I'm sure you were already aware of that, but its easy to forget that and think you're dealing with something more real.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50081898

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

Branches for example aren't named in Jujutsu. You can bookmark them which gives them a name in some sense... but that's an optional thing you can do, often as a concession to centralized Git interoperability.

So in this case the parent to your post isn't thinking about it wrong given the context and such workflows have their advantages I've found.

After more research than I should have ever put into this question, I found a copy of the photo responsible for the ghost image[2].

Not being able to leave things at that... I had to try and find where the photo had been taken in Google Maps and street view. And I did[3]!

Wandering around maps and street view I found a number of houses in the original photo that are still there, like [4]. The intersection that is front and center on the photo [2] is the current intersection of Oak St & Spruce St. The duplex home at the bend in that intersection, where the woman is walking in front, is still there, though clearly it's seen better days.

Definitely spent too much time, even if virtually, in Calumet, MI.

[1] https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fexternal-prev...

[2] https://www.shorpy.com/node/11417

[3] http://goo.gl/maps/xYctZ

[4] http://goo.gl/maps/BSkFj

You could locally release stresses on an incremental, short term basis this way in a local system, while at the same time increasing stresses on nearby systems which could fail even more spectacularly, especially if the increasing stresses are being moved from a less dangerous system to a more dangerous system.

I'm not suggesting the above is true in this case, but that you need to cast a pretty wide net with increasingly unknown (and perhaps unknowable) variables as you start to inject real changes into a local system and try to predict what those changes will actually do.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49720970

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

Mostly the episodes are specific topics with a guest who's area of research/specialty is the topic and which stay pretty well on-topic.

Most of the AMA episodes are in the area's where Carroll specialize: physics and philosophy of science. It -occasionally- veers off into politics or basketball, but it's nowhere close to 51% politics and basketball. I think the most recent AMA did have more basketball than usual, and admittedly more than I like. And I am not a fan of his politics nor do I consider his political positions especially thoughtful or insightful. But those diversions are more occasional distractions than some majority of the AMA content. And in a 3+ hour Q&A format its not surprising that he's asked about those areas where his regular listeners know that he has a particular interest or position.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/05/world/europe/germany-afd-...

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49569182

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

Not long ago I designed an authentication system which had to be disconnected from authorization pretty fully. The authentication was global in a multi-tenanted system, but access to any tenant was authorized at the tenant level (as well as all other authorization concerns). To be fair, there was some global authorization concerns, but the vast majority of authorizing actions, including tenant access was governed at the tenant level after authentication.

But not all systems work this way. There are some systems where you can log in successfully, but then are immediately escorted out because the "can you enter" question has secondary considerations or is decided once identity has been established based on a larger criteria. Expired accounts in some systems work exactly like this.

I use JJ locally and for those that call it a "porcelain" or a "git UI" are missing a lot. Sure you can use it that way, but what I've found is that it facilitates (and perhaps encourages) a pretty different workflow than I'd use with just plain Git. I could pull off what I do in JJ in just plain Git... but it wouldn't at all feel natural and you can really see this when you start using a JJ driven repository with Git tools (including just the Git command line tools).

Personally, and as a mere version control user, I prefer the JJ model of version control much more than Git's. The mechanics of the UI was very easy to get under my fingers (the essentials in about a day), but getting the ideas and really getting an understanding/appreciation for the conceptual differences and their ramifications on workflow took a month or two of regular working and trying things. For me, it was worth the effort.

What's different is that I found the journey can be just as interesting and engaging as the destination. I read papers, books, and even spend time around here... not because the solutions require it, but because I care about the craft and the process itself.

So yes, the resulting solution is the prime mover, but the process of finding the solutions is no longer just a means to the end, it's part of the motivation of being involved in the profession at all.

The actual programming was always a means to that gaming end back then and not the end in itself. So in that sense I can completely relate to where you're coming from.

Over a couple years of that, it started to dawn on me that the programming itself had a power and interest all its own worth pursuing.

But I think if it was dropped in front of me as something I ought to do, no matter how dressed up in "fun" it was, it would have set off my non-conformist predispositions a little too much.

The original issue with the law was never that those poor open source developers were going to have to bear the burden of complying with the law, but that the law itself was a bald-faced invasion of privacy by an overbearing troupe of people in power (i.e., government) so shit-sure of their superiority over the simple common folk they govern (i.e., you and me) that they aren't even embarrassed by their own arrogance.

I would suggest that what "we wanted" is no such law at all. What would be weird, and worthy of comment, is if those of us that complain about government were actually satisfied by an exemption which only applies to pretty damn tiny slice of the market. If anything, that wasn't a victory for privacy or common sense, but rather a concession that they had foolishly created a law that they wouldn't have been able to enforce as broadly as they thought they could get away with... or if they tried to enforce it they'd have to contend with the optics of the big hand of government yet again crushing individuals whose only real crime was their altruism rather than just some giant corporation.

So it isn't weird at all that "we're" silent. This isn't a win. Pointing out that the law had unintended consequences, including with Linux, et al., wasn't a statement of objective but rather a simple show that the law was rife with thoughtless unintended, or perhaps simply unspoken, consequences. The legislature's act here didn't restore privacy nor did it remove bad outcomes: if anything it now just raises questions about equal protection under law, at least on some practical level. It raises the question why some users of computers need such protections as age verification and others don't, and why the licensing terms of the OS are a valid proxy for that need... taking for granted that the stated purposes of the law are the real ones, of course.

[edit: I didn't correctly read the comment I was replying to, which was talking about prosecutions, not civil suits. But I do believe that qualified immunity is still largely an issue with Flock, so I'm not retracting the comment entirely.]

So long as there is already an established legal precedent for the rather specific circumstances at stake, then yes, that's true. But that has to be demonstrated in pre-trial motions because the default is qualified immunity is grounds for dismissal of the case prior to any judgement on the facts absent such a clear cut applicability of precedence. Sure, you could appeal the dismissals... but that's quite a barrier and burden just to get to having a case heard let alone then having to try the case in question.

Consider this quote from the 9th District Court of Appeals' opinion on a qualified immunity appeal:

"The panel held that at the time of the incident, there was no clearly established law holding that officers violate the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment when they steal property seized pursuant to a warrant. For that reason, the City Officers were entitled to qualified immunity. The panel reasoned that although the decision in Brewster v. Beck, 859 F.3d 1194 (9th Cir. 2017) was instructive on the question of whether the theft of property covered by the terms of a search warrant, and seized pursuant to the warrant, violates the Fourth Amendment, Brewster’s facts varied in legally significant ways from those in this case. Moreover, the panel noted that the City Officers seized Appellants’ property in 2013, prior to the Brewster decision in 2017. The panel held that although the City Officers ought to have recognized that the alleged theft was morally wrong, they did not have clear notice that it violated the Fourth Amendment. The panel further held that the Fourth Circuit’s unpublished decision in Mom’s Inc. v. Willman, 109 F. App’x 629, 636– 37 (4th Cir. 2004)—the only case law that the time of the incident holding that the theft of property pursuant to a warrant violates the Fourth Amendment—did not put the “constitutional question beyond debate.”"

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2019/09/04/1...

Given that Flock cameras and the associated search technologies raise novel legal circumstances, qualified immunity is a real concern here.

Any police state can absolutely achieve a low rate of crime: both those crimes that even those of us that embrace individual rights want to see stopped but also those crimes that us liberal types would consider exercise of rights.... but are definitely crimes in China.

The problem is, you can't stop the real, mutually agreed crime with tools like this without endangering the elimination of legitimate individual rights.

In more liberal societies, this means we have real barriers for evidence collection and usage which absolutely let some universally recognized bad guys get away... because those barriers help ensure that the law doesn't become a tool against the merely politically inconvenient opposition members who properly should be able to speak out against the powerful.

If you had a perfectly objective government filled with dispassionate people dedicated to their legitimate role of protecting the rights of the citizenry... perhaps there wouldn't be any issue. But when you have people that decide to turn their opponents into criminals only because of their opposition or questionable loyalty.... No thank you... you can stay in China if that's the kind of society you're willing to accept.