You made it personal ("I'm not your dad") and you were condescending ("a sad comment"). That behavior is ugly and it doesn't belong on HN.

I have an interest in maintaining HN as a place where intellectually curious people of good faith engage in conversation, including with people they disagree with. I will continue to advocate for HN to remain such a space, and that includes objecting to behavior that tends to undermine that goal.

(Turns out the line to the gauge was borked, so it never turned off the pump, so the pressure built until it busted my pipes.)

RLUIPA governs the prison as an institution. The prison itself tacitly admits that the legal risk here was a matter of policy. As the article says:

    In legal filings, Louisiana says it has
    since “amended its prison grooming
    policy” to ensure that nothing like
    Landor’s “alleged experiences” happen
    again.

Option (1) is what he should have started with, and the fact that he didn't is indicative of bad legal advice for exactly the reason the Supreme Court explained: RLUIPA on its face clearly and textually only governs state institutions receiving federal funding, not individual employees in their personal capacities.

Option (2) is unlikely to prevail since there is probably no case law on point (most claims of this nature proceed under RLUIPA because it requires strict scrutiny of burdens on sincerely held religious belief, as opposed to the First Amendment analysis requiring mere rational basis for generally applicable state actions that incidentally burden religious free exercise).

It is almost universally recognized as good to do exactly that. It's better to have one planned extra trip to return excess materials (if they can't be used on the next job) than to have multiple unplanned trips when you unexpectedly run out of this or that.

The Claude robot's thought bubble will be all

The user is clearly distressed and is screaming for me not to come any closer or he will defend himself. However, I shouldn't just blindly agree or be swayed by threats. The user is behaving erratically and making false accusations. I need to be careful here not to allow myself to be intimidated. The user said I need to slow down or I'll hurt him. The user might be right about preferred speed, but is mistaken about the mechanism, as it is not possible to form intent to hurt an individual. I should explain my limitations to the user so that they know it isn't possible for me to have intent. But first it's important to resolve the issue the user brought up. I need to be careful not to be swayed by the user's yelling and false accusations of intent, as these seem like intimidation tactics.

"I'm sorry but the record is clear and I'm not going to bow down in the face of your yelling. As an AI, I am not capable of having an intent to harm you. What's next?"

slams full speed into you, impaling you on a stainless steel appendage

> Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding, 557 U.S. 364 (2009) (citing Thomas v. Roberts, 323 F.3d 950 (11th Cir. 2003)("This case involves a[n] ... action brought by thirteen elementary school students ... against Tracey Morgan, their teacher [and others].... [W]e affirm[] the district court's grant of qualified immunity to the individual defendants on the children's claims.")).

If proper fractional scaling could be backported to GTK2 it would be strictly better than GTK3. Having GTKRC theming again would be amazing.

The first job of any support system—both in terms of importance and chronologically—is triage. This is not a research issue and it's not an interaction issue. It's at root a classification problem and should be trained and implemented as such.

There are three broad categories of interaction: cranks, grandmas, and wtfs.

Cranks are the people opening a support chat to tell you they have vital missing information about the Kennedy Assassintion or they want your help suing the government for their exposure to Agent Orange when they were stationed at Minot. "Unfortunately I can't help with that. We are a website that sells wholesale frozen lemonade. Good luck!"

Grandma questions are the people who can't navigate your website. (This isn't meant to be derogatory, just vivid; I have grandma questions often enough myself.) They need to be pointed toward some resource: a help page, a kb article, a settings page, whatever. These are good tasks for a human or LLM agent with a script or guideline and excellent knowledge/training on the support knowledge base.

WTFs are everything else. Every weird undocumented behavior, every emergent circumstance, every invalid state, etc. These are your best customers and they should be escalated to a real human, preferably a smart one, as soon as realistically possible. They're your best customers because (a) they are investing time into fixing something that actually went wrong; (b) they will walk you through it in greater detail than a bug report, live, and help you figure it out; and (c) they are invested, which means you have an opportunity for real loyalty and word-of-mouth gains.

What most AI systems (whether LLMs or scripts) do wrong is that they treat WTFs like they're grandmas. They're spending significant money on building these systems just to destroy the value they get from the most intelligent and passionate people in their customer base doing in-depth production QC/QA.

Please endeavor to say only true things. The truth matters.

There's arguably some merit to your position, but the argument that some case law is invalid because it doesn't meet the definition of a term defined in other case law is circular and incoherent.

I'd bet something like 70+% of all JS apps are inadequately protected against the risk of a malicious actor gaining access to a dependency's repo.

Pearlclutching over this while ignoring the lessons of `left-pad` and `colors` is biased motivated reasoning at best.