In mixed enviroments being able to use Powershell on both Linux and Windows allows for people to only have to learn one scripting environment, and allow you to share functions, modules, and tooling between the systems.
that alone is a big WIN for PS imo
Also I find Powershell to be more enjoyable to use (I like the verbosity, the help system, and passing objects instead of text streams.. I know I am crazy), and easier to train new Admins on PS than bash or python.
That depends on the context, I have a feeling we differ widely on what we view as the "crazy people" that are taking over given the natural demographics of HN and that fact that I am generally politically unaligned with most people here given I am a individualist libertarian politically
that is the beauty of local control, if School Board in another state does something you do not like, good news it does not effect you. If the Dept of Labor does something nationally you do not like well there is nothing you can do about it as your power is diluted due to national level, and you can not move...
I have never had one actually require it, often the installers will claim that but back in the day I would just say "sure here is my linux machine have fun installing your windows software on it" and magically they did not need to install anything any more....
I want politics and taxation to be more local in the smallest division practical, with extreme limits being placed on the power and scope of larger political organizations. In short I fully support US Style Federalism and oppose the move to make the US Federal Government all powerful
If I was in the EU I would support sovereignty of the nation states,and oppose efforts to make the EU Government all powerful
the move to make governments larger and all encompassing including calls for a 1 world government, are IMO a threat to individual freedom and will not have the desired effect you seem to think
The idea that more power in the hands of local governments seems attractive. Even knowing better, it still seems attractive to me...
You imagine people knowing the lawmakers better. You think that the lawmakers will be more connected to the community. That they'll be more likely to protect the freedoms that they also want to enjoy. At first blush, this all seems reasonable.
However, if you look at history, the actual practice is the opposite of that. When power is mostly exercised locally (at the town level), over time, laws are passed to regulate the minutia of daily life. When shops can be open. Laws about who can work in which trade. Laws about who can use "public" infrastructure and when. Laws about what you can do with your pets. Laws down to what colors and fabrics your cloths are made of. And, of course, laws to protect their hold on power.
It turns out that people in power at local levels are nosy parkers who will try to force everyone they can to live the way they think is best. And they become generationally powerful. Sad but it's the historical reality.
Personally, my speculation is that it's because most people try to exercise all the power they're given. And since those local lawmakers don't have to think about "big" issues in a broader sense, they just make laws about "small" issues and deal with big issues only when they are pushed in front of them.
According to Rawls, to make good laws, we need to make laws behind a veil of ignorance - law makers need to consider things at an abstract level. It's very difficult to get that level of abstraction when everyone knows the particularities of everyone else at the local level.
There's also the question of the size of the talent pool that you draw your leaders from.
First I stated smallest practical, and with that it would depend on the power we are talking about, so the smallest practical for national defense would be the federal government, the smallest practical for professional licensing may be state level, etc.
Also in that idea of federalism also include natural individual rights that can never be violated at any level of governance, including property rights like when you can open your shop...
And when we talk about American style federalism one must also recognize the checks and balances of power that over the last 100 years or does have been worn down but not eliminated. These checks need to be strengthen so no single arm of the government can end up tyrannical like your fear
I recognize the possibility of local tyranny, I think American federalism has checks in it for that. However even in the worst example of city tyranny that is far and way preferable to the alternative of an all powerful federal government
Fun fact, US states have more freedom from the Federal government than EU member states have from the EU.
US states can basically just ignore or refuse to enforce the federal law with little to no consequences (immigration sanctuary states/cities, Texas no longer treating suppressors as NFA items, etc.), but EU member states can't. EU law is binding to all of them and there's no escape from it.
US states cannot just ignore federal law - unless the federal law is deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court - a federal institution.
There are effectively no limits to US federal powers - while the treaties governing the EU enshrine the principle of subsidiarity[1] - and the powers granted to the EU are specified in treaties. A topical and obvious example is that the current Roe vs. Wade controversy just couldn't happen in the EU - as it's unrelated to trade or competition, the EU has no competence in this area. Or the idea of the EU imposing a health care system like the Affordable Care Act or deciding drug laws or gun control laws is unthinkable.
An individual cannot be arrested, charged, convicted and imprisoned for breaking EU law the way the feds can do in the US, regardless of state law. There are no EU prisons.
By any measure the US is far more centralized than the EU - money is power as they say and 64% of government receipts in the US are at the federal level while the EU budget represents only 2% of government spending in the block.
This stupid thing almost caused Switzerland to leave the Schengen area, and it upset a lot of countries that didn’t want anything to do with it.
At least the complete ban on handguns (that the Netherlands wanted) didn’t happen.
As a firearms enthusiast in the EU, this actually upset me. Not that it affects me too much in the country where I live (I just can’t have 30rd mags, which is stupid, but it could have been a lot worse).
> There are effectively no limits to US federal powers
There is. The 10th amendment.
Of course, there’s the commerce clause, that’s been abused ad infinitum.
"A topical and obvious example is that the current Roe vs. Wade controversy just couldn't happen in the EU - as it's unrelated to trade or competition"
The US Federal government has been very crafty in associating just about anything to "interstate commerce"[1] and thereby expanding its power enormously.
I'm sure the same thing could happen in the EU given some creative lawyering and a judiciary willing to swallow their arguments.
It's the appointment/election of particular judges and their willingness to craft or go along with certain arguments and interpret laws in certain ways that is really at the crux of how nations are governed.
Like the old saying goes: It's not votes that count, but those who count the votes. Likewise, it's not the laws that matter, but those who interpret the laws.
The EU budget is tiny - under €150B euro per year[1]. And what's more it has being falling in absolute terms in the last number of year.
While the US federal government spends over $20 trillion a year. This isn't comparable at any level - regardless of any snake-anatomy analogy.
I'm not sure what your definition of a "member state department" is? But knowing something of the political set-up in a number of EU countries, none are under the "sole control" of the EU (commission I guess you mean?).
Your point still stands, but US federal spending is more like $4-7 trillion depending on the year. I assume you went based on Google’s answer box, which somehow confuses total GDP with government spending.
Doesnt the EU pass unfunded liabilities back onto the member states?
Meaning the EU will pass a law or regulation or program that the member states then have to fund with domestic taxes?
Generally speaking for the federal government, if they want to pass a program or requirement the federal government must also pay for that, for example the federal government could not require the state governments to put in bike lane on all road with out giving the states the money to do it.
That is why the Federal government is so large..
Also defense spending, We actually honor our NATO treaty by spending no less than 3% of our GDP on national defense, something the EU nations never do
They absolutely can and do. State government are under no compulsion to enforce federal law, nor do they have aid federal law enforcement. Sure the FBI can still arrest you but as a practical matter the federal government relies heavily on local law enforcement for support in their efforts and task forces.
The state governments can neuter federal enforcement by refusing to supply personnel and equipment or other support to federal law enforcement task forces and actions
Conversely the federal government also supplies (i.e bribes) local law enforcement with money, and gear to grease the wheel for that support.
The supremacy you are referring to with the Supreme court is about when Federal Law and State law conflict then Federal law would win over State Law. Personally I think this is bad but until there is a constitutional amendment to change it that is the reality. However that supremacy does not mean state law enforcement or governments must enforce federal law, only that they can not overrule/supplant a federal law with their own
>> A topical and obvious example is that the current Roe vs. Wade controversy just couldn't happen in the EU - as it's unrelated to trade or competition
Well according to the Current Draft our federal government did not have the power either. It is funny you mention trade, you do know that ACA is a trade regulation the constitutional power that allows ACA to exist is the interstate commerce clause of the US Constitution, that was MASSIVELY expanded in power by the court in the abomination / disgraceful 1942 Wickard decision which effectively made every activity a commercial interstate activity that can be regulated by the federal government.
Personally if the court is in the mood for over turning precedent someone should take a case to them aimed squarely at over turning that abomination, putting the federal government back into their proper scope and place
On the other hand, I still remember how, back in the 1980s, U.S. states that were reluctant to raise beer-drinking age from 18 to 21 were brought to heel: no federal funds for highways, I think it was.
> EU law is binding to all of them and there's no escape from it.
Only in theory, in practice EU countries break EU law all the time, with minimal consequences. Some like Poland even openly, it recently said something like "we'll rather pay the fine than respect this particular EU law". EU states remain fully sovereign.
The EU projects power in the same way the Federal government projects the majority of its power: under the threat of withholding funding for large projects
"letting it happen" could be many contexts as well, letting is happen could mean that the managers were soo terrible at their jobs that they allowed issues to fester to the point where the employees were disgruntles enough to vote in a union.
Happy employees do not vote to unionize. The "hot take" here is that Amazon management wanted to the managers to some how play hardball with the union, in my experience with issues like this normally management does the opposite and trys to "kill it with kindness" and attempts to stave off unionization by trying to resolve the complaints of the work force while balancing the needs of the company.
Sometimes the workforce is just too far apart from where management wants to be then I union is likely to form, but my guess is upper management at amazon feels these middle managers did not do enough to address the workforce's concerns.
That would make sense to me if this particular warehouse/region/whatever was characterized as having notably worse conditions than others. Reading about Amazon warehouses, it seems like a pretty universally bad working environment, regardless of which one.
My feelings are bit of a mix bag, some of the complaints I would agree, but some of them seem to be either employee or more likely media exaggeration.
I have no respect or trust of "main stream" media so the reporting on the issue has me questioning what the reality on the ground really is, and the reality from people experienced in working at other warehouses.
This is one of the ongoing problems with discussion about "unions"
"Unions" in the US are very very very very very different legally than "unions" in EU and other nations, personally i think they are so different we need a different term for them...
The closest we have to a EU style union would be something like SAG, or the other entertainment unions, which often referr to themselves as Guilds.
The employment unions like being formed at amazon are different animals all together which have ALOT of downside for even the workers in them.
> which have ALOT of downside for even the workers in them.
Do you have examples?
As someone in the UK I don't see anything different between the Amazon workers Union and the unions here except for age and experience.
They all just want to not be treated like dirt.
The big difference (and please correct me if I get UK info wrong, I am not an expert in UK Labor, I am versed in US Labor) that in the UK you have sector unions, not enterprise unions. A company may have employee's working under several unions, and I believe there are even competiting Sector unions that an employee can choose to join finding the union that best suites them
In the US, typically, the is a 1:1 union, enterprise relationship. If you want to work at company X, you must join Union Y with no options to join a competing union, no options to opt out, and no regress if you do not feel the union is representing your interests.
referred to as "closed shops" there is large amounts of corruption, favoritism, and other negative quality to many US Unions.
Certainly over time they will consolidate, but that goes back to my point about age. If other warehouses unionise, at some point they will group together to prevent the closure of warehouses just because Amazon doesn't like the people working there.
I understood the US has the same situation, with groups like United Farm Workers or the Federation of Teachers.
>>We have unions for a particular company for example, here is the Wikipedia link for the Nationwide Union
The question I would then have is do the employee of Nationwide have to join the Nationwide Union or could they if they wanted choose a different union, or no union at all. Practicality or downsides aside is it legal for them do make that choice.
That is not the question, they claimed that the UK doesn't have enterprise unions, but sector ones.
Closed or requirement after hire is both illegal in the UK, and the EU, as well as not popular positions for the unions. In that sense we are not the same but, again, that wasn't the discussion.
I am the person that made the claim, I am pretty sure I understand what I am trying to talk about.
This seems to a terminology / definitional problem we have, something I am trying to get beyond because like I said from the beginning a "union" in the US is not the same as a "Union" in the UK/EU, that is my point from the start
So when we have these international discussions and people from the UK/EU are aghast that anyone in the US would be opposed to Unions they are talking from what they understand from the Unions on their nation, which IS NOT what we have here in the US.
My attempts to convey the differences has failed with terminology issues and technicality gotchas largely due to a massive political bias in favor of unionization so any time anyone tries to convey a negative about a union is gets drowned out either by people not in the US that have no idea what a US Labor union really is like, or by people in the US that only understand the concept of a US Labor union but not the reality of it
You haven't been forced to join a union in the US - or pay dues if you don't join - since 2018 when the SCOTUS ruled against the practice (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janus_v._AFSCME). You could potentially start a competing union for, say, pipefitting, but the NLRB needs to approve it (federal agency). But now you are fighting management and a national union that already absorbed local ones over the last 150 years. Unions tend to consolidate over time because it gives more negotiating power for the members.
That is a misinterpretation of that ruling, which applies to non-union members being forced to pay dues
Union Shops, where by in Non-Right to work States the union negotiates with the Employer (private not public) that all employees of the group will be represented by the employer the employer can still be required to force employees to join the union with in 30 days, normally this is an automatic process for "union shops"
Again this varies by state, and Right to work states can not have such a provision, however Janus decision DID NOT outlaw union shops.
Also none of your comment seems to refute or attempt to explain the differences between UK or other EU unions and US unions, which is the context we are discussion, gotcha technicalities do not go to this over all conversation which is the vast differences between how unions operate in the US vs other nations.
That is a technically in terms only. So apologies for using "closed"
[1] instead of "union"[1] shop which are functionally the same thing, and Union Shops still very much exist which is clear from my description of what I was talking about in my comment, (i.e I clearly stated employees were required to join the union post hire)
Right to Work states are a counter to Union Shops, which there is active efforts to do away with Right to Work laws
[1]Closed Shop
A company that only employs union members and requires them to secure and maintain union membership as a condition of employment.
[2]Union Shop
A company that doesn’t require employees to join a union in order to be hired, but they must join within 30 days of employment.
ATT, the company with the Death Star as their logo, is hostile to their customer base? Say it is not so...
ATT is the worst company, even worse than comcast. Doing something to just be hostile to their customer base is in their DNA, they are used to their monopoly status from the say of Bell Telephone, that company will never change and will never be customer friendly
that alone is a big WIN for PS imo
Also I find Powershell to be more enjoyable to use (I like the verbosity, the help system, and passing objects instead of text streams.. I know I am crazy), and easier to train new Admins on PS than bash or python.