There is no written decision on the vacating other than what you already linked.
Reading the TRO, a lot jumps out at me. To pick a single thing:
"The Court HOLDS that because the State seeks injunctive relief pursuant to an
authorized statute, which supersedes the common law, it need not prove immediate and irreparable injury, nor does the Court have to balance the equities when the State litigates in the public interest."
A quick search doesn't show me that texas courts have interpreted it to do so anyway, but maybe they have - i'm not familiar enough with texas law to say for sure.
It was a helicopter evac. I guarantee you 100% at some point they intended to, and did control, the roof of a building or an area of land for some length of time in order to perform the helicopter evac. I bet they even said so, over the radio. I bet if it's not classified (unclear), you could get the operators to testify to this.
Even if it had been a boat evac they would do the same for the boat landing/evac area.
There is a 0% chance the planned military operation did not involve deliberately controlling some area, for some length of time, inside venezuela, for exfil.
The terms do not require they establish permanent control, or control for any significant length of time. Just that they intend to control, and did control, some area.
1. "Establish". Stabilize the control, not temporarily visit. Similar to flying a bit in the airspace does not count as establishing a control.
2. "Establish an area" also means that the area would be big enough and control significant/independent enough in order to maintain (!) it. E.g. imagine if most of the Delta were eliminated and only one guy survived, holding a maid hostage in the toilet. That would not count because the area is small, the control is insignificant and keeping the toilet space was not the original point anyway. Similar as attacking Brazilian servers would not count only because the traffic went through Venezuela's network.
Taking words out of sentences and trying to define them piece by piece rarely makes sense.
For example, you forgot the "intended to" part.
Especially taking terms about a military operation and appling regular dictionary definitions to them makes little to no sense.
For example, in the legal and contract realm, something like establishing control means simply having authority over something, even temporarily. IE statements of the intent to run venezuela would suffice, even without any land control, ability to do so, etc.
In practice - a court is going to give it a fairly broad reading consistent with an everyday person's understanding, since that is who is betting. They will additionally rely on public statements about intent, etc.
This assumes nobody can get enough information about the actual operational plans.
So if the court wanted to interpret "establish control" (which, again, it would not do separately from the other words, but let's say they did), it would do something like the following:
1. Is it defined in the contract? Yes - contract definition controls
2. Is it consistently used in context? Yes - context control
3. Is it a term of art in the field? Yes - definition of
term of art controls
4. Is it still ambiguous? Yes - evidence about what it means gets presented by both sides
Part 4 is where you'd present a dictionary definition.
In any case, there is no point in having this argument, as polymarket's TOS almost certainly allows them to do what they want, and nobody is going to care what random internet commentators who suddenly have turned themselves into full blown lawyers, think :)
(In fact, polymarket's terms requires you to agree that they have no control whatsoever over contract resolution, etc. They are also governed by the law of panama)
Lawyer here - i'm sure the TOS says they can do what they want, and most of the fight will be over the validity of that TOS/etc.
Ignoring that for a second, most of these comments miss the point - they are arguing over control of oil fields, etc.
The resolution terms are clear:
>This market will resolve to "Yes" if the United States commences a military offensive intended to establish control over any portion of Venezuela between November 3, 2025, and January 31, 2026, 11:59 PM ET. Otherwise, this market will resolve to "No".
They commenced a military operation.
It was (apparently) a helicopter evac. I guarantee you 100% at some point they intended to, and did control, the roof of a building or an area of land in order to perform the helicopter evac. I bet they even said so, over the radio. I bet if it's not classified (unclear), you could get the operators to testify to this.
Even if it had been a boat evac they would do the same for the boat landing/evac area.
There is a 0% chance the planned military operation did not involve deliberately controlling some area, for some length of time, for exfil.
The terms do not require they establish permanent control, or control for any significant length of time.
This is kinda right, kinda wrong. I was a workaholic - I was a VP of engineering at Google. I'm doing fine retired.
You don't have to find purpose when you retire
At all.
Instead, you just have to be willing to face each day when the day has no expectations. You can do anything you want, and decide you love it, hate it, whatever. You can do it again the next day, or not. you can hate it one day and love it the next. It's completely up to you.
For some people, this lack of structure is crushing. For others, it's liberating.
It's similar to having spent significant time alone as an adult - some people can't deal with it, some can.
I meet a lot of people who are like "I haven't figured out what i will do when i retire". These are the people i worry about, because there isn't anything to figure out. They want a structure that probably won't exist. They will likely tire of trying to force their own structure on it, and seek structure elsewhere (IE work).
In the past 3 weeks i've done the following:
Building powered paper airplanes with the kids
Mentoring high school and college students
Advising startups.
Woodworking
Hacking on CNC machines
Hacking on minecraft mods.
Hacking on compilers.
Playing video games.
and a lot more.
The next 3 weeks may be the same or different, depending on lots of things (mood, energy, schedules).
There are also days i do nothing cool or useful at all, and feel great (and unapologetic - nobody gets to judge my retirement but me, my spouse, and my kids :P) about it
The world is really big, and has lots to do. You just have to be able to drive yourself because you aren't being forced into doing anything at all.
In the end - for some i also feel it's similar to divorce - lots of people don't get divorced because they don't want to deal with being alone.
Retirement similarly forces you to spend a lot of time with yourself (even if you have an SO and even if they are retired). Lots of people don't like that, at all, for various reasons. Work lets them ignore it.
Just wanted to say, one of the exciting things I realized when I joined Google was that the maintainer of GDB was my org's director at that time. Not sure how much it matters, but it gave me confidence in the leadership to know that someone who knows the details is running the show at the top. It made me trust the leadership chain much more than I normally would otherwise.
I wonder if this was the LOL[1] days - looking back on it, it's hard to believe how much people outside the org cared about the name, and us trying to not take ourselves too seriously.
[1] For everyone else, at one point we named the org Languages, Optimizations, and Libraries. People either loved or hated it.
I was never a fan of 3d printers, but now own 2 fdm printers that I'm quite happy with. One is an industrial nylon printer, one a prosumer printer (h2c) for everything else (the nylon printer is much faster than the h2c, printing cf nylon at 30 mm^3 easy. It is also accurate enough at that speed that there are no obviously visible layer lines).
I've probably owned 6 or 7 over the past 10 years, mainly to check out new technology and such.
I also own a very nice wood cnc and a very nice metal cnc, and use both a lot. Since they are 6 figure machines, they get modified instead of replaced ;).
So I have never been afraid to spend money to try things. I also have no issue modifying things (I have rebuilt entire cnc cabinets and mechanicals from scratch, rewritten the plc programs, etc). I donate the things I'm done with to friends or schools.
I say all this because I have also tried 4 resin printers over the past 10 years, and cathartically thrown every single one in a dumpster to avoid anyone else experiencing them.
While they have come a long way, selling any of them as a beginner level printer for someone new to 3d printing should be a crime. I can't think of a faster way to turn someone off from 3d printing. If you are doing product development or dentistry they can make sense. If you want "click button, wait, receive printed model" like most beginners, they make no sense because of the workflow.
Ironically, the one parson I know happy with their resin printer uses it exclusively to print Warhammer 40k minis (he uses one of my old fdm printers for other stuff).
FWIW - mupdf is simply not fast. I've done lots of pdf indexing apps, and mupdf is by far the slowest and least able to open valid pdfs when it came to text extraction. It also takes tons of memory.
a better speed comparison would either be multi-process pdfium (since pdfium was forked from foxit before multi-thread support, you can't thread it), multi-threaded foxit, or something like syncfusion (which is quite fast and supports multiple threads). Or even single thread pdfium vs single thread your-code.
These were always the fastest/best options. I can (and do) achieve 41k pages/sec or better on these options.
The other thing it doesn't appear you mention is whether you handle putting the words in reading order (IE how they appear on the page), or only stream order (which varies in its relation to apperance order) .
If it's only stream order, sure, that's really fast to do. But also not anywhere near as helpful as reading order, which is what other text-extraction engines do.
Looking at the code, it looks like the code to do reading order exists, but is not what is being benchmarked or used by default?
If so, this is really comparing apples and oranges.
Of course attorneys can take on individual cases on contingency and make viable a case where the plaintiff lacks the spare six-figures of costs to even start the case.
That does NOT mean there is no effect beyond "case valuation".
Attorneys cannot simply take every case on contingency, and when the [potential reward]/[cost] ratio is not sufficient, the attorney must pass, and no suit will be filed.
Class Action literally makes it POSSIBLE
This is especially true where small-dollar harms are being done, but at scale of millions, where ripping off consumers is systematic, or where harms such as pollution affected many.
"This is especially true where small-dollar harms are being done, but at scale of millions, where ripping off consumers is systematic, or where harms such as pollution affected many."
All of these particular things seem exactly like the job of a state AG, or other form of regulator, vs private lawyers.
Political dysfunction aside, of course.
I'd personally rather the state AG and various consumer-friendly regulators of, say, california, have the billions of dollars going to the class action attorneys in that state.
Remember that class actions were not created to enable any of the things you cite. They were judiciary-created as a means of simple judicial efficiency (and requiring all affected plaintiffs to be grouped together). As such, outside of "they were there", it's not obvious why they are a particularly good way to solve the problems you give.
In case you think i'm particularly anti-consumer, i actually think LLC's should not exist and shareholders should be responsible for harms again. Which would likely obviate a lot of the practices class actions were suing over in the first place.
>>seem exactly like the job of a state AG, or other form of regulator, vs private lawyers. ...Political dysfunction aside, of course.
And there's the rub — most regulators and AGs will have some political leaning, and ALL of them have limited resources and will be unable to pursue every case, so many cases with great merit will go un-prosecuted.
For all of warts of class actions, that is an overwhelming benefit — a private class action, or latent threat thereof, can bring pressure where an AG or regulator will choose not to, or just lacks the budget and/or bandwidth to pursue.
And yes, making it easier to 'pierce the corporate veil' and create a stronger direct liability, including jail time, for officers, directors, and shareholders for intentional actions and omissions could do a lot to reduce harm of corporations.
"And there's the rub — most regulators and AGs will have some political leaning, and ALL of them have limited resources and will be unable to pursue every case, so many cases with great merit will go un-prosecuted"
Private litigators also have some political leaning, often as much or more as the AG, but ignoring that for a second, the limited resources part is very fixable.
Additionally, they are accountable to the people that vote for them (directly in some states, indirectly otherwise), ignorant or not, whereas private litigators are not. This is a feature and not a bug.
Instead we are optimizing or deoptimizing (depending on the state and viewpoint) for private litigation.
IE either they cap it or they uncap it, or ....
Also, as a general rule, if you have way too many cases with merit, the problem is probably not resources, but something else.
IE if you have tens of thousands of murders you can't prosecute due to lack of resources, you actually have a bigger, and different problem, than "we don't have the resources to prosecute all these murders". You won't actually get much of anywhere by having the resources to prosecute them all because you won't be solving the bigger, different problem causing you to have tens of thousands of prosecutable murders in the first place.
The same is true of most of these consumer class action cases.
Infinite lawsuits have not caused lots of behavior change, all told.
It is very hard for me to believe that 10x infinite lawsuits will somehow do it.
I see nothing in your pair of unnecessarily belligerent comments that actually contradicts what I said. There are host-side features that enable the clock discipline you are observing, even if you are apparently not aware of them.
This is a really helpful contribution - if only everyone could be as smart as you.
If mine are somehow too beligerent for you, which is hilarious given how arrogant and beligerent your initial comment and responses come off as (maybe you are not aware?), then perhaps you'd like to actually engage any of the other comments that point out how wrong you are in a meaningful way?
Or are those too beligerent as well?
Because you didn't respond to any of those, either.
PTP does not require support on your network beyond standard ethernet packet forwarding when used in ethernet mode.
In multicast IP mode, with multiple switches, it requires what anything running multicast between switches/etc would require (IE some form of IGMP snopping or multicast routing or .....)
In unicast IP mode, it requires nothing from your network.
Therefore, i have no idea what it means to "require support on the network".
I have used both ethernet and multicast PTP across a complete mishmash of brands and types and medias of switches, computers, etc, with no issues.
The only thing that "support" might improve is more accurate path delay data through transparent clocks. If both master and slave do accurate hardware timestamping already, and the path between them is constant, it is easily possible to get +-50 nanoseconds without any transparent clock support.
Here is the stats from a random embedded device running PTP i just accessed a second ago:
Reference ID : 50545030 (PTP0)
Stratum : 1
Ref time (UTC) : Sun Dec 28 02:47:25 2025
System time : 0.000000029 seconds slow of NTP time
Last offset : -0.000000042 seconds
RMS offset : 0.000000034 seconds
Frequency : 8.110 ppm slow
Residual freq : -0.000 ppm
Skew : 0.003 ppm
So this embedded ARM device, which is not special in any way, is maintaining time +-35ns of the grandmaster, and currently 30ns of GPS time.
The card does not have an embedded hardware PTP clock, but it does do hardware timestamp and filtering.
This grandmaster is an RPI with an intel chipset on it and the PPS input pin being used to discipline the chipset's clock. It stays within +-2ns (usually +-1ns) of GPS time.
Obviously, holdover sucks, but not the point :)
This qualifies as better-than-NTP for sure, and this setup has no network support. No transparent clocks, etc. These machines have multiple media transitions involved (fiber->ethernet), etc.
The main thing transparent clock support provides in practice is dealing with highly variable delay. Either from mode of transport, number of packet processors in between your nodes, etc. Something that causes the delay to be hard to account for.
The ethernet packet processing in ethernet mode is being handled in hardware by the switches and basically all network cards. IP variants would probably be hardware assisted but not fully offloaded on all cards, and just ignored on switches (assuming they are not really routers in disguise).
The hardware timestamping is being done in the card (and the vast majority of ethernet cards have supported PTP harware timestamping for >1 decade at this point), and works perfectly fine with deep CPU sleep states.
Some don't do hardware filtering so they essentially are processing more packets that necessary but .....
https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/ima...
There is no written decision on the vacating other than what you already linked.
Reading the TRO, a lot jumps out at me. To pick a single thing:
"The Court HOLDS that because the State seeks injunctive relief pursuant to an authorized statute, which supersedes the common law, it need not prove immediate and irreparable injury, nor does the Court have to balance the equities when the State litigates in the public interest."
Certainly the DTPA (https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/?tab=1&code=BC&chapter=BC...) authorizes temporary restraining orders, but if you read it carefully, there is nothing in it that explicitly overrides or replaces the typical TRO standards.
A quick search doesn't show me that texas courts have interpreted it to do so anyway, but maybe they have - i'm not familiar enough with texas law to say for sure.
There are other issues with the TRO
reply