Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | afiori's commentslogin

Pardon power competes with governors (at least NY) being able to edit laws before signing them for most anachronistic/dystopian feature of the US state.

You've reminded me of an absolutely bizzare line item veto story.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-item_veto_in_the_United_S...

> In 2023, Governor Tony Evers used a line-item veto to extend what was supposed to be a two year temporary funding increase for schools to last over 400 years.

https://www.businessinsider.com/wisconsin-tony-evers-400-yea...

> Evers was able to make the nearly 400-year-old addition by vetoing part of a phrase that had referred to the 2024-25 school year, by striking a hyphen and the "20." When read together, the legislature's previous proposals for the 2023-24 and the 2024-25 school years became 2023-2425.

The WI Supreme Court upheld it. What a fucked-up system.

In picture form: https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/chorus/u...


yes, with a but, rephrased as "crazy that you can't use a private service without payment or otherwise contributing to its profitability" sounds less so crazy.

I agree on the excess.


Publishers really need to get on board with a fair pay as you go scheme.

Something where I pay a fair price for an article or subscription, without the new customer rates, and without the "call us" retention annoyances. Something like the old Netflix, where it covers 80% of what you want at a reasonable monthly fee with easy cancellation.

I wouldn't mind supporting good journalism, but I do mind having a teaser rate that will jump 5x after a year, making it difficult to cancel (call to cancel), and having 1 pay gate per news outlet.


Don't forget about pardon power.

Can he pardon himself?!

Odds are we'll find out before his term is over.

From an outside perspective this is all looking a great deal like the early days of Viktor Orbán in power, morphing the laws and conventions of Hungary to remain in power.

The differences are that Trump hasn't much left in the tank and never did have a law degree.

Those difference matter little, there are plenty in Trumps orbit who are making the plans and pushing them out, all that's needed is another muppet for POTUS.

Where Trump gets interesting is right now and the near future; he's cornered, losing support, and will be lashing out and bending reality to protect his reputation and ill gotten gains.


It does seem hard to replace his cult of personality. I don't understand how it works, not being part of it.

It's more than just his opinions, which are easily duplicated. It's more than just audacity; anybody can lie boldly. He's got a supreme talent for failing upward that I do not comprehend, but I don't see anyone else with it.

Not that I see it turning out well. At best we return to two more-or-less equally unlikeable parties, except this time with one having a massive thumb on the scales.


Considering how hard US military bases and radar systems have been hit (and those are not city-sized target) I am unconvinced that even AMZN's pocket change could realiably protect against the kind of attacks we see in this war

How they were hit? Multiple drones overwhelming relatively small number of air defense systems. Systems like Patriot are great against several very capable targets like ballistic missiles. Such (expensive centralized) systems do much worse against multiple widespread targets like an armada of low flying low speed drones (add to that low speed cut-off filter to avoid hitting general aviation and the likes).

Point defense systems like Skyshield (or even that very old and cheap - $2M - Gepard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flakpanzer_Gepard ) work wonderfully against all those drones coming in.

Heck, even just soldiers with MANPADs would have easily shot down those drones (you just have to distribute those soldiers to all those strategic objects which hasn't been done)

We have classic situation here - everybody have been watching Ukraine war for 4 years, yet nobody has prepared for such style of war.

>I am unconvinced that even AMZN's pocket change could realiably protect against the kind of attacks we see in this war

No even low flying slow drone - pretty typical situation of top Russian cruise missile shot down by Gepard

https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/zdbvim/a_ukr...

Also AMZN has its own drones dept - in "hot" zones in "hot" times they can put several people with drones (in the high speed configuration) to be used for interception. This is basically how Ukranians have been doing, and that is an experience they are now exporting to the Gulf states.

https://www.hisutton.com/Ukrainian-Interceptor-Drones.html


being able to customize the chunking/diffing process with something analogous to an lsp would greatly improve this. In my experience a particularly horribly handled case is when eg two branches add two distinct methods/functions in the same file location (especially if there is some boilerplate so that the two blocks share more than a few lines).

a language aware merge could instead produce

>>>> function foo(){ ... } ===== function bar(){ ... } <<<<<<


If you haven't heard of it yet, Mergiraf uses tree-sitter grammars to resolve merges using syntax-aware logic and has a pretty good success rate for my work.


iirc ours is always the commit the merge is starting from. the issue is that with a merge your current commit is the merging commit while with a rebase it is reversed.

I suspect that this could be because the rebase command is implemented as a serie of merges/cherry-picks from the target branch.


  git checkout mybranch
  git rebase main
Now git takes main and starts cloning (cherry-picking, as you said) commits from mybranch on top of it. From git's viewpoint it's working on top of main, so if a conflict occurs, main is "ours" and mybranch is "theirs". But from your viewpoint you're still on mybranch, and indeed are left on mybranch when the rebase is complete. (It's a different mybranch, of course; once the rebase is completed, git moves mybranch to point to the new (detached) HEAD.) Which makes "ours" and "theirs" exactly the opposite of what the user expects.


I had to make an alias for rebasing, because I kept doing the opposite:

    git checkout master #check out the branch to apply commits to
    git rebase mybranch #Apply all commits from mybranch
Now I just write

    rebase-current-branch
and it does what I want: fetches origin/master and rebases my working branch on top of it.

But "ours"/"theirs" still keeps tripping me up.


You can use the --onto flag for git rebase

  git rebase --onto origin/master
It will checkout origin/master and replay the current branch on top.

P.S. I had to check the man page as I use Magit. In the latter I tap r, then u. In magit my upstream is usually the main trunk. You can also tap e instead of u to choose the base branch.


Tip, you may want to use origin/HEAD over origin/master


Is it the naming-independent identifier of the tip of the trunk?


not strictly speaking, but in practice it's the tip of the remote default branch


Man do I hate this behavior because it would be really some by just using the branch names rather then "ours" and "theirs"


Agreed. Even when the branch is the same, it would always be distinguishable by <remote-name>/<branch-name> vs. just <branch-name>.


With Cathode ray TVs only a single pixel at a time is on, it relies on our eyes having bad enough temporal resolution, if you have Superspeed eyes you will see just a coloured line/pixel moving on screen


That's not quite true. Only one pixel is being activated at a time but the phosphors continue to emit light for many pixels. In practice you get a handful of lines lit to varying degrees at at time. Maybe 1-2 lines quite brightly lit and then a trail of lines that are fading pretty significantly (but still emitting light). They yes, our persistence of vision fills in the rest to provide the appearance of a fully lit screen.

This video has some great slow-mo of CRTs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BJU2drrtCM&t=160s


Just like many languages have annotations for inlining functions they could have annotations for tco. From an usability pov i would like annotations for must, must not, should, and should not. Where the "must" versions error if the compiler can't do the optimization


Scala and Kotlin have 'tailrec' annotation/modifier, though not as sophisticated as you describe.


based on recentish interviews (or book?) it was likely genuine in the sense of not being performative, but apparently she knew it was both false and the wrong thing to say but said it anyway out of loyalty to Biden.


Intra-party elections should definitely be some variant of ranked-choice voting. To at least try to avoid the current fractal polarization.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: