I’d love to see this placed into the context of the (actual) average Joe. If you consider that the average person dramatically overestimates their reasoning skills and can’t correctly do high school level math, I think it would help understand if we have reached AGI. It would also just provide some color to the state of things.
HN has a diverse set of viewpoints. For any assertion one might make, there will be someone with the opposite viewpoint.
In addition to out-and-out opposition or agreement that sounds vaguely oppositional, a comment might call for a pedantic annotation, a tangential aside or book recommendation.
That Hitchens quote is pithy and snow-clonable but demonstrated an impoverished and static epistemology. It is circular and self-falsifying by respectively assuming the existence of “evidence” independent of the assertion’s observation bias and not obeying its own assertion.
That's to be expected. A typical conversation starts with someone taking a high-dimensional problem, projecting it to their favorite dimension, and saying "the solution is obviously on my side on the number line". Of course you'll get multiple "contrarian" replies ranging from "hey, what about my preferred dimension" to "you know the problem has more than one of them?".
This exactly, the 5th has the wildest and most twisted rulings to the point even the current Supreme Court has slapped a few down. Any reasonable person should be skeptical.
Well judging how bad a court is by how many times this Supreme Court reverses it isn’t the best metric, that would require the SC to be a fair and reasonable actor
Sorry for the confusion there, but I bought that up as a point that their rulings have been so bad that even the current, extremely partial SC, has been forced by the politics of the situation to slap down their rulings. It’s as if your own friends tell you you’ve gone a bit too far.
This notion of devaluing the judiciary just because they don't judge the way you want is precisely how rule of law is eroded and societies eventually wither and die.
If you bothered to read the ruling, you would learn that the EPA specifically exempted ongoing processes as of and after 2015 under Section 5. This obviously exempts Inhance's fluorination process and is in line with Section 5's wording.
You would also learn that the EPA did not include fluorination among its list of things to regulate.
The EPA then cited those regulations under Section 5 to order Inhance to stop their decades-old fluorination process.
That is simply bullshit, that is pulling regulations out of thin air. Note that the court explicitly cites Section 6 is what the EPA should use to regulate PFOA, which the court explicitly says is by itself not wrong.
Any reasonable person should read the ruling and most likely be applauding the court for bringing a misguided executive agency into line, because the United States of America is a country governed by rule of law and the EPA in this instance did not follow due process.
No, devaluing the 5th because they regularly have completely insane takes is logical. They regularly twist legal frameworks for completely out of pocket takes. Criticizing government actors instead of blindly trusting every ruling without reading it is how democracy functions and grows. If you’re so upset over that, you probably need to re evaluate if you should live in a country where citizens get to distrust their government. That’s exactly the foundation of this one.
>Criticizing government actors instead of blindly trusting every ruling without reading it is how democracy functions and grows.
I did read the ruling[1], and unless the ruling is straight up perjury the EPA dropped the ball.
Criticizing the court for not ruling the way you wanted, and presumably without reading the ruling because you're grossly disregarding their value, is unreasonable and erodes rule of law.
Yes, the ruling is straight up judicial perjury. It deliberately misstates the statutory language to create a regulatory conflict where non exists.
Indeed, the court is taking a non-binding FAQ on the EPA website, and treating that as more legally constraining on the EPA than the actual regulations they issue. That's f'ing ridiculous.
And to make things more ridiculous, they created a binding implication, where non actually existed in the proposed language that the 2015 exemption would not apply to ongoing uses.
The EPA themselves defined "new use" with regards to PFAS as any manufacturing or process not ongoing as of and after 2015, as cited in the ruling:
>In response to growing concerns about PFAS, the EPA proposed a new SNUR in January 2015, “designating as a significant new use manufacturing . . . or processing of an identified subset of [PFAS] for any use that will not be ongoing after December 31, 2015, and all other [PFAS] for which there are currently no ongoing uses.”
>The proposed rule also made clear that the SNUR would apply only to “any use not ongoing as of the date on which this proposed rule is published.” Id.
So not only are the EPA aware of what Section 5's "new use" language means and tried to twist it during enforcement, they ignored their own very specific definition to try and regulate Inhance.
That is what the courts are telling to EPA to stop doing. The courts are ordering the EPA to cite the appropriate law and write appropriate regulations following due process first, otherwise known as Section 6, in order to regulate Inhance and their fluorination process which the court reaffirms is something the EPA can do.
>This notion of devaluing the judiciary just because they don't judge the way you want is precisely how rule of law is eroded and societies eventually wither and die.
That's not what anyone said though. There's a difference between disagreeing and being unreasonable. Here, you too are being unreasonable because you've purposefully skipped past this in order to twist this even more politically.
> Most of the people here are white knighting for the EPA, throwing down the courts, villifying corporations, and it's fairly clear they haven't actually read the ruling either.
Why do you think you can brazenly lie to people like this? It's not going to work and it's not acceptable.
You responded to a specific post about a specific thing with a made-up thing, that wasn't what was being discussed. That's why you are unreasonable. Here now, again, you are doing it by twisting your post to now be about everything else, except the actual post you responded to, which had a pretty specific and reasonable criticism of the 5th circuit. This most recent post by you screams of projection, where you instead just insist the 5th circuit is "reasonable" just because you don't like why people disagree with them. Apparently the irony of this is beyond you.
>you instead just insist the 5th circuit is "reasonable" just because you don't like why people disagree with them.
No, I find the court's ruling here reasonable because I read through the ruling and the included timeline of events and found their conclusion makes sense. That is quite different from handwaving away their authority because you just don't like their rulings.
You could also read the ruling like I did and try arguing what about it is "wild" and "twisted" as the comment I replied to put it, an unreasonable sentiment also shared by most of the people in this thread.
For starters, do most of the people here realize the court affirms the EPA's right to regulate PFOA and does not find fault with the core reasoning itself? If this court is "wild" and "twisted", is it "wild" and "twisted" for the EPA to regulate PFOA properly under Section 6?
> No, I find the court's ruling here reasonable because I read through the ruling and the included timeline of events and found their conclusion makes sense. That is quite different from handwaving away their authority because you just don't like their rulings.
But the post was about the 5th Circuit in general, which has come out with a number of incredibly unreasonable rulings. That was the criticism, that the 5th Circuit shouldn't inherently be trusted as reasonable just because.
>You could also read the ruling like I did and try arguing what about it is "wild" and "twisted" as the comment I replied to put it, an unreasonable sentiment also shared by most of the people in this thread.
I feel like you haven't been engaging with what I actually wrote with if you keep arguing this.
>that the 5th Circuit shouldn't inherently be trusted as reasonable just because.
Yes, and that goes both ways.
I read the ruling and found its conclusion reasonable, thus the court insofar as this case is reasonable. If you or anyone else thinks the court is unreasonable with their ruling here, please read the ruling and make your case like I have. What part is "wild" and "twisted"?
>I feel like you haven't been engaging with what I actually wrote with if you keep arguing this.
What part of "I read the ruling and found it reasonable." do you not understand? What part of "I find shooting the messenger unreasonable." do you not understand? What part of "Denying the judiciary just because you don't like them is an attack on rule of law." do you not understand?
>I read the ruling and found its conclusion reasonable, thus the court insofar as this case is reasonable. If you or anyone else thinks the court is unreasonable with their ruling here, please read the ruling and make your case like I have. What part is "wild" and "twisted"?
As I have several times pointed out to you, the thread you responded to wasn't discussing the reasonability of this ruling, but the reasonability of the 5th Circuit in general, to which it has also been pointed out to you, has had a number of its more extreme decisions overruled by the current supreme court.
>What part of "I read the ruling and found it reasonable." do you not understand? What part of "I find shooting the messenger unreasonable." do you not understand? What part of "Denying the judiciary just because you don't like them is an attack on rule of law." do you not understand?
There's no part of that which I don't understand, and it's an odd response to insist I'm not understanding your posts, which I very clearly do and have repeatedly pointed out as pertaining to a different issue than what was being discussed, by asking if I understood that you think the court is reasonable. Yes, we get that you think the court is reasonable here. Try reading my posts again. Or, don't. Either way, no need to be angry.
You're still not understanding me, so let me rephrase:
What is the point of referring to other cases, which may or may not be unreasonable, and using them to throw out the court's authority? Without even reading their ruling, for that matter. Or worse, for no reason other than you don't like their ruling?
The answer is there is no point, at least not any that is productive. All you achieve is the spreading of doubt and uncertainty about the judiciary and thus the laws governing the land. It's an attack on the rule of law, and the only logical conclusion if this is kept up is anarchy. I find this ironic, actually; because these people presumably want to protect the rule of law, but they are achieving the exact opposite.
Read the ruling and make your case. Otherwise there can't be any useful conversations.
>What is the point of referring to other cases, which may or may not be unreasonable, and using them to throw out the court's authority? Without even reading their ruling, for that matter. Or worse, for no reason other than you don't like their ruling?
Because the discussion was about the quality of the Court's opinions in general. I'm not sure what is so difficult about that for you to grasp.
>The answer is there is no point, at least not any that is productive.
We are just people sharing opinions on HN, I'm not sure where you got the impression that your posts were productive, or any of the posts here are productive, nor by what means you seem to have used to come to such a conclusion.
>Read the ruling and make your case. Otherwise there can't be any useful conversations.
Once again, you are being unreasonable. It's completely valid to talk about the general quality of decisions made by a circuit court. I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that such a thing cannot be discussed "productively" And it seems you are basing your opinion here on the fact that wait for it others disagree with you!
>The answer is there is no point, at least not any that is productive. All you achieve is the spreading of doubt and uncertainty about the judiciary and thus the laws governing the land.
The legitimacy of any court is based on, in part, how it is received by the public. That's the nature of government and law. I'm really not sure how you came to the conclusion that courts cannot be criticized, but it's flat-out asinine. The 5th Circuit has done its own work to spread doubt and uncertainty regarding the quality of its rulings, and that is absolutely not the fault of anyone pointing out the deficient quality of a number of its recent rulings. To suggest otherwise seems more than stifling.
>Because the discussion was about the quality of the Court's opinions in general. I'm not sure what is so difficult about that for you to grasp.
Because the discussion is about the ruling on this case by the court. Discrediting the court because of dogma is utterly pointless.
>Once again, you are being unreasonable. It's completely valid to talk about the general quality of decisions made by a circuit court. I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that such a thing cannot be discussed "productively" And it seems you are basing your opinion here on the fact that wait for it others disagree with you!
It's one thing to read the ruling and poignantly point out flaws so they can be criticized in ways that are useful. Constructive criticism, as it's often called. Criticizing the judiciary in itself is fine and certainly encouraged. In fact, this is fundamental to the concept of appealing to higher courts.
What's not fine is criticizing the courts solely because you don't like how they ruled. You didn't even read their ruling. You're just trying to discredit an entire foundational institution because they didn't act in your favor. That is nonsense and an affront to rule of law and a functioning society.
>The legitimacy of any court is based on, in part, how it is received by the public. That's the nature of government and law. I'm really not sure how you came to the conclusion that courts cannot be criticized, but it's flat-out asinine.
See prior point.
>The 5th Circuit has done its own work to spread doubt and uncertainty regarding the quality of its rulings, and that is absolutely not the fault of anyone pointing out the deficient quality of a number of its recent rulings. To suggest otherwise seems more than stifling.
If we're going to discuss the ruling of a court, it is a requirement that we read the ruling and consider the points made. That is not happening here, and I am going to call that bullshit out.
>Because the discussion is about the ruling on this case by the court. Discrediting the court because of dogma is utterly pointless.
No, the post you replied to was about the 5th Circuit in general.
>What's not fine is criticizing the courts solely because you don't like how they ruled. You didn't even read their ruling. You're just trying to discredit an entire foundational institution because they didn't act in your favor. That is nonsense and an affront to rule of law and a functioning society.
Once again, not what anyone was doing. It is what you are doing about other people's criticism.
>If we're going to discuss the ruling of a court, it is a requirement that we read the ruling and consider the points made. That is not happening here, and I am going to call that bullshit out.
We were discussing the 5th Circuit's rulings in general. I'm not going to belabor this, you can make up whatever you want to justify your posts, that's your choice.
>No, the post you replied to was about the 5th Circuit in general.
Which was in reply to another post about the 5th circuit, which was in reply to my post about the ruling on this case, which was in reply to a post about the need for regulations to ban chemicals, which was in reply to the linked article about the 5th circuit's ruling on this case.
This whole thread is about the ruling on this case.
>Once again, not what anyone was doing. It is what you are doing about other people's criticism.
Literally what the post I replied to was doing, calling the court "wild" and "twisted".
Incidentally, nobody including you has mentioned what about this ruling is "wild" and "twisted" yet despite numerous requests to do so. Are you aware how discussions on a subject matter are conducted?
>We were discussing the 5th Circuit's rulings in general. I'm not going to belabor this, you can make up whatever you want to justify your posts, that's your choice.
See first point. If you want to talk about the 5th circuit in general, make your own thread. This thread is about the 5th circuit's ruling on the case between EPA and Inhance.
>This whole thread is about the ruling on this case.
So you are saying no one can discuss the 5th circuit in general in response to one of its rulings? One might even say "this ruling is reasonable, but that court sure hasn't been lately" and you'd still say the same. Get a grip!
>Incidentally, nobody including you has mentioned what about this ruling is "wild" and "twisted" yet despite numerous requests to do so. Are you aware how discussions on a subject matter are conducted?
I never said any of those things. You are really picking the wrong bone with me.
I chatted with him several times. One thing I've noticed is that Larry and Carl both have some behaviors that are consistent with ... inflexible thinking ... that I recognize in myself and have worked to correct.
Anyway ,we chatted about his latest company, which I can't find now. The idea was this: industrial facilities often return really noisy signals on the electrical supply lines, and the electrical company has to do a lot of work to clean it up (hey, I'm not an EE). Like, motors, etc, all severely distort the waveform. So his company made and I guess sold a product that you'd put at your electrical service panel that "cleaned up" the signal before it went back to the power company. In response, the company would give you cheaper power prices.
I was reminded of this when Larry Page met with Donald Trump early in the Trump administration and brought up one of his favorite plans- to rebuild the US electrical grid around DC distribution. He's truly made for another world.
That’s a super thoughtful response, thanks. Also my armchair understanding is that HVDC electric is superior and our electrical grid needs the rework anyways haha
Yes of course - it depends on what lens though. If you mean "I'm learning to build better from this" then no, but its very informative on Meta's own goals and mindset as well as real numbers that allow comparison to investment in other areas, etc. Also the point was mostly that Meta does publish a lot in the open - including actual open source tech stacks etc. They're reasonably good actors in this specific domain.
Hey I can shed light on this. It’s the iCloud keychain. Disabling the keychain doesn’t delete existing entries. There is no way to modify the keychain on iOS (you can on Mac). Lots of apps store sign on data in the keychain for obvious reasons.
It would be really great to have a keychain section in iOS’s settings, like Keychain Access on Mac. The dev can build in-app functionality to delete keys from the keychain, but there’s not a huge incentive to.
Keychain storage doesn’t let FB track you, just store sign on info, keys, and the like. It’s not able to execute arbitrary code, it’s an encrypted place to store login info that Apple syncs between your devices.
Use them via Safari if you don’t want this (then your logins are saved & synced in Safaris keychain.)
It's not specific to iCloud Keychain--it applies to on-device Keychain on iOS devices, too, even if you don't use iCloud. Any developer can store data there with no way for the user to know or see what it's saving, and it's shared among all apps from the same developer. Keychain is quite a misnomer here--it's really "store any (short) data you want on a user's device without them ever being able to see or remove it". It transfers when you restore backups on new devices, too, even if you haven't had the developer's apps installed in the last decade.
This is an issue because if you ever use an app by a company, uninstall all their apps, and then install one of the developer's apps years later, they can tell it's the same iOS profile (even restored on a different device), profile what you do across those apps/installs/decades, and associate any accounts you log in with. Essentially they can put a permanent cookie that you can't even see on your iOS profile that's shared between their apps. If you use iCloud Keychain, they can probably profile you across all your devices regardless of whether you reset one.
Apple has said this isn't intended functionality and they were going to address the issue many years ago in iOS 10.3 by removing Keychain data when the last app from a developer was uninstalled [1], but they got cold feet. If I recall correctly, the reason was that some app developers were relying on this unintended functionality to ensure free trials couldn't be used more than once. Apple was going to introduce a service that could store only 2 bits of data to enable that use case and then revisit Keychain deletion when the last app from a developer is uninstalled, but it appears they haven't.
This is also used heavily for abuse / spam / fraud prevention.
If you detect that a user is abusing your service, the ability to put a permanent cookie on their device is very useful.
This isn't effective against organized crime groups (they can just get Macs / use the web / whatever), but works well against your average troll or internet racist.
Still tracking, but a very different kind of tracking.
The "store 2 bits of information" approach Apple was moving exploring would solve at least a lot of that case. You could effectively store 3 pieces of information: 00 = default state, 01 = used free trial, 10 = banned, 11 = something else the developer wants to store about the iOS profile. You don't need to be able to uniquely identify it to ban it.
It sure lets app developers identify me across app deletions and reinstalls!
I'm also not sure why Apple has kept this loophole open for so long when they are otherwise so focused on making sure user tracking across reinstalls is so hard (e.g. by making APNs tokens change after a reinstall, which used to not be the case as well, restricting access to read the device MAC address and other permanent identifiers etc).
You can theoretically do that, but that's against app store regulations. I'd imagine that logging out first, then deleting the app, should prevent the behavior because afterwards there's very little reason to have any sort of lingering keychain data. But at the end of the day, it's basically an honor system.
Are you serious? They literally know my previous accounts even after I DELETE the app, WIPE the iPhone, and login to the same iCloud account on ANOTHER iPhone.
They do this by storing some data. They can store data about anything else. How can be sure if we can't even LOOK at that data?
I only caught this because of the visible symptoms they CHOSE to show us: The list of previous logins.
