine.

Depends on the setting. Sometimes they're for things that have greater than usual effects, like getting locked into a subscription payment or agreeing to additional charges for Spirit Airline flights. Other times they're for things that I have difficulty taking the initiative to address, like notification/unsubscribe settings, for which my ADHD only allows me occasional "windows" of time where I'm able to initiate or follow-through on changing the settings.

Sometimes it doesn't really matter and I just scoff at the bad UI and it's not a problem.