xdmr · HackerTrans

2 tahun yang laludiscuss

A plague o' both both your houses!

2 tahun yang laludiscuss

Is that because their vision fails to provide the information necessary to drive safely? Or is it due to distraction and/or poor judgment? I don't actually know the answer to this, but I assume distraction/judgment is a bigger factor.

I'm not a fan of the camera-only approach and think Tesla is making a mistake backing it due to path-dependence, but when we're _only_ talking about this is _broadly theoretical_ terms, I don't think they're wrong. The ideal autonomous driving agent is like a perfect monday morning quarterback who gets to look at every failure and say "see, what you should have done here was..." and it seems like it might well both have enough information and be able too see enough cases to meet some desirable standard of safety. In theory. In practice, maybe they just can't get enough accuracy or something.

xdmr

2 tahun yang laludiscuss

Can anyone speak to whether this is likely to succeed on its merits, or point to analysis of same by competent professionals?

Obviously, it looks like a pretty egregious case of Oracle-ness, but it's the job of Deno's lawyers to make it look like that. I'd be interested to see disinterested commentary.

xdmr

3 tahun yang laludiscuss

> Our community has persistent and pervasive problems of a particular sort which we are not allowed to talk about: sexual harassment and assault. Men who assault, harass, and even rape women in our spaces, are protected.

This is completely alien to my personal experience. Does this match anyone else's personal experience? Have I just avoided all the objectionable events by sheer luck?

If this statement is true, I would have expected to have observed at least some harassment or mild assault by now, but I haven't. I can't think of an instance. I mean, one time I saw some guy grab some girl's ass, but it turned out she was his wife.

> I attended a hacker event this year – HiP Berlin – where I discovered that some of the organizers had cooperated to make it possible for multiple known rapists to participate, working together to find a way to circumvent the event’s code of conduct – a document that they were tasked with enforcing.

This is just kind of strange. It's not clear what he means by "circumvent" the code of conduct. Is he saying that they were rapists in the opinions of the organizers? And that if they were rapists in the opinions of the organizers then they should have barred them from the event, but they didn't?

I would assume that the most likely situation is that something happened which Drew thinks means the people in question are "known rapists" but the event organizers did not. And not knowing the facts, we can't really say which of them is right.

I mean, unless I'm supposed to just believe that Drew is right because he's speaking up about a difficult topic or something like that. At the risk of potentially silencing marginalized people with extraordinary standards of evidence: no, I won't just believe him.

xdmr

3 tahun yang laludiscuss

> even intentionally tweeting misinformation wouldn't break this law unless you were conspiring with others to do it.

Okay, but it has to break some law. You can't be convicted of conspiracy if you're conspiring to do something which is legal. If you actually completed the act you and the other conspirators planned, and this act was not a crime, then your conspiracy can't be a crime either.

xdmr

3 tahun yang laludiscuss

I don't actually know if intent is sufficient in this case. So maybe if nobody actually fell for it (or they did, but the government didn't bother to submit any evidence of this) then that would excuse it in law. 4900 people might have texted the number, but maybe half of them didn't have a vote, and the other half figured it out later and ultimately did vote. Maybe not, but if you have a sworn statement from someone that they didn't vote because of this, then there's no ambiguity about whether the harm actually occurred.

xdmr

3 tahun yang laludiscuss

I don't think this is true for all crimes. If I punch you that's assault. If I try to punch you and miss, that's not the crime of attempted assault. It can in some circumstances be other crimes, but not attempted assault (which afaict generally isn't a thing).

xdmr

3 tahun yang laludiscuss

What I don't understand: Is it established in the law whether intent is enough in this case for there to be a crime, or is actual harm required?

Lots of people are saying either "No evidence that any votes were lost" or "He obviously had mens rea." As far as I can tell, both of these statements are probably true. Sometimes in law, intent is enough to create a crime, and sometimes it isn't. For example, attempted murder is a crime, but attempted assault is not (although sometimes attempted _aggravated_ assault is). So, is it established that intent is sufficient for a crime in this particular case or not?

Note that when I say "no evidence" I mean that I don't think the government lawyers submitted any evidence (like a sworn statement by somebody who said that they got fooled and subsequently did not vote because they thought they already had) that anyone was deprived of a vote. I don't mean that there's no rational basis to believe that anyone was deprived.

xdmr

4 tahun yang laludiscuss

No, I am Ole Torvalds the poet!

xdmr

4 tahun yang laludiscuss

For comparison, here's the first bit of an Anthem file (which contains some of the data that's just another row in the Humana record), along with the first record

  "reporting_entity_name": "Excellus BlueCross BlueShield",
  "reporting_entity_type": "Health Insurance Issuer",
  "last_updated_on": "2022-06-14",
  "version": "1.0.0",
  "provider_references": [
    {
      "provider_group_id": 302.1518360704,
      "location": "https://mrf.healthsparq.com/exc-egress.nophi.kyruushsq.com/prd/mrf/EXC_I/EXC/providerReference/Providers/S-000000001063.json"
    }
  ],
  "in_network": [
    {
      "negotiation_arrangement": "ffs",
      "name": "Brief (20 minutes) care management home visit for an existing patient. for use only in a medicare-approved cmmi model. (services must be furnished within a benefi",
      "billing_code_type": "HCPCS",
      "billing_code_type_version": "2022",
      "billing_code": "G0081",
      "description": "Brief (20 minutes) care management home visit for an existing patient. for use only in a medicare-approved cmmi model. (services must be furnished within a benefi",
      "negotiated_rates": [
        {
          "negotiated_prices": [
            {
              "negotiated_type": "fee schedule",
              "negotiated_rate": 51.1,
              "expiration_date": "9999-12-31",
              "service_code": [
                "11"
              ],
              "billing_class": "professional"
            }
          ],
          "provider_references": [
            302.1518360704
          ]
        }
      ]
    },

xdmr

4 tahun yang laludiscuss

To save anyone else similarly curious the trouble, here's a sample record from the Humana data set:

  {'REPORTING_ENTITY_NAME': 'Humana Inc',
   'REPORTING_ENTITY_TYPE': 'Health Insurance Issuer',
   'LAST_UPDATED_ON': '2022-08-24',
   'VERSION': '1.0.0',
   'NPI': '1629053517,1659354272',
   'TIN': '593279318',
   'TYPE': 'ein',
   'NEGOTIATION_ARRANGEMENT': 'ffs',
   'NAME': 'Nasal Prosthesis Replacement See Also Code 21087',
   'BILLING_CODE_TYPE': 'CDT',
   'BILLING_CODE_TYPE_VERSION': '2022',
   'BILLING_CODE': 'D5926',
   'DESCRIPTION': 'Nasal Prosthesis Replacement See Also Code 21087',
   'NEGOTIATED_TYPE': 'negotiated',
   'NEGOTIATED_RATE': '906.98',
   'EXPIRATION_DATE': '9999-12-31',
   'SERVICE_CODE': '',
   'BILLING_CLASS': 'professional',
   'BILLING_CODE_MODIFIER': '',
   'ADDITIONAL_INFO': '',
   'BUNDLED_BILLING_CODE_TYPE': '',
   'BUNDLED_BILLING_CODE_VERSION': '',
   'BUNDLED_BILLING_CODE': '',
   'BUNDLED_DESCRIPTION': ''}

I think I agree about the negotiation arrangement

xdmr

4 tahun yang laludiscuss

CF didn't just decide not to do business with a customer. They cut them off without notice in a way which they knew would cause service disruption to that customer, after having been paid to do just the opposite. CF in fact hijacked their domain so that everyone would know they had done this. They did this after keeping the customer on their platform for weeks (and presumably billing them) while they wrung their hands over the customer and contacted law enforcement about that customer, which was plenty of time for them to tell the customer they were closing the account and to migrate their domain off of CF and whatnot, if that was what they wanted to do.

Imagine your neighbor had called out his Trump/Confederacy-endorsing lawn guy out for a job, then instead slashed his tires and told him "Well why don't you just push it home, you goddamn fascist?" I mean, sure, he's not entitled to an offer of work from your neighbor, and he can always get new tires. But somehow I still don't feel like your neighbor has done the right thing.

xdmr

4 tahun yang laludiscuss

My point is not that they had an obligation to continue to have a business relationship with KF, but that if they chose to terminate the relationship, they had an obligation to do so in a responsible way.

> Over the last two weeks, we have proactively reached out to law enforcement in multiple jurisdictions highlighting what we believe are potential criminal acts and imminent threats to human life that were posted to the site.

In other words, they had plenty of time to give KF notice and terminate the relationship. This didn't even have to stop them from contacting law enforcement. But they did something else instead.

xdmr

4 tahun yang laludiscuss

[flagged]

xdmr

4 tahun yang laludiscuss

Sure, but KF hasn't specifically clarified whether the block was without _notice_ as opposed to just without _discussion_. And even if KF had specifically claimed that there was no notice given, I still want to ask CF to confirm or deny this. I may be suspicious of CF, but I don't want to turn around and trust KF's statements unconditionally. Also, I've attacked CF for this [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32709749] and I would want to change what I said if I was wrong.

xdmr

4 tahun yang laludiscuss

Did Cloudflare give KF notice that it intended to take this action and enable them to avoid service disruption? Or did Cloudflare intend that KF should experience service disruption?

xdmr

4 tahun yang laludiscuss

CF could have said to KF "For various reasons we no longer wish to do business with you. In 24 hours we will stop redirecting to your servers. Please make appropriate arrangements." Had they done this, they would not have actually been censoring KF. They would also have been behaving like a responsible service provider by not cutting off service without notice.

Instead, they seem to have made the decision to do this in a way where they actually block access to KF, rather than in a way where they simply chose to stop doing business with KF. I could be wrong about this; maybe substantial notice was given, and CF reasonably believed that KF could have avoided service disruption. But given that they wrote a bunch of copy to go with this decision, including the copy for the redirect page, I'm inclined to think that this went off exactly as CF intended. They didn't give notice and attempt to prevent their customer from having service disruption because they wanted them to have service disruption, and they wanted everyone to know they wanted this.

CF should not do this. I don't care who KF is or what they've done. CF should either do right by their customers, or stop doing business with them in a responsible way. Not in a way designed to injure their customers. Especially after taking their money, but that's hardly the point.

xdmr

4 tahun yang laludiscuss

They call it Fusion 360 because you turn 360 degrees and walk away

xdmr

5 tahun yang laludiscuss

> "I'm not a medical doctor, but here is a bunch of medical advice that should be used to prosecute this defendant." It doesn't sound that great either way.

Yeah, it sounds like something the opposition's lawyer should try to prevent being accepted as expert witness testimony. I'm not a lawyer, but I have seen "My Cousin Vinny" so I understand that there are procedures for doing this.

On the other hand, maybe the opposition's lawyer wasn't able to prevent the witness from being accepted as an expert because the witness actually was an expert and ought to have been accepted as an expert, in spite of not being a doctor. Maybe she was a professor of pharmacology or something. Thus she could justifiably claim to say with expertise "X drug would be very likely to kill a patient of type T and should not be prescribed to them." But this sounds a lot like medical advice (I mean, a person with condition T who heard the testimony might decide not to take drug X), even though it isn't. It's expert witness testimony.

We try to prevent people from giving medical advice without a license because medical advice tends to be given in private to people who tend to trust it implictly and will thus suffer the consequences of it being dangerously wrong. When medical advice is given in public in front of a hostile enemy lawyer, this is less of a concern.

xdmr

5 tahun yang laludiscuss

A lot of people seem to be splitting hairs over whether this guy's testimony or report in the trial is or isn't "practicing engineering," and whether that means that he's therefore clearly in violation of the rules and should be punished, or whether this proves that professional licensing is evil and should be abolished.

What's missing is the fact that the conduct in question happened in a courtroom. If I drive over a bridge and it collapses and kills me, I don't get to hire a lawyer and an expert witness from the afterlife and have them try to impeach the credibility of the bridge designer or demonstrate the unsuitability of his plans and, if I manage to convince a jury, I get to be resurrected. Since I can't do this, the state enacted some rules about what kind of qualifications the guy designing the bridge has to have.

But in a courtroom, if I don't like this unlicensed engineer the other side wants to put on the stand, I can try to prove he doesn't know what he's talking about. I can hire my own engineer to help me come up with tricky questions to make a fool of him on the stand and maybe prevent him being accepted as an expert. I can cross-examine him with help from my own engineer to prepare. I can have my own engineer testify to rebut his claims. I have all sorts of options besides causing him to be threatened with violation of professional licensing laws.

The point is that the professional licensing laws exist to protect people in situations like driving over a bridge. They do not exist to protect the public from the risk that unlicensed people may testify in court about engineering, thereby potentially producing injustice. This is because lawyers already exist to do this job, and are extensively trained and licensed to do it. That's why the lawsuit attacks the professional licensing laws as _overbroad_, not inappropriate in the context of certifying people to design bridges and that kind of thing.

comments