It was really bad at first for this type of thing. I just tried a few of them because I too had given up on them and they seem to work perfectly now. It even cancelled the alarm I had previously set when I simply said "cancel the last alarm".
It is terrifying is what it is. That HN seems to be pretending that everything is going just fine and allowing these discussions to be buried is more than a little bit concerning. Have a fucking spine!
For the 94th time: It's not that we don't have a spine. It's not that we're pretending everything is fine. It's that we don't want to discuss it all day long on HN. We want HN to be something else than a political discussion site.
Bluesky, Mastodon, Lemmy, Tildes X, Reddit. Do you want more?
On Bluesky and X you're actually fairly likely to read the conversation or at least policy viewpoints of actual policy makers and think tanks. Rather than hackers speculating about a field they have little experience in.
Then don't discuss it? Literally don't click the thread, that's all it takes. Heck, you can even hide it! Why does everyone else have to pretend the world doesn't exist for your sensitivites? Why are a couple of users allowed to entirely dictate what is "authorized" to discuss?
The site guidelines dictate what is appropriate to discuss. The site guidelines say that most politics is off-topic. Partly because political conversations turn into... into the kinds of discussions that the political threads here have been turning into.
Just asking a question like proves the point. Bluntly yes those discussions are fine. With the huge polarization in politics, regardless of side it devolves into an endless low-signal comments that add nothing new of value. There is no added value in any comments that would crop up from a post like this. It is also why anything related to Israel vs Gaza get auto flagged. People like to project it’s because of secret operations to remove all negative publicity but generally it’s more mundane, folks don’t want to rehash the same arguments over and over.
I understand the idea here of course. I have been posting and commenting on HN for the better part of two decades. I don't want to see HN descend into a complete chaos of political news, I agree with that. But it also feels not so right to have absolutely zero response or reflection on current events within this community given how close this democracy seems to be teetering on the edge.
This community DOES generally have a higher level of discourse than other parts of the internet and I don't believe that is wholly because we avoid contentious topics. (thus my vim vs emacs example)
This is my feeling exactly. I also don't want to be discussing politics here and have used the "hide" function many times since 2009. But this is bigger than everything we'be been discussing here in all that time, and if we don't fight back soon everything we have will be lost.
Tenure of two decades has little to do with these stories having low signal. These news stories are everywhere, the comments have low to no value and the article itself has no nuance or insight.
Israel v Palestine. Lots of posts will pop up over time. If it’s simply an another attach or similar and you start seeing a he roll of disagreement from both sides, flag. There is nothing additive to it. I remember vouching a story though that was touching on Israel’s PR marketing ability of the war. That’s fascination and both new as well as high potential to discuss something new.
In the current immigration and administration. I feel like to some degree the horse has been beaten. There is not much to add for yet another misstep in the administrations policy. There is both no new interesting angles from the news itself and the discussion has been beaten to death by both sides already.
It is not an indication that the topic is not important but to me that there is nothing left to say on the topic. I am certain there are folks that would love to keep going on and on about it for either side but nothing new or engaging comes from it. I am sure others disagree but that is my mental model.
This is entirely as it is supposed to operate. See Archibald Tuttle
[0]. Cowardly, weak little men who would never have the nerve to look
another in the eye, are depicted in Terry Gilliam's "Brazil" in a
different way to Orwell's Nineteen Eighty Four. Whereas the "Thought
Police" of the latter are happy to use violence, the grey bureaucrats
of Gilliam's world hide behind malfunctioning machinery which is their
unpredictable attack dog. As with weapon dogs it is a vicarious
instrument which they claim to have "no control over".
There's no honesty in the current administration, legal arguments or otherwise.
It's all big talk and false macho garbage and then the next moment victim card when the president complains that people say bad things about him and he needs the legal system to come down on critics ...
You’re complaining about lack of honesty, but you’re talking about an article that fails to mention that this guy was ordered deported in 2019 for gang ties after an administrative appeal. Or that this man immigrated illegally in 2011 but didn’t file an asylum claim until 2018. Or that the immigration judge denied his asylum claim.
The information omitted by the AP article completely changes the understanding of what actually happened.
He was ordered deported because he wore a bulls hat and an anonymous informant claimed he was a member of a gang in a city he never lived in? Is that the basis we're talking about?
If a determination by an immigration judge followed by a BIA appeal isn’t sufficient to deport suspected gang members, how can we enforce our immigration laws at all? Do we need a jury trial with proof beyond a reasonable doubt?
> If a determination by an immigration judge followed by a BIA appeal isn’t sufficient to deport suspected gang members
Kind of a weird question to ask, given that the deportations to El Salvador pretext on the Alien Enemies Act involve none of that, and this specific individual was granted protection from deportation to El Salvador at his immigration hearing in 2019, and the government chose not to appeal.
Note that as well as being in violation of the only decision made by an immigration judge in his individual case, his removal under the Administrations invocation of the Alien Enemies Act also is outside of the authority of invocation of that Act even if one assumes the invocation is valid, as, being invoked on the pretext of an existing war with Venezuela initiated by a Venezuelan invasion of the US (which is preposterous on its face, and the Administration is doing nothing to prosecute the war initiated by this invasion beyond deporting people without due process, demonstrating the lack of seriousness of the claim), it applies only to Venezuelan nationals, and he is Salvadoran.
That said, before being enslaved—and those sent to CECOT are both enslaved and trafficked in the international slave trade—under the 13th Amendment, yes, anyone is entitled to criminal trial.
This specific alien was not deported under the AEA. And the immigration judge and BIA both found him deportable on the basis of ties to MS13. And they denied his asylum claim.
So the scope of what’s at issue here is compliance with whatever “protection from deportation” might exist where someone has been found to be deportable due to gang ties, and found to lack a valid asylum claim. What possible justification could there be, and are we going to let all the 22 million illegal aliens in the country invoke such third-string justifications?
Why on earth should people facing extreme legal sanction (deportation) not be entitled to a trial to dispute the claims against them? This is basic rule of law stuff. Currently the admin is trying to deny these people the right to plea their case in front of judges at all.
Let’s say I apply for a tourist visa to US, and I get denied. Am I entitled to a jury trial in US to decide whether I get the visa or not?
Let’s say I do get a tourist visa, get admitted at the border, and the second I cross it, I begin openly violating the terms of the tourist visa. Can the government deport me right there and then, or am I entitled to a full jury trial that decides my deportation?
Finally, let’s say that I violate my tourist visa covertly instead of overtly, so that the government finds out only 3 years later. You seem to be claiming in your comment that at that point, I am certainly entitled to a jury trial. If you answered “no, you’re not entitled to trial” in the previous scenarios, what exactly do you think has changed that makes me entitled to it now?
As I learned earlier today, time in country is legally relevant in this case. Current law is that someone who has been in the country for over 2 years is entitled to a hearing prior to removal.
To specifically answer your questions, I think it's reasonable that countries can deny visa applications, but I don't think they should be able to do so for behavior that would be legally be protected in the jurisdiction a person is trying to enter. I do not think the US should be able to deny visa applications for speech critical of the US government or Israel.
Once a person is in the country I would absolutely want for a judicial fact finding exercise to determine whether a person has violated the terms of their admittance. I would prefer that process to take the form of a jury trial, but practically speaking I will also accept the opportunity for people to appear before a judge as a workable but less than ideal situation.
For your final situation time in country changes things legally and entitles a person to a hearing before a judge. Ideally this would be a trial. Furthermore, it is repugnant to think that visas can be revoked for nothing but constitutionally protected activities, such as writing opinion pieces for a newspaper. I believe a judiciary not captured by fascists would find that such revocations are a violation of the plain letter of the first amendment and fourteenth amendment, and that the US government should not be able to take adverse actions against anyone for purely expressive activity.
> I don't think they should be able to do so for behavior that would be legally be protected in the jurisdiction a person is trying to enter
This is very much not the current practice. The DS-160 form asks you a bunch of questions about things that are not illegal in US, but will almost certainly result in denial of the visa. Not only that, it asks about your family members, and your answers can and will cause visa denial, even if your family members are not applying for a visa with you. This is good and proper: foreigners have no right to enter our country, and just because something is legal for US citizens doesn’t meant it’s desirable, or that we need to extend this right to noncitizens.
> I do not think the US should be able to deny visa applications for speech critical of the US government or Israel.
How about for being a fan of Hitler, glorifying Holocaust, and advocating for changes in US constitution to allow wholesale genocide of Jews and Muslims? None of this is illegal. You are saying that we should we not be able to keep this freak out of our country, right?
> Once a person is in the country I would absolutely want for a judicial fact finding exercise to determine whether a person has violated the terms of their admittance.
When you enter US through a port of entry, a random CBP employee is fully empowered to deny you entry if he decides you violate the terms of your visa, or some other entry denial reason applies. Importantly, you have no right to judicial review of this denial. You can make an administrative appeal, but you are not entitled in any way to have a judge hear your complaint. You are saying now that the second you get admitted into the country, the same process that was due to you before the entry is now insufficient to adjudicate your rights. I don’t buy it, and neither does the law.
> Furthermore, it is repugnant to think that visas can be revoked for nothing but constitutionally protected activities, such as writing opinion pieces for a newspaper.
Why? You can very much be denied the visa for constitutionally protected activities. Happens all the time, in fact. It would be ridiculous if we could deny entry people who glorify Holocaust, but couldn’t kick them out if we find out they do so only after we let them in. First amendment doesn’t prevent us from denying entry to foreigners based on their speech. This is settled law. If we can refuse their entry, I don’t see why it should prevent us from removing them too.
I appreciate the thought you put into this response, I'll admit that some of my contentions may be a failure of imagination on my part. I think I lean toward assuming admissibility even for freakishly bad speech, but I'm honestly not sure.
However, much like the legal concept that habeas corpus follows the physical body, once a person is in the United States they should be granted the protections that are granted to all persons within the US and subject to its jurisdiction (I'm using "should" as both normative and descriptive, current actions are in part so controversial because they're violating this principle).
Because the law isn't based on justice, morality, or ethics. It is merely a system by which power is wielded. You are basing your judgement on a fictional caricature that is not reality. What 'should' happen has zero bearing there. The immigration judges are merely delegates of the AG, and only empowered to the extent the AG allows. It is an administrative action without protection criminal defendants get.
Believe me I'm well aware of the distinction between Article II administrative law judges and Article III judiciary. It's just bullshit, and SCOTUS is chipping away at the legality of admin law judges wielding sanctions at corportations, but apparently you can abduct individuals and send them to a place where it's likely they'll be tortured and killed and that's no problem.
People facing deportation have never been entitled to a trial. What you’re describing would be a vast expansion of the procedural requirements for deportation.
Deportation is not an “extreme sanction” if it’s proven that someone is not a U.S. citizen. Non-citizens have no right to remain on U.S. soil except what the government chooses to extend.
They are in fact currently at least entitled to a hearing to ascertain that they are removable. Absent that, the state could just start snatching anybody and shipping them to CECOT.
But this particular person we are talking about got a hearing and a BIA appeal and was found to be deportable. His asylum request claim was denied. What’s perplexing is why the immigration judge didn’t order him deported.
Thank you for the additional context. However, this individual would not have been eligible for expedited removal as he entered the US in 2011, and the arrest where he was alleged to be a gang member was in 2019. To be eligible for expedited removal a person must have not been present continuously for the previous 2 years. No indication that's the case here.
I suspect the judge would allow a deportation to a country other than El Salvador as soon as the government presented an option of a country willing to accept him. I also suspect few governments in the world would assent to such a transfer.
You missed the point. Imagine we want to deport a British citizen to Britain for felony fraud committed in US, and it just so happens that the same person is wanted in Britain for a completely different crime, say burglary. We know that if we deport him, he will be jailed and prosecuted in Britain according to British laws. Should this prevent us from deporting him? Is him being considered a criminal in his own country somehow protecting him from deportation there? Are we only allowed to deport non-criminals, and must keep foreign criminals in US, lest they get thrown in jail in the countries we deport them to?
> In determining whether a fugitive should be extradited, the Secretary may consider issues properly raised before the extradition court or a habeas court as well as any humanitarian or other considerations for or against surrender, including whether surrender may violate the United States’ obligations under the Convention Against Torture. See 22 C.F.R. 95.1 et seq.
Hence the judge’s ruling, and the Administration’s admission of error.
That’s extradition, it’s a completely different process, unrelated to deporting illegal aliens. Moreover, I specifically gave Britain as an example target, and these concerns are not relevant for extraditing to Britain.
Seems like probably yes! The rest of our legal system overwhelmingly favors errors that let the guilty go free over ones that punish the nonguilty. Due process is not just for citizens.
Due process here is administrative, not criminal, so the non-citizen isn't entitled to the kind of trial you're thinking he would get were he criminally charged. Due process for an administrative action just means the prescribed process under the law must be followed, which in US immigration means being seen by an executive branch (fake) judge in the immigration kangaroo courts.
> Due process here is administrative, not criminal
While it remains, sadly, Constitutional for the US to enslave people, and the various iterations of statute law abolishing the export slaves first in 1794 and then the slave trade more generally later probably do not bind the operations of the US government only other persons subject to it, the Constitution does require that those enslaved—and those being committed to CECOT are not merely being removed they are being enslaved and trafficked—may only be so enslaved as a punishment for a crime of which they have been duly committed.
So while the actual process in the Alien Enemies Act removals is executive fiat, and the due process under existing law for deportation (which is not afforded in Alien Enemies Act removals) is administrative rather than criminal, the Constitutionally-mandated process for those receiving the sanction being applied in the Alien Enemies Act process is normal criminal process.
It's an interesting idea, but good luck getting your argument heard. I've been tossed in immigration cell as a US citizen. I filed an FBI records search and there was not even an arrest record or any record of it happening, they just lock you up and that's that without even any process or paperwork. Since it is administrative I did not have the opportunity to talk to a lawyer or even see an immigration judge. They just locked me up and then when they were satisfied with stripping naked and searching me they dumped me on the street.
Sorry I was using due process in a more lay sense I guess, something along the lines of "the constraints we place on ourselves to limit the risk of accidental harms." None of that will be effective at preventing intentional harms, which is what this is anyway. It wasn't a good word choice on my part I don't think.
Removal of an illegal alien is not about “guilt” or “non-guilt.” And being expelled from the U.S. when you have no right to be here isn’t a “punishment.”
It’s like civil trespass. You don’t need a trial to kick someone off your property. And when the police remove them, they’re not being punished.
Look it's fine let it go. You think this is good because you can't imagine it happening to you or people you care about and I think it's bad because I can. People stripped of citizenship also have "no right to be here" and that's the obvious direction this is heading.
In the many years we've been discussing similar things I've never known you to change your mind on even the smallest point of any subject. I frankly just don't respect you enough to put more energy into this conversation.
Does it matter? Both candidates promised to deport gang members. You think it’s possible to do what Harris promises to do by giving each one a jury trial?
If adhering to rule of law is inconvenient, the state doesn't get to ignore it. What if I were to anonymously report you as a gang member? Surely then we'd want to remove you from the country expeditiously, in fact so expeditiously that allowing you to make your case in court would harm public safety. Have fun in CECOT!
That's the strength of the evidence that this individual was a gang member. If it can happen to him it can happen to you or to me.
> In its court filing on Monday, the Trump administration said ICE “was aware of his protection from removal to El Salvador,” but still deported Abrego Garcia “because of an administrative error.”
He was granted protection from deportation to El Salvador. You seem very concerned about the rule of law except when it's ignored or treated carelessly for immigrants.
He’s an El Salvadoran citizen! He’s in prison because El Salvador believes he’s an MS-13 gang member. If he believes he’s being held wrongfully in El Salvador he can avail himself of the legal procedures of his country. This has nothing to do with the U.S.
Got a source on El Salvador's position? The article states the MS-13 claims come from the US and are unsubstantiated:
> The allegations about his affiliation with MS-13 stem from a 2019 arrest outside a Maryland Home Depot store, where he and other young men were looking for work, according to the complaint.
They also claim he had legal protections from being deported specifically to El Salvador:
> An immigration judge denied Abrego Garcia’s asylum request in October 2019 but granted him protection from being deported back to El Salvador.
> In its court filing on Monday, the Trump administration said ICE “was aware of his protection from removal to El Salvador,” but still deported Abrego Garcia “because of an administrative error.”
This is the part that concerns the US. Also the part where this is all being paid for by American tax dollars.
Yes, the “administrative error” relates to the narrow point about the supposed “protection from deportation.” He was ordered deported for gang ties, upheld after an administrative appeal. And his asylum claim was denied. The article omits the information about the immigration judge and Board of Immigration Appeals finding that he was deportable for being an MS13 member, making it seem like the “administrative error” was about that.
There is no legitimate reason for any El Salvadoran citizen to receive asylum in the U.S. The country is now safer than Canada. If this guy thinks he is being unlawfully detained, he can avail himself of the legal procedures of his own country.
> Yes, the “administrative error” relates to the narrow point about the supposed “protection from deportation.”
He was not granted protection from deportation, he was granted protection from being deported to El Salvador. The administrative error is that he was indeed deported to El Salvador. If he was deported elsewhere this wouldn't be an issue:
> Abrego Garcia’s lawyer, Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, said U.S. government lawyers had multiple opportunities to try legally to deport him, including appealing the judge’s 2019 decision or deporting him elsewhere.
> The article omits the information about the immigration judge and Board of Immigration Appeals finding that he was deportable for being an MS13 member, making it seem like the “administrative error” was about that.
It is my understanding that he had not been convicted of anything and that the administration immediately backpedaled on the claim. Do you have contradictory source?
> There is no legitimate reason for any El Salvadoran citizen to receive asylum in the U.S. The country is now safer than Canada. If this guy thinks he is being unlawfully detained, he can avail himself of the legal procedures of his own country.
I don't see how this is relevant at all, nobody was claiming he had asylum here. Again, the problem is not that he was deported, the problem is that the US government violated a US court order.
He went before an immigration judge (which is not a real judge, but rather an employee of the DOJ) who determined that he was deportable due to gang ties. He then appealed to the Board of Immigration appeals, which is not a real court but an agency within the DOJ. The BIA affirmed the immigration judge.
He wasn’t eligible for asylum, so the immigration judge said he could be deported anywhere but El Salvador. There was no violation of a “court order,” just a mix-up within the executive branch about where an illegal alien could be deported to.
He is not a citizen of El Salvador, he is Venezuelan. The sole reason he was classed as a member of that criminal organisation are his crown tattoos, and 'secret inside information'.
The Guardian article gives some more background, and explains these (catholic) tattoos:
Except the administration is paying for these people to be in the El Salvadoran prison. Also, since when is the administration that uses threats of giant tariffs to accomplish its goals powerless to right these wrongs?
In my opinion, this should be an 8th amendment violation. "We threw you in a pit forever but its not our pit so your legal protections are void" is not good.
This isn't just flying somebody to their country of origin and leaving them there. This is flying somebody to an unrelated country and the paying a foreign nation to throw them in an overcrowded prison with no oversight for the rest of their lives.
> This is flying somebody to an unrelated country and the paying a foreign nation to throw them in an overcrowded prison with no oversight for the rest of their lives.
That's true of most of the people the Trump administration are sending to CECOT in El Salvador, but not the guy the article is about:
> Abrego Garcia came to the U.S. illegally from El Salvador around 2011, “fleeing gang violence,” according to his lawyers, and made his way to Maryland to join his older brother, a U.S. citizen.
Right, but if you've been following the situation since the current administration took office, you would know that if they want something, they're not shy to ask.
Nor it is reasonable to not have processes to get back someone if they're wrongfully deported. Moving fast and breaking things is not acceptable when you're dealing with people's lifes - and i somehow think if a rich white man were to be deported by mistake, he would be brought back quite fast
Backend thought exercise: Do you think they could get back someone they wanted to get back, such as a member of the administration? Do you think they could follow a process that made it easier to get people back?
Fiber optic cabling is definitely a bigger lift but the idea that the mount to drop something from a drone is something that is difficult for anybody with even a bit of knowledge seems like fear mongering. I mean it's a 3D print and servo away for any appropriately sized drone.
As someone who just picked up flying FPV drones (very fun) I do fear these may turn illegal before long.
Who is your market? In my area takeoffs are done by lumber yards, it's just a service they provide in order to win the business. So you are going to be selling B2B into a market that is very slow and resistant to change. I imagine many are using some software for their process but I've never seen it.
On the other side, architects are using Revit more and more and takeoffs like square footage of flooring are accurate and take no time at all. That's another industry slow to change and that used to take more effort so many architects aren't providing that information to their clients, but technically there's nothing preventing it. There's a bit more hand waving when it comes to calculating number of studs etc, but that is pretty straightforward as well.
Source: I'm funemployed as a drafter for a local architect after 25 years in software.
We've seen that suppliers do a ton of bidding and cost estimation, and are keen to be accurate (estimate too high and they lose to competitors). GCs and suppliers don't want to be too low because that potentially costs them tens of thousands of dollars.
We do supplying to contractors, and do takeoffs for single family homes. Not tracked, one off's for framing material. You mentioned your co-founder has built tract homes so my words might not apply to your target customer.
Here are things to consider:
Experienced builders don't care about the takeoffs on a big picture basis, the takeoffs are usually wrong, even if perfectly done. In our experience half of drawings we receive, are heavily revised by the order is approved (heavily revised meaning over 10% has changed). EWP, structural metal need to be accurate but framing lumber, and sheet good can be off on counts at the lift quantity (+-1 lift for an average house).
Suppliers aren't responsible for the takeoff so the amount the quote is negligible (see drawing revisions, and trades can misallocate the materials - This can't be reasonably traced). Over? The customer ends up paying less, under? The customer pays more. This has been universal where I am (Ontario, Canada).
A large minority of plans are missing key elements (like sheer walls), pointing out, and showing these differences would be a big value add for the consumer (contractors using the materials) by the supplier.
Good customers understand that lumber is a commodity, a lower price this week can flip next week, and they'll contact their preferred vendor about the differences.
There's always a preferred vendor.
Not great customers will shoot drawing off to multiple suppliers, causing them all to do the same takeoff, wasting time, and money, only to deal with the same issues above. They'll still go back to their preferred vendor to get the lowest price.
Summary of the above is: EWP, and structural metal are key items because they rarely change, framing lumber, and sheathing requirements change all the time. What you're looking at is helping suppliers capture the bad customers (which are often the biggest, to be clear), but saving suppliers the time handling them is great. Also, accuracy, and pricing isn't that important (with caveats).
This isn't a statistically significant sample size, consider it anecdotal.
I love the idea you guys are doing. I also think your name should have takeoff in it.
As a side point - sometimes the shady lumberyards do bid too low on purpose to win business. Then later have the contractor submit a change order. This often hurts their reputation unless the contractor is in on it to win a bid. The supplier doesn’t tend to lose money though as the bid is for the quantity of materials.
You could turn this into a selling point. As in, helping a contractor or competing supplier verify the takeoff.
Hey Patrick, this is rare, it does happen, but usually (almost always) it's that something was missed in the takeoff, the updated plan wasn't submitted to the yard, or the drawings were missing elements.
I agree with your point, having a second, impartial source is important to confirm the ballpark.
This looks to be about running LoRa like networks on WiFi hardware. Speed on LoRa is not something talked about much as it is more like SMS message passing or the like than IP networking.
Probably why it was taking about IoT use. 500 meters for a couple hundred baud connection doesn't seem too ground breaking. Off the shelf 900mhz radios can easily achieve that
Yeah, the main draw seemed that you don't need a special receiver and that standard networking gear would work, but.....LoRa hardware is not very expensive or complicated.
We are talking about Amazon engineers here. They are in the top 3% of earners, I don't think we need to cry too many tears about them going back to the office.
If people had some sort of class solidarity, then yes. But instead everyone is fighting against everyone to get to the top of the "earners" curve, even if it means a less equal society as a whole, and people seem fine with it. It's a cultural issue that has persisted in the country for a very long time.
Wage earners are working class. You are using "top 3%" as an excuse to c*p on them. This is the crabs in the bucket mentality that the rich want to cultivate amongst working class, so they pull each other down and help maximise profits.
I built an early site using those techniques in oh, 1996 I think? (stomped.com) Using zero border/padding tables was a clever way at the time of accomplishing a fancy graphics tab/menu without resorting to calling a CGI script.
reply