lazyvar

The US can look at how other countries, that don’t outright provide free education, do it instead of reinventing the wheel.

Getting rid of the discharge protection is only a small part of it.

It’s more important to set a legal maximum for college tuition for accredited institutions.

Then make any subsidies and funds contingent being accredited.

Lastly make federal loans contingent on enrollment to accredited institutions, with the additional benefit of being able to cap the loan amount at a level correlated to the legal maximum tuition (not to be confused with setting at the tuition level because living expenses need to be taken into account as well).

Make the interest rate sub 1%, because the government shouldn’t profit off of you as it is a service and do away with private middle men that administer the loans, instead establishing a special loan administration agency.

This will have as effect that institutions either get in line or lose all government funds and a significant portion of enrollments.

If you then also manage to uphold a uniform quality level that you regularly inspect at the accredited institutions, you’ll end up with a clear, affordable choice of quality education v. unknown quality education that may or may not be a huge waste of non-publicly provided money.

ETA:

You can even take it a step further and follow more examples from abroad in terms of acceptance.
Where you aim to get to a situation that everyone that applies with the pre-requisite prior education credentials, gets accepted.

The way this is often done abroad is with a centralized application process managed by the government, in which you indicate your top 3 preferred colleges, the portal verifies your prior education (as it's centrally registered) and then enrolls you in order of preference.
For some studies, like law school, med school and psychology they'll have more applicants than available spots, and in those cases it's decided by lottery with slightly weighted chances based on your grade average.
The end result is that the vast majority of people automatically get accepted and the ones that don't get in via the lottery are almost guaranteed to be placed the following year.

This solves the whole minority/legacy/etc. acceptance debacle, makes applying for schools less like applying for a job with writing essays and stuffing your resume with a bunch of extracurriculars and in the process makes the accredited institutions even more attractive compared to the potential hold outs that keep doing things the old fashioned way.

There’s not much for him to be concerned about currently, given that he is dead.

As for 16 yo Aaron who wrote that list of hot takes in order of controversy, is it really surprising that a kid that developed an opinion of free speech extremism penned that down?
Especially after being inspired by this article as per his own admission?

The article also helps provide context for the time period this was written in.
Simple possession was still a relatively novel concept and simulated CSAM wasn’t criminal yet in the US.

Don’t misconstrue my own position on the matter, I originate from, and was legally trained in, a jurisdiction that criminalizes hate speech, imposing a significantly broader limit on free speech than the US currently does, and I think that’s the better path to take.
So I personally don’t adhere to free speech extremism.

Nevertheless, while not agreeing with his take, I can see the logic that persuaded him.

It’s essentially the facetious version of “Why stop here, why not also ban hate speech/guns/drugs/etc?”
All of those can be argued to be gateways to the harm of others, perhaps even disproportionately children.

To me it reads as him challenging the logic, not condoning the outcome much less the subsequent consequences. Very edgy indeed.

As for those who bring up that he reinstated his blog multiple times and with it this particular post from when he was 16, as a way to posthumously attribute this to a more older adult version of him; I’m not sure it’s that cut and dry.

As a fundamentalist such as himself it could also just be an exhibition of his free speech extremism perhaps combined with an effort to maintain transparency.

After all, it could suggest an eroding of his beliefs on free speech if he would remove it “now” with little benefit to him since the cat’s already out of the bag, even if he disagreed with his former self at the time of restoring the blog.

A better indication of his opinions later in life would be comments that reaffirm the prior expressed beliefs or, if the suspicion is that he practiced what he preached, one would expect this to have come out during the FBI investigation, considering they went through all his data.

Do I think it’s healthy to consider him a hero, or anyone else for that matter?
No not really, if only because the likelihood of heroes having irreconcilable blemishes is extremely high just by the very virtue of their, let’s say, unique thinking producing the things we love about them but also the things that might cause pause in many.

Started watching The Crowded Room and it’s actually really good.

The trailers don’t do it justice in part because they don’t really reflect the structure of the story, which admittedly I don’t know how you’d effectively translate into a trailer.

ETA:

Finished it in two sittings. Phenomenal performance by Holland, great cinematography and tragic yet gripping story.

I’d add a trigger warning for it covering SA, but the show seems to go out of its way to avoid gratuitous imagery and instead limits itself to suggestive setups to get the point across.

You don’t know Some Software Corp and their world famous website somesoftwarecorp.com?

The proposal is bad enough as it is, but it’s the duplicitous gaslighting BS that really pisses people off.

If they came out and said “We came up with this thing to prevent loss of revenue on ads and prevent LLMs from capturing data” then people would still be against it, but at least it would feel like an honest discussion.

Instead it’s just another page out of Google’s playbook we’ve seen many times already.

1. Make up some thinly veiled use cases that supposedly highlight how this would benefit users, while significantly stretching the definition of “users”
2. Gaslight every one by pretending that people simply misunderstand what you’re proposing and what you’re trying to achieve
3. Pretend that nobody provides reasonable feedback because everyone is telling you not to commit murder in the first place instead of giving you tips on how to hide the body
4. Latch onto the few, inevitable, cases of people going too far to paint everyone opposing it in a negative light
5. Use that premise to explain why you had to unilaterally shut down any and all avenues for people to provide comment
6. Make the announcement that you hear people and that you’re working on it and that all will be well
7. Just do what you want anyways with minimal concessions if any and rinse repeat

For what it’s worth I blame W3C as well.
Their relatively young “Anti-Fraud Community Group” has essentially green lit this thing during meetings as can be seen here:

https://github.com/antifraudcg/meetings/blob/main/2023/05-26.md

https://github.com/antifraudcg/meetings/blob/main/2023/07-07-wei-side-meeting.md

WEI can potentially be used to impose restrictions on unlawful activities on the internet, such as downloading YouTube videos and other content, ad blocking, web scraping, etc.

Did the author of the article come from some dystopian parallel universe?

You’re drawing conclusions that your data doesn't support and using information interchangeably that can’t be used in that way.

It won’t change much from your overall conclusion and narrative but might still be useful to provide better context.

The real takeaway here for me is that if you make an amazing product, you can treat your customers any way you like

Here you imply sales is correlated to quality of product. And while I’d be inclined to say that to a degree the quality of a product correlates to sales numbers, I think it goes too far to call Tesla’s products “amazing” when they’ve consistently failed to live up to quality expectations and promises.

This article covers the range being lacking, but build quality and quality control in terms of fit and finish when it comes to panel gaps and alignment of pieces has been covered extensively as well.
Tesla’s also have been consistently found to be one of the most unreliable car on the market.
To top it off, software, Tesla’s “pride and joy” hasn’t lived up to Musk’s lofty promises either, not to mention the refusal to implement things such as Android Auto and Apple CarPlay which would significantly improve the value of the software onboard.

So all in all I wouldn’t call it amazing and I don’t think that the quality of the product has been the main driver of sales here.

Instead I think a lot of it is driven by the perceived status of owning a Tesla, perhaps combined with some hype and a significant dose of post-purchase rationalization.

There’s no shame in that, a lot of brands make sales that are driven by those factors. Apple would be a great or example that comes to mind. Of course most of such brands have an obsession with perfection and, despite shortcomings here and there, have a pretty consistent track record of meeting those goals, but that's neither here nor there in this case.

Despite all of these complaints, their output is parabolic.
[…]
In other words, their Q1 2023, which is typically the slowest auto sales period, just beat Q4 2022, which is typically the highest volume period.

You're taking deliveries (or "output" as you call it) and using it as an indicator for sales.

Not only have most manufacturers a significant delivery timeline compared to other goods (although not remarkable within the scope of cars) which would make it unwise to compare deliveries with sales, Tesla specifically has had consistent delivery issues over the past years, more so in some markets than in others.
A generous interpretation would be that this is because manufacturing can't keep up with sales (yay!), and for the purposes of the point I'm trying to make it's not worth it to imply anything other than that being the reason for delivery issues.
That said, even without delivery issues, in the best of circumstances delivery will be somewhere between 1-3 months.

A better way to look at sales would simply to look at the automotive sales revenue on the statement of operations for the most recent Q.
Below is in million USD.

Based on this you can see that while Q1 2023 deliveries were higher than Q4 2022 deliveries, sales in Q4 were higher than in Q1 of this year, suggesting that these Q1 deliveries were most likely to be (at least in part), deliveries of Q4 sales.

There's a bunch of other stuff there that would worry me as an investor, but the comment is already long enough without going on a tangent.

Their most recent market announcement for Q2 shows 466,140 deliveries; up from 422,875 in Q1. That’s 9% QoQ for an auto company.

That sounds super impressive, but really isn't that impressive, nor relevant. Like you said, some Qs will inherently be slower than others, so comparing them next to one another may or may not be relevant.

Nevertheless, if 9% QoQ in deliveries impresses you, then allow me to blow your mind by grabbing a random car manufacturer like GM.

GM delivered 603,208 vehicles in Q1 of this year and 691,978 vehicles in Q2 of this year, which is a ~14.7% QoQ.
This isn't a fluke either, VW also has a 14%+ QoQ for deliveries. Here are numbers for Q1, here are numbers for Q2.

As for Tesla's YoY, their YoY didn't stop declining until Q2 of this year, whereas the automotive industry broke that declining YoY trend in Q2 of 2022.

They now command 4.46% of the entire US auto market.

How does that look on a global scale? Or just in terms of EV manufacturers globally if you prefer that?

Not only is their total auto market share increasing, but their EV market share is increasing as well.

Again, sounds impressive, until you realize that they just "now" in Q1 of this year, managed to crawl back to their Q1 2022 market share after losing 3pp. I'm not saying it's bad, just not as impressive as you make it sound and we'll have to see if that trend continues or if it collapses.
Additionally, context is important.
They managed to gain market share and increased sales/deliveries by slashing the price on the the Model Y and Model 3 back in January, which is a significant blow to the margins.

In short, are they doing bad as a corporation? No, not really, despite me personally not being super excited by the financials.
Are the numbers you imply to be special, really special? No, not really.

Well that explains why they did a 180 on their "no AI" rule, which has the mods in a tizzy.

Who knows, maybe it'll cut back on the toxicity in the sense that you don't have to interact with toxic people ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Nothing better than what was discussed on SO comes to mind, at least nothing that would give you that native smooth feel.

It will definitely require a decent amount of custom work.

Closest example I can think of was Apollo, I believe @[email protected] was contemplating writing up a blogpost on how he did it, but I'm unsure if he got around to doing it yet (and it'll likely be in UIKit).

But for iOS you’re forced to use Xcode for implementing certain things like permissions, build and upload.

You can do all that via VSCode as well if you so desire.

Permissions, configurations, etc. are essentially all just XML files and can be edited as such, building, running in simulator and uploading can all be done via CLI.

And if you're not comfortable doing it via the terminal in VSCode, you can also find some extensions.

Personally as a native dev I don't know why you'd want to of course, but to each their own.

I think you might be misunderstanding what this does.

You did a search for symbol references that contain "User" ignoring cases.

When you do a search for symbol references this way, Xcode will return two things:

1. A declaration of all the symbols containing "User" and/or some context surrounding the symbol (ignoring Case)
2. Show any places where your code references the symbol

And it did just that.

The first three .swift files show references to symbols that contain "User".
The forth one, User.swift, is in and of itself a symbol that matches the query and has symbols inside itself.
The last one UserViewModel.swift is in itself a symbol as well and all the parts that are nested within that you've annotated with underscores and question marks, serve to give you context about the symbol "UserViewModel", hence the ellipses.

It's essentially telling you "Hey I've found this symbol UserViewModel, it starts with a var named username, has a bunch of stuff following that (i.e. …) then has an extension, then some more stuff (i.e. …) and then ends".

Without knowing what's inside UserViewModel.swift I can't tell if it goofed with giving you a typical declaration, but that doesn't change the fact that its trying to give you context about a valid search result, the symbol UserViewModel, so that you can figure out if that's the one you're looking for.

Keep in mind that variables are considered symbols as well, but in this instance I don't think that's what happened here, otherwise it would've been marked with a P instead of a C.

If this is not desired behavior then I suggest you switch from "Containing" to "Matching Word" or instead consider using the search bar at the bottom of the Symbol Navigator. Another option, if you're searching while going through code, is to right click on the symbol in your code and click Find > Find Selected Symbol in Workspace.

Lastly it might be an idea to go over the Xcode documentation as a refresher. This would be a good starting point.

That said, Apple clearly feels that things can be improved by clarifying, because in the current Xcode beta they've changed the option label from References to Symbols (and added a few more options).

The presumption of innocence doesn’t preclude the fact that criminal courts don’t find someone innocent, rather they find someone not guilty.

This is for the simple fact that it’s neigh impossible to establish someone’s innocence, whereas it’s easier to establish that there isn’t enough evidence to consider someone guilty.

This case is, and sexual assault cases in general are, a great example why we can’t expect criminal courts to establish innocence.

These are often cases with little evidence available either which way, because often there are no other witnesses. Even if there would be physical evidence of a sexual act, it’s still challenging to prove under what circumstances those acts have occurred, specifically on the matter of consent.

To expect a court to be able to say with certainty that something hasn’t occurred is unreasonable.

That is not to say that it isn’t good that we have these high standards before we impose punishment onto someone, but it is important to recognize what it means when a court comes to a decision.

Additionally the presumption of innocence is just that, a presumption to establish who has the onus to prove something, there is no additional meaning attributed to it in the legal principle beyond establishing who has the onus to prove the facts at hand.

In that regard it’s rather unfortunately named, as it would’ve been more apt to name it “the presumption of not guilty” but I suppose that doesn’t roll as nicely off the tongue

To add to that, that the presumption is specifically a principle that only has meaning in criminal court, because the burden of proof is generally higher than in civil court.

People can be, and have been, found liable in civil court for the very thing a criminal court has found them “not guilty” on, on the very basis that criminal court can’t establish innocence and that the bar that needs to be met in civil court is generally lower than in criminal court.

As such to bring up the presumption of innocence in a vacuum is kind of like bringing up the generally recognized human right of freedom of speech when a social media company bans someone and removes their post.

Yes, the concept exists, but it’s irrelevant because it doesn’t apply to the topic at hand, because the concept aims to govern a very specific circumstance that isn’t applicable here and withholding the important context surrounding it (i.e. the role it plays in criminal court for the presumption and the fact that it only limits governments for the freedom of speech) masks the limitations of said concept.

None of the above aims to reflect my opinion on Spacey’s innocence (or lack thereof), rather it aims to provide the necessary details to put things into context.