Sure, if you don't mind regular drops while you're handed off between satellites, and many areas being oversubscribed so badly that people are getting performance worse than DSL.
My brother had it for a while in fairly rural Maine. Eventually got fiber but the Starlink was pretty good if not 100%. I used Starlink on an Atlantic crossing a few months back and it was pretty solid. It's not perfect--or probably as good as my Comcast is these days--but it's pretty good in my experience. But then I'm old enough to remember both pre-broadband and really unreliable broadband.
I only know one person with Starlink, but they seem happy with it. With the previous local provider they paid for 30Mbps, but were getting 15. With Starlink it’s around 230Mbps.
While that’s slower than my cable service in the city, for him, it’s a significant improvement and a big quality of life upgrade.
Chevron has been zombie precedent for years. Do you really want the interpretation of administrative law changing every four years? This is just another example of the Supreme Court telling Congress to do their job which is where the political focus should be. If you want PFAS to be cleaned up, then get your congressperson to pass a law to have the executive branch do it. It is going to be much more effective in the long run.
Do you really want review of novel harmful chemicals to require an act of Congress to stop? PFAS are kind of iffy, the science is very mixed and it makes sense that there's going to be some flip-flopping depending on the administration. But like if there were some novel substance like DDT with similar toxcicity, that shouldn't require Congress to step in and say "no you can't put this in the water supply." Seems totally reasonable that the law should simply specify what effects require regulation and leave it to the administrators to determine which substances have which effects.
Congress doesn't need to pass a law per chemical, they need to firmly and clearly pass a law to follow up with what they want that bar for review to be in a way the Supreme Court is left without a doubt of what the existing laws meant to say.
The consequences of reversing Chevron definitely seem dire to me but the court's majority opinion of why they did is also pretty reasonable.
I'd suggest you consider reading the laws that Congress has passed to create agencies. Congress already does this.
Congress does not simply write "This bill establishes the Department of Slinky Tossing" and lets the Executive define, without any restriction, what this agency should do.
Congress would at least define this agency as responsible for launching Slinkies in a manner that is at least partially airborne for some of it's trajectory.
Now here's where things get tricky, Congress must write in immutable words that must withstand decades of scrutiny on their definition. Let's say "airborne" was used because they did not want this agency merely cradling Slinkies into the ocean, nor did Congress want the Slinkies to remain in boxes.
So in a few years of tossing Slinkies around on earth, this "Department of Slinky Tossing" partners with NASA to throw Slinkies around on Mars.
A new opportunity arises for the true linguo-contrarian looking for a gladitorial match entrenched in establishing meaning: Congress used the term "airborne". Airborne requires an object being in air. But how does one define "air"?
Did Congress intend for air to refer to the atmosphere on Earth? The gaseous atmosphere around any planet? And really, what is a planet? Could this definition of "air" be restricted to gaseous mixtures consumable by humans? Who knows!
Now we must defer to a court to decide if the breathability of air impacts the definition of the term "airborne", and if the "Department of Slinky Tossing" is allowed to toss Slinkies on Mars simply because "airborne" has been ambiguously defined in both common usage and law.
Unfortunately, the Department of Slinky Tossing is unable to defend itself by claiming that Congress continued to fund their wiggly experiments, which to the agency, suggests the agency was still within permissible bounds.
Congress' appropriations process ensures there is an opportunity every year to refuse the "Department of Slinky Tossing"'s space aspirations if inter-planetary slinky tossing is a leap too far. The Court seems to disapprove of the notion that the appropriations process is Congress allowing an agency to continue to operate as it's been running.
Ultimately, I think this ruling simply cements that language-pedants ought to spend their energy finding a fufilling hobby.
Why ask if I've read the law and then come up with a story about airborne slinkies? The Chevron case itself was an already easy to explain example: lack of clear definition of source combined with lack of clear deference to the agency to decide. If the law was just written clearly then the EPA wouldn't have changed it's interpretation of what a source is over the years. If the EPA was supposed to be able to make more blanket decisions on the matter then the law needn't halfway spell out the details in that portion and just say that instead.
A base assumption that every law comes with an implied "lets the Executive define, without any restriction, what this agency should do" is certainly not something I'd want the country to just assume (and not even something I'm sure I want any law to specify outright either...)
A base assumption that every law comes with an implied "lets the Executive define, without any restriction, what this agency should do" is certainly not something I'd want…
You badly misunderstand what Chevron deference was about and how it worked. This is not at all how it worked.
The text you've quoted contains GP's interpretation of how these laws in general are written and my response to that. It is not related to my understanding of the Chevron deference. Putting it in separate paragraph was supposed to make that clear so sorry if it was left ambiguous. My understanding of the Chevron defence largely stems from and concurs with the notes in the "Opinion of the Court" section of https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf
If you meant something else then all the same you've left no other clues to interpret what your assertion is disagreeing with or why so.
Asking you as a fellow human: do you have any hope of congress actually making pressing regulation like this while companies opt to just poison people (which they historically have done over and over again?)
The only thing that makes it pressing is congress waited ~40 years without clarifying the law and instead relying on a particular interpretation of a particular court. I don't have hope that change will now happen overnight but I do have hope it means we will not let this kind false urgency and consequences mistake repeat so much in the coming years. I'd rather we clearly set policy via our democratic branch than behold the interpretation of it to the latest courts of unelected members, even if it means one of our mistakes in that regard rears its head for a bit. Sometimes the options in life are "shit flavor 1 or shit flavor 2?" not "1 is shit so are you human in wanting option 2?"
This only serves to further hamstring any hope of slowing the climate crisis. Instead of climate scientists and experts making sensible small policies in service of general goals laid out by congress (i.e. Clean air act etc), we will have to rely on a purely reactive mess of lobyists and general congressional bullshittery tasked with implementing technical details at a layer of abstraction far from where those institutions are supposed to be spending their attention. This ruling was celebrated by the biggest polluters and environmental criminals in human history for a reason.
Totally disagree. Administrative law has not changed every four years, and it is literally impossible for Congress to legislate every detail of every policy.
The intent of overturning Chevron was to do away with regulations, and it's likely to work. Congress could spend a month working out the exact right policies and chemicals and requirements for PFAS, and there would still be some loophole / discovery that a chemical is slightly different than exactly what was legislated. And in the meantime, the
This is literally like saying the Alphabet board of directors should have to write every product requirement for every product in every company in Alphabet's portfolio. Delegation is the only way large organizations can work effectively, and outlawing it in government is expressly intended to make government impossible.
That is not what the decision overturning Chevron says. The requirement is not that Congress now has to write regulation about specific chemicals or specific details of every area. It's that ambiguities in the authority granted by Congress to regulatory agencies are resolved by the courts - not by the agencies themselves.
Nothing stops Congress from writing a law which unambiguously grants an agency broad authority to regulate (for instance) chemicals and pollutants.
> that ambiguities in the authority granted by Congress to regulatory agencies are resolved by the courts - not by the agencies themselves.
that is exactly the problem; those decisions should be made by regulatory agencies, who are experts in science, not on courts, who are experts in the law.
It's a horrible ruling that makes these types of decisions even more political than they already were.
You’re being disingenuous. Congress is deadlocked and ineffective, so to say “Nothing stops Congress” ignores reality. “Congress stops Congress” for years, if not decades, until enough of the older cohorts age out and functional reps get elected [1] [2]. 25% of Congress doesn't even believe in climate change [3]. Ergo, pack the court and override the dysfunction. This works itself out through demographics eventually [4] [5] (~1.8M voters 55+ age out every year, ~5k/day, ~4M young voters age into voting each year). We do what we do best as a species: we kick the can into the future.
So, you think we should have the president make the laws, and the president should also control the courts so that they’re unable to stop him from making the laws?
Do you not see a potential problem with this approach?
Congress is not deadlocked. What you mean is, you support a policy which is not popular enough to pass Congress, and you feel strongly enough about the need for this policy that you think it should bypass the American democratic system and be enacted through extra-legal means if necessary.
Tell me, which party is threatening democracy again?
Congress is the one that creates these agencies, and Congress chooses to fund or not fund them on a routine basis, and new executives must be approved by Congress and firing is severely restricted. In a healthy democracy, should a legislative body have the prerogative to be general and create new agencies empowered to act on general & vague mandates? Not obvious.
Congress never loses the reigns here. This is the legislative will, as they are created and financially sustained by acts of legislature, and their leadership approval and dismissal process is determined by legislature. These agencies are "executive" in a very limited way. They are moreso extensions of Congressional power with very limited execute oversight.
That’s hardly unique. You’re also rejecting democracy, in your earlier post, by saying “25% of voters have such obviously wrong opinions that we are justified in scheming to cut them out of the process until they die.”
You're not wrong that Congress is now incapable of doing its important job, but I don't know if I agree that the answer is to just trust the executive branch. Keep in mind even if you like the current guy that it's about to be run by a guy you definitely don't like.
What I'm saying is it's complicated, and it seems we are paying the price for letting our government be utterly destroyed in its effectiveness.
> You're not wrong that Congress is now incapable of doing its important job, but I don't know if I agree that the answer is to just trust the executive branch. Keep in mind even if you like the current guy that it's about to be run by a guy you definitely don't like.
If the options are hope or action, and action might need to be fixed down the road, I ain't pickin' hope. This is a reasonable risk to accept based on the situation and options available, we are at an impasse.
> What I'm saying is it's complicated, and it seems we are paying the price for letting our government be utterly destroyed in its effectiveness.
Agreed, but the only path forward is to try to fix it, not bikeshed about how sad it is we got here. Talk to Newt about that.
I interviewed a number of people for a few positions and I never told them that I detected them using ChatGPT. We structured our interviews in 2 parts. The first one was finding a bug. First clue if they were using AI was that they would solve it instantly. Second part was to write something related to our work that had definitive start/end. If they were using AI, they often were able to get something out, but they had no foundation to reason about it and modify it. They would quickly become lost. We always said that they could use whatever "helps" as long as they showed what they were doing on screen. For some reason, only one person openly showed that they were using AI, but that was only because they couldn't figure out how to turn it off in the UI. We didn't disqualify anyone for using AI, we disqualified them because of their dishonesty. If you can't trust someone in an interview, how can you trust them in a remote environment?
This sounds like the "coding for engineers" course I was a TA of. Everybody copied everybodies code and depending on their effort they either modified the variable names, flow or nothing (including the original authors name).
Long story short: asking them to make small changes and then tell us what would happen was a shurefire way to detect the true cheaters and not the lazy people.
I also fondly remember triggering float errors in loops so you'd get an extra cycle due to it ending in .999etc instead of 0.
I did a live coding interview a while back where I was sharing my screen. I just pointed out that I'd been testing Copilot and offered to disable it in my IDE. The engineer just waved it off and said I should keep it on. Trying to hide it didn't even cross my mind - either they want to see how I work in a realistic environment with available tooling or they want to see what I can do in a "blind" setup. The company's approach here is actually a potentially good piece of information for the candidate's evaluation of the company as well. Either way, doesn't seem like something worth hiding.
> Trying to hide it didn't even cross my mind - either they want to see how I work in a realistic environment with available tooling or they want to see what I can do in a "blind" setup.
Honestly, the realistic style of work that's close to how one would actually approach problems in their day to day is pretty much ideal. In my case that would be using a nice IDE, some AI as a glorified autocomplete, IntelliSense and all that as well, in addition to Googling stuff along the way, if needed.
That should be enough to let them know both how I think, as well as show how I can solve problems and reason about those solutions. Heck, maybe even give me a simple task to build a CRUD and then talk about the choices I've made, if they're serious about hiring me and want to actually see what's inside of my brain.
But of course, in many places can't have that happen - they want to put the candidates in a situation where they just have a barebones text editor and expect them to produce good results. Blergh.
I had an interview recently where the interviewer asked me, and I quote, "Please solve this using whatever language/editor/tools you're comfortable with and what you'd use in your day-to-day work"
So I pull out trusty old Ruby + RubyMine, and the question (I don't remember what it was specifically, but it was some sort of array manipulation type of thing) was trivially solvable with some Ruby STD lib method. Apparently he wasn't satisfied with the answer despite his prior instructions, and me not knowing what the actual method code is was reason enough to disqualify me from the job, which I found baffling.
I got into a bit of a heated discussion that, if I were solving a problem at work, there's a 99% chance I'd just reach for this method that Ruby itself comes with, because why the fuck would I try be a smartass and reinvent stuff here? And if for whatever insane reason I did indeed need a bespoke solution, I'd just poke around the source code and extrapolate from there, which he still didn't consider a good answer.
I've had this happen to me in an interview before, from the other side.
I laughed that I had given them such an easy problem for their chosen language, then said "ok, pretend you went back in time and you're the person writing that function for the std lib" and so they did.
It probably wasn't as optimized as the actual stdlib function but it was good enough for the interview.
I gotta say if someone got heated with me about that request I'd end the interview early and not give them the job too.
The point isn't just providing a solution it's demonstrating that you can work through a simple problem. If you get heated about that during an interview then I don't get any info about your ability to work through problems, and I do get the impression that you're short tempered when asked to do things you don't care about.
Not OP but I dont think they got heated because they were asked to reason/invent stdlib function, it seems they got heated because they got disqualified for using stdlib function without knowing the exact algo the function uses beforehand.
Back before COVID, we were performing in-person interviews, and one of the steps was a debugging problem. We always told people in advance that they can either bring their own laptop configured the way they like (we gave details about languages/libraries required), or they can use one we provide.
I was surprised to see how many people would prefer our laptop during interview instead of having their own favorite environment.
>We didn't disqualify anyone for using AI, we disqualified them because of their dishonesty. If you can't trust someone in an interview, how can you trust them in a remote environment?
Radical honesty has been a core cultural component to many a strong team, I'm glad to see somebody else mention this. There seems to be something unique about the relationship between codering and the concepts of transparency, honesty, and truth more broadly.
Or maybe that's just a consequence of version control :)
It’s a fundamental part of (reliable) engineering. Many a person has died historically when in ‘harder’ engineering someone was hiding things, and someone being able to acknowledge their lack of knowledge is key to not getting into that state - or being able to progress/grow at all, IMO.
Chernobyl being one prominent example.
At least in a field like engineering where actual successful results/working output matters, anyway.
There are other fields where the same dynamics are not in play.
One cannot solve (or even avoid) a problem that one refuses to acknowledge exists, after all.
The relationship of capitalism to truth is very significant as well, or maybe 'value generation' would be a better term to use here than capitalism.
Or as I usually phrase it, 'money is allergic to lies'.
Say you have an organization that is producing a product/service that provides genuine value for its users, and have a team of talented, hardworking people. Any factors related to the operations of said organization, obscuring those factors from the value producers can only lead to less effective operation overall, as the producers have less/lower quality/false information to work with.
"I don't feel like this is workplace appropriate" does not violate the 'radical honesty' principle.
At least internally, anyway. If your objective is to make as much money as possible, you probably don't want marketing to be radically honest LOL
>There seems to be something unique about the relationship between codering and the concepts of transparency, honesty, and truth more broadly.
And what is worse than lies, is self delusion, even if honest. To nit pick on radical honesty, my observation is that most people won't tolerate it, plain honesty appears to be the sweet stop inmost cases.
Yes basically when interviewing you should be looking for warning signs. CV is as it is, you can't cover any bigger one extensively in that short time, so you poke randomly and go deep.
There is no bigger warning sign than outright lying. A normal mature person would ask just before if AI is allowed.
Dota 2 is a complete re-implementation that Valve did independently. Dota is a Warcraft 3 mod. Icefrog was the main persona of someone who balanced the game. Valve was able to bring him over from Dota to work on Dota 2.
Metrics are useful until you use them. If people know the metric, they will game them. Its better to track metrics to see symptoms of what is going on and then "walk the floor" to figure out why.
Kia's coming in fast and is what we went with. Everyone's promising hybrid and EV but that doesn't help when the baby arrives sooner than the vehicle can ship.
Honda's really dated now and needs a strong refresh. Toyota's king of the market and it shows they know, I wish someone would light a fire under them a bit.
"Cruel and unusual" has always been a very conceptually-flexible term.
Regarding flight: nobody is assumed to have a right to fly, so the privilege of access to flight is easily revoked.
A "no crossing state lines" list, in contrast, is heavily mediated by the judicial system and the burden generally only placed upon those intimately and immediately entangled in a legal action.
reply