A ticket (citation) is a promise to appear before a court, not a conviction of anything. Law enforcement can cite anyone with only reasonable suspicion than a crime or infraction has been committed.

Are you bringing attention to this matter at your city council meetings? The squeaky wheel gets the grease.

No.

I think the poster is looking for temporary coping advice, not advice on how to be alone forever.

> most people should aim to do what we've been biologically evolved to do, namely find companionship and love w/ someone and raise a family.

You misunderstood the point. The GP isn’t saying you shouldn’t do that. They’re saying that if you find yourself in the position where you don’t have mutual love for one another, the relationship could be worse for the both of you than if you were both alone.

> I don't know what "being with the wrong person" means. There is no "right" or "wrong" person as the world doesn't revolve around you.

It’s subjective. As is love itself.

The person quotes his or her qualifications as being single for 20 years, as though that's a qualification. It was 100% about long term coping mechanisms for persistent loneliness and drifting in life. Why would you want to model that?

I agree I am not a good role model for marital advice. That is why I am not giving any. All my advice is about self-care when your only company on vacation is, for whatever reason, a cat and PlayStation controller.

Did you consult any tax lawyers before releasing trypixie? Feels super risky.

I did and a few CPAs. Surprisingly my customers have been CPAs buying to offer to their clients.

Pixie is more like quickbooks or any other record keeping software. We don’t employ the children, their parents do. And as long as the kids are doing legitimate work, it’s fair and actually the irs has a page on it. https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employe...

I assume you do not write software to earn a living?

I do. And I get paid because I write it fulfill to the customer's need that's not covered by an existing solution, not because some law prevents using what already exists.

And if that was stolen by someone else to give to other customers for free, how might that impact you?

It wouldn't impact me at all. Without our hardware it is useless. And customers need certifications, support and availability guarantees. Customers aren't paying shit for code. They don't need code. They need solution to their problems. Of which my code is a very small (if critical) part of.

And yes, that's totally irrelevant. Because the mere fact that some people depend on some evil for their living doesn't justify its existence.

That’s good for you, but for the rest of us, we live in economies of scale. Copyright is the legal underpinning of most software engineers’ ability to earn a living and feed their families.

> So they give them a really low offer and get them on their way as quickly as possible.

With a guilty plea. They don’t walk away without a conviction.

Of course, but it's sometimes a better deal for the defendant than if they had spent their money on private counsel.

As an attorney, I’m interested in this theory. Do you have any examples that illustrate the phenomenon you describe?

Since it's too late to edit my other reply — here is a description of a recent case involving several of the categories I mentioned: https://reason.com/volokh/2026/03/06/california-appeals-cour...

And you will find many more by reading (or subscribing to the RSS feed of) the Volokh Conspiracy blog's "AI in Court" tag: https://reason.com/category/law/ai-in-court/

Sure, but which part: opposing counsel using LLMs; opposing counsel simply using bullshit asymmetry to befuddle (nothing new); or judges not always reading and looking deeply into the arguments and authorities (also nothing new)?

If the first category, there have been plenty of examples that have even made their way onto the HN front page in the last half year or so. There have even been instances of judges using LLMs to draft orders containing confabulated authorities.

> opposing counsel simply using bullshit asymmetry to befuddle (nothing new)

This one in particular.

I’m not trying to muddy any situation. I don’t have to: Reality has a lot of nuance.

Besides, it is possible to both agree that these tariffs should never have been implemented in the first place and have some sympathy for the agency that has literally never had to do something like this at this scale before and is now under duress to come up with a working, legal, and fair mechanism for implementing one at breakneck speed.

I think you'll have to dig very deep to strike any sympathy for the CBP.

CBP is a sprawling agency charged with a broad variety of responsibilities. You can possess furious anger at the gestapo-like tactics the Border Patrol have engaged in while also feeling sympathy for the customs agent charged with accurately collecting duties on millions of dollars worth of imports every day and filing the mountains of paperwork that go along with that.

> you'll have to dig very deep to strike any sympathy for the CBP

Not me. They’re ordinary people doing administrative tasks. Most of them have dutifully turned up for work and done their jobs as the law required them to. They’re now being asked to work overtime to fix a mistake they didn’t make.

Just following literally illegal orders.

They didn’t know they were illegal at the time, and no court had ruled they were until literally just last week.

Besides, we’re taking about imposing tariffs, not depriving people of life or liberty. Have some persective.

That’s not true. 2 different courts ruled them illegal months ago. The administration decided to fight it abnd each time they lost.

It certainly would have been prudent for cbp to contemplate this very scenario given their own lawyers predicted it. But let’s be honest, that would have gotten them fired.

The headline is absolutely declarative. CBP can't comply. Period.

That's not what CBP said, and the article itself has the nuance that the headline doesn't