> How you 'live your life' is orthogonal to that mission
orthogonal does not mean what you think it means given your usage. orthogonal means its entirely unrelated. but the fact is disease control and being able to make personal choices w/ respect to living your life can be in direct conflict means its not orthogonal.
apologies for this correction orthogonal is just one of my favorite words. =)
It's definitely not orthogonal to how you live your life; their very purpose is to limit how you live your life in order to prevent/reduce behaviors that spread disease. For example, they issue quarantine orders.[1]
People understand that is their mission. Some find it scary.
Everyone has a different threshold at which they start to object to the CDC overriding people's freedom in the pursuit of disease control, but everyone will object at some point. For example, would you accept a Shanghai-style lockdown?
> their very purpose is to limit how you live your life
Their purpose is to increase the overall duration of healthy life we have, both individually and in aggregate. Limiting how you live your life is, again, orthogonal to that.
For example, how is their campaign to control mosquitos and eradicate malaria in the US limiting how you live your life?
I'm going to assume that you are discussing in good faith, as per the HackerNews commenting guidelines, and did not deliberately pick a specific CDC campaign as a strawman.
The CDC's campaign to control mosquitos and eradicate malaria in the US probably does not limit how people are living their lives, but ordering an immediate nationwide halt on evictions of any renter for nonpayment of rent would be an example of applying limitations on people.
Say the thing they ordered. They didn't allow evicting millions of Americans during winter in a global pandemic. They're also tracking people to make sure lockdown guidelines were followed. Of course Americans could not follow a guideline to save their lives, and now over a million preventably dead Americans get to be summarily forgotten because the real victim was your ability to go to a bar or concert when hospitals were renting refrigerated trucks to hold bodies.
I find it pretty encouraging that of all the possible examples of the CDC using its statutory authority you could think of, the example that comes to mind is that they took away a person's freedom to be evicted.
The goal of public health is to increase overall health, yes, but that goal can easily conflict with individual freedoms. For example, smoking bans:
> Supporters argue by presenting evidence that smoking is one of the major killers, and that therefore governments have a duty to reduce the death rate, both through limiting passive (second-hand) smoking and by providing fewer opportunities for people to smoke. Opponents say that this undermines individual freedom and personal responsibility, and worry that the state may be encouraged to remove more and more choice in the name of better population health overall.
The main thing that public health agencies do is promote healthy behaviors, like, for example, washing your hands. You could say that their primary goal is convincing you to “live your life” in a healthy way.
The CDC's mission is fundamentally the same as the mission of the Chinese disease control agency. The difference is how that mission is balanced against people's freedom to live their lives.
Please don't misunderstand; that doesn't mean that I oppose everything they do. Everything they do limits freedom, but sometimes that is necessary.
Ahh, I see where the confusion is. They actually have authority to issue legally binding orders.
"To help prevent the spread of COVID-19 and help our country cope during the pandemic, CDC has occasionally issued legally binding orders and regulations."
Not all such orders are listed on that page. For example, "CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky today signed an order determining the evictions of tenants for failure to make rent or housing payments could be detrimental to public health control measures".
> The nuclear plants need to be built near water, which means they're likely to end up near habitation.
personally I feel this is untrue. its done out of convenience; but from an engineering/infrastructure standpoint there isn't a reason we can't condense the steam that gets pumped out of the towers.
Turbine systems follow the Rankine cycle, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rankine_cycle , which includes a condenser. The water circulating is a closed loop. The steam you see coming off cooling towers is the external water which has been used to condense the circulating steam.
i know what the water is for i'm saying there is no need to release the steam and have to pump additional water for cooling; you can also use radiators to cool water down etc. as i said the additional water and steam stacks are a quick and easy method for cooling when a water source is nearby. there are other options that can be used when water isn't available.
> Once you actually start heap allocating you hit massive pauses.
citation needed. go afaik has millisecond pauses at most. maybe you're thinking of throughput losses due to forcing more CPU to be spent on collecting?
Unchecked exceptions work fine. Basic stuff like stream.map(f) is unusable when f throws any checked exception, so the Java world largely stopped declaring them. I consider it a miss in Java’s generics when lambdas and method refs were added.
I didn't say unchecked exception don't work. I was pushing against the assertion that 'Java is more explicit'; its not since java developers actively work to avoid using the damn feature being mentioned.
I'm not inherently opposed to allowing for bankruptcy on student loans, but it will probably have a similar effect--banks won't want to lend to people with no credit or income and college will mostly only be affordable for the kids whose parents can pay for it. It's probably not much worse than the status quo, but my instinct is that we need to account for employability in the financing equation. A teenager shouldn't be able to take out $100K in debt to finance a Master's of Theater. If that's by allowing bankruptcy such that banks have skin in the game to avoid these kinds of debts, then that's probably fine with me (although banks had this same kind of skin in the game leading up to the subprime mortgage crisis and they still fucked over the whole country, so careful regulation is probably needed if we go this route).
bankruptcy has regulation already. you have to actually show an inability to pay, etc.
i'm not suggesting terminating the federal loan program either. just make it possible to default to get out of these situations to ensure they are not predatory.
He still has time to do loan forgiveness "helicopter money" style. But even if all we got was an expansion of targeted relief programs I think it totally counts as fulfilling his talking point. The issue with student debt is that for some people there's no way out, but generally speaking college-educated people are more well-off and forgiving all debt would be a regressive stimulus that targets the wealthier side of the population. Targeted relief is a great way around that.
>also regressive stimulus are not even a thing. maybe you're thinking of regressive taxes?
Regressive taxes favor the rich over the poor. By "regressive stimulus" I'm presuming he's talking about stimulus that favors the rich (eg. well off layers/doctors with high student loan debt but high earning potential) over people with modest student loans but low earning potential.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about. It's amazing how easy communication is when your words aren't interpreted in the most obtuse and uncharitable way by extreme progressives
words have meaning; using them correctly in context matters. the fact of the matter is the term you used has nothing to do with stimulus'. you were attempting to imply that forgiveness somehow harms the lower classes when it categorically doesnt.
the only person being 'uncharitable' here is you; attempting to label someone calling out your BS position as 'extreme' and then attempting to categorically label an entire political spectrum with the same brush.
which still isn't correct. it doesn't hurt the poor that the upper middle class will also receive this benefit. regressive taxes do. in fact this policy still helps the lower income class because many of them will also benefit from it and far more than the upper middle class.
No. The previous guy installed people in the DOE that made it virtually impossible to forgive the loans even after they jumped through all the hoops to qualify under the law.
All Biden's administration is doing here is ungumming people who were eligible years ago. This is cleanup from the prior administration
As demonstrated by the last admin it doesnt have to happen so feel free to complain about the current President doing “jack shit” until the last guy wins the next election…
Have fun blaming the "last guy" for almost everything, that sure worked out so far for the "current guy's" approval rating and will definitely not help the last guy win if he was to try again. This is even more ridiculous than even the "thanks Obama" reflexive blaming conservatives had.
I don't think you realize how self defeating and ineffective it is to find every tiny reason to deflect blame from "your team". Saying that "actually.... Biden couldn't do it because of some officials in the DoE and totally couldn't have known that this was possible when he made the promise, oops!" is such a cop out. It's obvious that the Biden team knew exactly how the DoE worked, and if x or y promise is feasible or not.
TCP dates from 1974, QUIC from 2012. I don't think a new transport protocol after 38 years invalidates my point - that there is less room (not none) for innovation in the protocol than there is for innovation in the things that use the protocol.
TCP is a bad example because it has become so hard to replace.
SCTP failed to replace TCP for various reasons, such as too many middleboxes filtering ULPs that aren't TCP or UDP, or SCTP being far to rich and complex, or just inertia.
But TCP has had a ton of problems, and while there has been a ton of research into those problems and the solution spaces for them, adopting even hacky solutions into TCP has been difficult. As a result, TCP has gotten complex and bloated over the years without at the same time solving all the problems that a new protocol could solve.
On the plus side, in spite of inhibiting innovation at the transport layer, TCP enabled innovation at the application layer by making the application layer possible at all.
didn't say it invalidated your point just that it was a bad example. just because something has inertia doesn't mean its good or even okay. it just means it timed the market correctly.
you could have used UDP for example which being as old as TCP has spawned many new protocols on top of it (including quic) and in its own right has been the backbone of many applications.
orthogonal does not mean what you think it means given your usage. orthogonal means its entirely unrelated. but the fact is disease control and being able to make personal choices w/ respect to living your life can be in direct conflict means its not orthogonal.
apologies for this correction orthogonal is just one of my favorite words. =)