Don't fool yourself. Google isn't some sort of cult. It's just common decency. One of the big reasons listed is that employees wanted to hear more about the China project, but it was cut short because of the leaker.
The problem, though is that there are allowances for many other uses of the public sidewalk (for example, a restaurant having outdoor seating, or a store having coin-operated kids rides). It's just that there's no specific process for this product, and they speculate that it would be impossible to allow doghouses without changing the law.
Yup. In NYC these things are handled by license (for cafes, restaurants) and consent (for rides), and both come with strict planning guidance to protect the right of way for pedestrians.
The UK is almost identical except you need permission from the local council (for planning) and highways consent from national government.
Either which way, I think it's pretty naïe of somebody to think they're not going to need permission of some sort to [semi-]permanently occupy a public highway.
Did you read the article? She was working with the mayor's office, and even contacted the DOT to obtain licenses. They just refused and ordered them removed anyway, since the law literally doesn't allow for issuing of licenses for this type of product.
> She [...] even contacted the DOT to obtain licenses
Retroactively, after she'd installed at (at least) 28 locations.
I get that some people work like that (better to ask for forgiveness, etc) but that just doesn't fly in bureaucracies. File your applications, then do what you've permission to do.
I do think they could have been a little more generous with scope to try and find a path through (granted we're only hearing half of one side of this) but I could see how this would need a better thought out process, given that this sits somewhere between a life support pod and a toilet.
City planning is tough. You have to have answers to tough questions, ahead of time. Questions like "what happens if the power goes out?" and "how do we clean around it?" and "what are the hazards of fluids leaking out of it?". Charging ahead without getting all parties on side is not a good way to get permission.
This kind of thing absolutely flys in bureaucracy. I guarantee your local bodega either doesn't have a sidewalk license (if they have stuff on the sidewalk of course) or only got it when the city cited them and forced their hand.
And as I said before, she thought she had permission. The government was literally funding and endorsing the project. It's just that not the right part of the government was involved, which is the classic example of excessive red tape.
There’s a difference between performing a licensed activity without a license, and performing an activity that’s not licenseable.
As to the red tape argument, you’re sort of implying that every niche of a massive bureaucracy ought to be familiar with every other niche. That’s simply impossible at scale.
The prescribed nature of permits means they know exactly what they have to factor into their planning decisions. It means vending machines and coin operated rides all meet certain specs, and that allows for speedy turnaround.
Open it up and you have to spend extra time classifying what you're allowing for before you can decide if it's allowable.
They will not support FIDO2, but they do support U2F which is compatible with a subset of the FIDO2 features. Specifically, they don't support PIN or username-less login, but they CAN be used as 2nd factors (emphasis on the 2) in addition to conventional username+password login.
I don't know a single city where license numbers and the complaint hotline are so prominently placed as in NYC. I believe it was common that cabbies ignored regulation but this appears to have changed in recent years.
The purpose of copyright law has never been to protect the public domain. Its explicit purpose, as even stated in the Constitution, is the protect the profits of the IP owners.
> 3. A popular enough feature to possibly gate the entire calculus for users to switch services.
I'd say GitLab's CI/CD system is a lot more useful of a feature. At the very least you can use the actual git blame or another git UI as a workaround. Good luck setting up a replacement CI/CD system.
> 4. Obviously useful feature, as evidenced by the gitlab triage engineer being convinced to add an issue with a single paragraph plea.
That's not how triage works. Just because a bug is filed doesn't mean it's "obviously useful". If the employee had immediately given it a high importance, a release date, and assigned it to somebody, that'd be a different story.
> 5. Gitlab is seemingly unaware of this publicly available information, to the trivially rectified detriment of their own bottom line.
Well, since there is another bug already filed for this feature more than six months ago, [0] I'd say they are quite aware, they just don't consider it as important as you do. The particular person that replied to you just didn't know about it (not surprising when they have more than 10k bugs open).
You seem to baselessly project negative emotions and motivations on to your interlocutors in lieu of coherent points that actually refute their arguments.
chinhodado, the GP, framed his feature request as one of the major reasons he is forced to continue using github. Gitlab's motivation for the very feature this thread is regarding, is to poach github customers, or at the very least, increase their customer base by giving people a smoother onramp to transition from github. More power to them.
The feature he describes does, in fact, have obvious utility, which is why it was so strange to me, someone who only uses gitlab for its most basic features, to see the exchange with the gitlab engineer. Surely a company with the venture capital that gitlab has raised would perform the basic ongoing market research that any company in nearly any competitive market performs.
It honestly made me wonder if gitlab on one hand, realizes that they need to inform themselves of useful features, but for whatever reason, doesn't avail themselves of github's features.
tl;dr - Since in California all construction requires an absurd amount of licenses, approvals, environmental studies, etc., and because local residents can sue for almost anything, the cost has skyrocketed.
Isn't this what eminent domain was created for? Shouldn't California state have the ability to make things happen for its own rail projects?
I'm sure I would, and I'm not blaming the land owners for being angry or litigious. But it's the government's job to decide where the line is drawn and when your options run out.
I'll bite. They don't, but they very much do have jurisdiction over the operation of domestic corporations engaged in interstate commerce, which this clearly is.
Events have clearly overtaken our regulatory frameworks. Political events are seeming to move towards nation state isolationism recently but reality is showing we need more supranational cooperation and regulations.
Correct, and that is an US-internal dispute between whoever is responsible (FCC seems to think it is) and that particular company. But this HN discussion is not about that at all. Most of the comments here about jurisdiction in space. FCC has no jurisdiction on that, although they surely seem to think they do, and it's bewildering to see all the US-centric comments who also think that.
Is what Swarm did bad? Yes, if we were to take FCC at face value (why should we?). Should the FCC be allowed to reprimand this american company? Probably, assuming FCC is telling the truth. Should the FCC act like the universal arbiter of space? No, it should not, and the sociopolitical attitude displayed here is much worse and harmful than the space pollution from Swarm.
Nowhere is the FCC acting as the "universal arbiter of space". And no reason has been given for not taking the FCC at face value on this.
And I disagree with the "sociopolitical attitude being bad". I fully believe that this "endanger other's things and don't care about it" attitude given by Swarm is the more dangerous one.
Where is anybody saying the FCC is the universal arbiter of space? As I said, the FCC is only involved because it's a US company. If it was a Russian company, it would involve the Russian government, etc.
Not exactly. It's unclear how they were able to launch successfully, but I doubt whatever mistake that occurred is indicative of the Indian government agreeing with the project. It's more likely they used social engineering of some sort to get their satellites on the rocket.
They apparently used a third-party to fit in with the other secondary passengers:
"Paperwork filed with the FCC by Swarm Technologies shows that it was planning to use Spaceflight, a Seattle-based launch services company, to get its satellites on board the PSLV. Spaceflight’s website shows that it did in fact supply 19 of the 31 satellites for January’s PSLV launch, including some with the SpaceBees unique 0.25U dimensions.
"Last year, Spaceflight senior mission manager Adam Hadaller told Spectrum that it checked all its customers’ safety regulations and communication licenses before launch. However, in response to questions this week, Spaceflight would only say: “Spaceflight has never knowingly launched a customer who has been denied an FCC license. It is the responsibility of our customers to secure all FCC licenses.”
"Neither Spaceflight nor ISRO could immediately confirm whether they routinely check launch customers’ FCC licenses. If they do not, there would seem to be little to stop satellite makers from deploying any device they choose into orbit."
