Regardless, maybe there’s a path to legislation forbidding smartphone requirements for huge monopoly businesses like national professional sports leagues. I’d hate for ownership of a consumer device to become codified as a requirement for participation in activities like this.

The guy might not be sufficiently disabled to qualify - but for example if you have a blind person without a smartphone, you can’t tell them they’re out of luck - because you can clearly reasonably accommodate them without causing “undue financial hardship” by giving them tickets at will-call.

According to what? Laws can be whatever a country says, so long as they have the mechanism to enforce it.

See: the US using special forces to kidnap Maduro

In a source posted by another commenter, their wages are accountable for 5% of the difference.

I also don’t think it’s accurate to say regulations are what’s prohibiting an increase in nurses. They don’t have a government imposed mechanism like residency funding that creates a bottleneck like the one in medical training.

We have a nurse shortage because we have an aging population increasing demand, it’s a tough job, and people are leaving the profession.

> However, new research by Stanford health economist Maria Polyakova and colleagues — using unique data on physician income — shows that physicians’ personal earnings account for only 8.6 percent of national health-care spending

https://siepr.stanford.edu/news/just-how-much-do-physicians-...

There’s an old adage “a prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich”* implying that the grand jury is easily mislead - but in my anecdotal experience of serving on a grand jury - this isn’t really true. We definitely said no to overreaches.

And you can also see this happening in high profile cases with the Trump administration:

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/27/us/politics/trump-sandwic...

Ignoring that, it’s not clear to me why removing jury trials would reduce the likelihood of a prosecutor throwing a larger number of charges at a defendant. Prosecutors want to demonstrate a record of convictions. That career pressure is still going to exist without jury trials - they’re going to throw anything they can and see what sticks.

*Fun Fact - Sol Wachtler, the judge who coined this, was later convicted of multiple felonies, including blackmailing an ex-lover and threatening to kidnap her daughter. A bit more substantial than a ham sandwich.

> In the order, the court found that red-light camera cases, although labeled as civil infractions, function as “quasi-criminal” proceedings because they can result in monetary penalties, a formal finding of guilt, and consequences tied to a driver’s record.

Which seems to just relabel any fine from the government as a criminal matter?

IMO when you register the vehicle for the right to drive on public roads, you are entering into an agreement that you will be responsible for following the rules of the road, and for lending the car to people who also do so.

Similarly, if I register a firearm legally, and then lend it out to anyone who asks, regardless of whether they follow the law, I don’t think it would be crazy to hold me financially responsible if a shooting happens with my gun.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcr...

There’s no secret sauce here - their guess as to how the case is going is as good as any outside observer, and based on the questions made by the justices.

But they don’t?

Copyright infringement is a federal crime - your property taxes don’t fund that. The income tax that we all pay, including the IP holders, do the funding.

Additionally retail theft, at least in my jurisdiction of Massachusetts is prosecuted by the state - my income taxes fund that, not property taxes.

This will arouse the ire of the “copyright infringement isn’t theft” people - but we also have the government enforce shoplifting and larceny from retail businesses.

I believe the legal cost to recoup the loss of either IP revenue or physical property will be born by the victim though.

The state is just providing the infrastructure where you are allowed to make a claim, if you choose to do so.

This is like complaining that businesses get to use roads for free - ignoring that we all pay taxes already and built this infrastructure for enabling exactly that purpose.

> Secretary Hegseth has implied this designation would restrict anyone who does business with the military from doing business with Anthropic. The Secretary does not have the statutory authority to back up this statement. Legally, a supply chain risk designation under 10 USC 3252 can only extend to the use of Claude as part of Department of War contracts—it cannot affect how contractors use Claude to serve other customers.

https://www.anthropic.com/news/statement-comments-secretary-...

Looks like the NYT might have gotten it wrong…

> Effective immediately, no contractor, supplier, or partner that does business with the United States military may conduct any commercial activity with Anthropic

Emphasis mine.

And I’m looking at news organizations that presumably have staffs of legal analysts pouring over this stuff, and they also seem to be saying that it can’t be any commercial activity:

> The label means that no contractor or supplier that works with the military can do business with Anthropic.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/27/us/politics/anthropic-mil...

For a guy who is a Rhodes Scholar, a college professor, and a former Secretary of Labor he has a remarkable tendency to leave out qualifying context when making these statements.

He’s smart enough to formulate arguments with the appropriate context and still make it accessible to the general public - but he consistently chooses not to.

A few weeks ago he was trying to compare the “millionaire tax” of my home state of Massachusetts, with the proposed California wealth tax as evidence that the California tax would not cause flight of wealthy taxpayers:

https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/videos/what-really-happens-...

Never once did he mention that the Massachusetts tax is a bog standard conventional tax on income, compared to this new concept of a global total wealth tax.

This feels a bit like dumping the manual to a Toyota Camry without explanation. It’s technical, but what’s interesting?

Maybe there is interesting stuff in here - but I’d love to see submissions do some kind of analysis to justify it - like an appreciation of an example of well-run user documentation, or a highlighting a clear and concise explanation of how a particular subsystem works.

These posts just rocket to the top of Hacker News with no discussion.

Some of these are just wrong - unions generally lean democratic:

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/10/17/key-facts...

I’m also skeptical of the media organization claim.

And it should surprise no one that purely profit driven corporations switch their professed values with different administrations - see the rapid adoption of DEI programs during the Biden administration, then subsequent abandonment in the Trump era.

That seems like a solid casus belli.

It’s arguably the most well known and prestigious of the historically black college and universities in the US:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historically_black_colleges_an...

It’s a pretty recognized name in the US. Certainly enough to qualify a professor as an authority - as much as any university association can.