Yes and no. If congress has granted the EPA authority to regulate water to ensure it's not bad for you, then someone needs to determine what "bad for you" means.
Previously, under Chevron, the courts would defer to the EPA as the experts to make that determination (with the understanding that congress could always pass more specific legislation if they felt the EPA was overstepping its granted authority)
What the Supreme Court has said is deferring to the agency is going too far, and that if congress wants specific things regulated then it needs to be specific in it's legislation. Prima facie that makes sense, except for two major problems: congress is not productive enough in passing legislation, and congress are not the experts
This means that when questions like this arise, it comes to the courts to be the ones who end up interpreting the statutes and making the determination on what "bad for you" means.
What you'd want is Architecture Unit Tests; you can define in code the metastructures and relationships, and then cause the build to fail if the relationship is violated.
The problem I've had with these tests is that the run time is abysmal, meaning they only really get run as part of CI and devs complain that they fail too late in the process
That is to say, it's entirely possible that you were already tortured and the backdoor is already there by using the same logic - no time machine needed
Like already said unfortunately the only safety would be reading the code
I read this book many years ago and thoroughly enjoyed it - in my opinion the movie did a good job as well, however I've found it increasingly difficult to find via online services (and even finding it on the high seas was rare, but perhaps that's changed)
When I read it my partner at the time was from an exUSSR country and validated the feelings of hopelessness, grift, and expectations of the future matched a lot of the personal experiences of people at the time
I was confused by this comment at first, because this post includes the "Poo-239" short story, the I realized it was an excerpt from a collection of stories entitled "Pu-239 and othe Russian Fantasies".
It's readily available online [1], just picked it up as that first excerpt was a great read. I particularly enjoyed the description of the laissez-faire attitude adopted by plant operators over years working in the same environment. Reminded me of my first tour as a merchant marine cadet and hearing an engine room alarm that sent my heart to my throat, but was all but ignored my the seasoned engineers. I'd quickly learn how frequent false alarms were. It's an interesting art differentiating between false and true alarms when all alarms sound identical. You really must deeply know a plant to do it effectively to realize a true anomaly. It's about context and learning the 'pattern of life' of the plant to sense what's truly abnormal.
The empire was collapsing on itself. USSR occupied nearly 1/6 of the total landmass, it had on the ground every imaginable element in the periodic table and yet it was not a self sustained developed country. Large part of it was corruption and constant stealing on every level possible, but also the fact that all of its economy was managed by what comes effectively down to a large Excel sheet - completely top down.
Gorbachev tried to turn it around and failed. Fortunately he was a great man because he had a lot of humility and he allowed to fall it apart gracefully (relatively speaking). This gave freedom (from Russians) to many nations, yet too many of them are still imprisoned within Russian Federation (the name is a hint - it's not Russia but a federation of many nations) and I think of it as a great tragedy, especially now, when mainly the minority nations are sent to kill Ukrainians and to get killed instead of Russians.
> he was a great man because he had a lot of humility and he allowed to fall it apart gracefully
Source?
> On 10 January Gorbachev addressed the Supreme Council, demanding a restoration of the constitution of the USSR in Lithuania and the revocation of "all anti-constitutional laws".[9] He mentioned that military intervention could be possible within days. When Lithuanian officials asked for Moscow's guarantee not to send armed troops, Gorbachev did not reply.
True, and this is why I added "relatively speaking". There was also Tbilisi massacre and the situation was very much on the edge also in Latvia and Estonia, but it all could have been much, much worse. He could have used brutal force and drowned all these independence movements in blood like was done in Budapest and Prague previously. Most importantly he accepted the withdrawal of Soviet armed forces from East Germany that eventually led to withdrawal of Russian occupation forces from all Russian occupied republics (except from less autonomous occupied territories on Russian SFSR).
I was remembering this story vaguely today out of the blue. I'm pretty sure I got to know it via some HN discussion (or was it Reddit, in better days?).
After taking a while to remember the details, I was surprised to see it hasn't been submitted (but mentioned in comments).
Thank you for your impression of the book, maybe I'll order it now.
I discovered this recently when I wanted to use the gloriously named AusweisApp2 (ID app 2, superseding a PC app which was at least forward thinking enough to be called ID app 1).
In theory it's simple to request a new pin - you can even do it within the app! However I've moved since I acquired the card, and so instead of the reset mails going to my registered address, I can only assume they went to the address stored on the card. And in a catch-22 of course you can only update that with a pin...
But no worries, you can simply book an appointment at your nearest buergeramt to have a pin reset in person; except there are no free slots in the next 3 months.. anywhere!
I needed documents for a new visa, which should give me a new card (and hopefully a new pin!), which ultimately turned out to be faster to do than trying to sort out the damn pin
They're considered fillers that mark a continuance on part of the speaker so that the other participants know that they will continue speaking. Different languages not only use different sounds, but in many cases continuation markers can also be "normal" words from the language. In English some examples would be "well", or "yes" which can be pure filler words to bridge to the next utterance.
That being said, what is a word anyways? You could argue that they're well understood units of language that convey meaning, which I would argue is pretty much a word
You make a good point. I looked it up and it's in MW and even scrabble recognizes it as an interjection. I think to be a word, at a minimum an utterance would have to conform to the phonemic structure of a language, but that's a low bar, and 'uh' passes. I guess it's a word!
It won't exclude anything. Loanwords can only be expressed in the phonemic structure of the language, because the speaker isn't capable of doing anything else.
> [...], because the speaker isn't capable of doing anything else.
Huh? Japanese people have the same vocal tracts as Germans who have the same vocal tracts as Egyptians. Just because someone's native languages don't have a particular sound or sound combination doesn't mean they can't learn.
That's especially true for sound combinations: a Turkish speaker might find a word that doesn't follow Turkish vowel harmony a bit weird, but would have no trouble pronouncing it even without any training.
And even if a particular speaker can't produce a certain word, they can still recognise it as a word when someone else uses it in the context of their language.
As an example, most English speakers I know can't pronounce 'kn' like in Germany 'Knie' or 'Knecht'. But I can say "Knie is German for knee." and that is a sentence of five words. Or "The Knesset is the unicameral legislature of Israel."
(Just to be clear, English has words like knee or knight that are spelled with kn, but the k is silent. If you ask English speaker to pronounce "Knie" the German way, they tend to introduce something like a Schwa between the k and the n sounds.)
A Japanese speaker can learn to speak German, but that's not the same as a loan word. Japanese is a great example for how loan words are modified to conform to the phonemic structure of a language because it absorbed so much english in the past century.
"Fight" is a word in english, but the loan word in japanese is pronounced "faito" because the language demands that all words end in either a vowel or syllabic 'N'. Japanese people are capable of saying english words without ending them in a vowel, but then they're speaking english, not japanese.
The word for salmon roe in japanese is 'ikura'. This is a loan word from russian: 'ikra' for caviar. But because of the Consonant-Vowel structure of the language, a 'u' was added when the word was borrowed.
One of the funniest examples is when a word is borrowed by japanese speakers and then gets translated back into english, the translators won't always return it to the original form. The name Lily would be pronounced "Riri" in japanese (japanese speakers might not even notice the difference between R and L because they're the same phoneme), and when it's translated back into english, it might come back as "Really". This has been a source of consternation for video game players before.
Likewise, when american english speakers borrow a word from a language with a trill or rolling R, they make it conform to the phonemic structure of the language by changing to a retroflex R.
And these sorts of examples are found everywhere. Every language has a particular structure for how valid words can be formed, and speakers of the language will modify foreign words to fit the sounds they're trained to emit unless they're consciously trying to speak a different language.
> but the loan word in japanese is pronounced "faito" because the language demands that all words end in either a vowel or syllabic 'N'.
By the way, it's worth observing that that is a requirement of the kana writing system, but it's not a requirement of the language. [It also isn't a requirement of the kanji writing system, in which a symbol can indicate any arbitrary sequence of sounds, but that system is difficult to use for purposes of indicating pronunciation.] There are circumstances in which high vowels are entirely deleted, the most prominent example being the ordinary pronunciation of です /desɯ/ with no final vowel at all.
The fact that "fight" gets borrowed as "faito" also looks like an artifact of the spelling system - /o/ is not a high vowel and can't be deleted, but in native Japanese there is no tu syllable - that space in the syllabary is occupied by the affricated tsu, so loanwords that originally ended in /t/ or /d/ are given the final vowel /o/ instead. Illiterate Japanese might or might not interpret the English sound of "fight" the same way.
I was taught in Japanese language class that unvoiced vowels don't get entirely deleted. You're still supposed to aspirate them, which affects the pacing of the language, but it's hard to hear it because unvoiced vowels don't really make a sound.
> The name Lily would be pronounced "Riri" in japanese (japanese speakers might not even notice the difference between R and L because they're the same phoneme), and when it's translated back into english, it might come back as "Really". This has been a source of consternation for video game players before.
It's also a source of consternation for people who consume Japanese media. There is a particularly funny example in the franchise Ah! My Goddess, in which the demon Maaraa (named after the Buddhist demon whose name in Sanskrit is Maara) gets "translated" into English as "Marller".
It's easy to see how a Japanese person went from the Japanese name to the English one - long Japanese vowels are taken as indicating English rhotic vowels, and then the fact that it would be strange for a rhotic vowel to be followed by an R hints that the Japanese R should be interpreted as an English L - but it's not exactly well-motivated by the actual name of the demon. (And while it might make sense to Japanese speakers attempting to make English out of Japanese, it makes much less sense to English speakers attempting to do the same thing - we hear "maaraa" as "mara" and view the Japanese derhotification of our rhotic vowels as a mistake, not an equivalence.)
I'm not sure what you think you're arguing. All loanwords in every language are pronounced using the phonemic structure of the borrowing language, the one that is being used, because that is the only possibility. The fact that someone is theoretically capable, after years of study, of learning to pronounce a foreign word, is not relevant in any way.
> All loanwords in every language are pronounced using the phonemic structure of the borrowing language, the one that is being used, because that is the only possibility.
That's not true at all. Have a look at eg how Turkish borrows from English.
Turkish borrows eg the word 'computer' wholesale without modification. Despite that word violating Turkish vowel harmony. (Unless you want to tell me that vowel harmony is not part of Turkish 'phonemic structure'?)
Similarly lots of German borrowings from English in recent decades don't adjust to German 'phonemic structure'. Eg German typically pronounces st at the beginning of a word like sht, but that only happens in the borrowing 'Stress' for some speakers. (See the IPA on https://de.wiktionary.org/wiki/Stress for evidence.)
I'm in a similar boat - I pretty much use the watch for HR tracking (as a proxy for stress), but otherwise keep things like the notifications disabled. This gets me about 20 days between charges
However the biggest problem is that the eInk screens seem to be a major failure point - even when working normally it seems to suffer massive burn-in making it unreadable after a few months.
My first watch had the screen die due to what I believe was trapped moisture (the weep-hole on the back is easily clogged) and just a few days ago my current watch also had the screen go bad.
It's really sad because the feature-set is almost precisely what I want, at exactly the price I'd like to pay
In Dennis v. United States the government jailed the leaders of the american communist party, and the supreme court upheld the conviction.
And if it's said that it's justified because they were the leaders: in Harisiades v. Shaughnessy the supreme court ruled that immigrants can be deported for being a previous member of the communist party, not even in any sort of leadership position. This includes just being a member for a year or two several decades ago.
You can make the argument that those were cases from the last century, so how about being arrested for exercising your first amendment in the wrong place: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone
For something even more recent, protesters attempting to stop a massive new police training center* are being charged with domestic terrorism
While there is definitely plenty of latitude around "free speech" in America, it's not limitless and the government will happily jail you if they disagree with what you're saying.
This is not even getting into topics like COINTELPRO
Here's a taste - the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (often referred to as the FISA court) authorizes security agencies to spy on US citizens. The court proceedings are secret, and the party being surveilled is unable to participate and is not aware of any of the proceedings. In terms of warrants issued:
> From 1979 through 2012, the court overseeing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act has rejected only 11 of the more than 33,900 surveillance applications by the government
> "The FISA system is broken. At the point that a FISA judge can compel the disclosure of millions of phone records of U.S. citizens engaged in only domestic communications, unrelated to the collection of foreign intelligence…there is no longer meaningful judicial review," Mr. Rotenberg said.
Previously, under Chevron, the courts would defer to the EPA as the experts to make that determination (with the understanding that congress could always pass more specific legislation if they felt the EPA was overstepping its granted authority)
What the Supreme Court has said is deferring to the agency is going too far, and that if congress wants specific things regulated then it needs to be specific in it's legislation. Prima facie that makes sense, except for two major problems: congress is not productive enough in passing legislation, and congress are not the experts
This means that when questions like this arise, it comes to the courts to be the ones who end up interpreting the statutes and making the determination on what "bad for you" means.