I'm may be a little off-topic here (but I don't think so).
In my opinion, elementary school (grades K-5) should really focus a good deal on rote memorization, but only if this focuses on teaching every kind of game and technique to facilitate that kind of learning. By that I mean making flash cards, learning to create and use mnemonic devices, etc.
I just asked ChatGPT, and got something like 15 different techniques, some of which can be used with kindergarteners, all of which can be used by grade 5.
There are always going to be "boring" things to learn. These things are often no longer boring once you know them by heart. In fact, they're often extremely valuable to know. I think by grade 5, if kids are going to be taught anything, they need to be taught the techniques that they can use—on their own—to make learning fun.
In my opinion too many people have opinions where they shouldn't. Just import a working system, like Estonia successfully imported from Finland. You don't have the skills to roll your own.
I worked for a small company that had a project with Bloomberg. We went to the office downtown, and being the clueless Upstate hick that I was, I saw the text-based UI up on a screen and asked my boss — a little too loudly — if we were at an auto parts store.
I'm nostalgic for an old World Wide Web (which never really existed, thanks to GeoCities and such), and wish that we could form a sect of "Puritans," break away from the High Church, and sail away to some top-level domain of our own where we'll consider any outbound links heretical.
I'm 58, and have needed reading glasses for the last 10 years. Want to try something fun? Increase your default text size on your iPhone, and then just watch how many apps — native Apple apps, mind you — have their UI screwed up to the point where they become unusable!
I don't use a cellphone anymore, but back when I did (circa iOS 12) it was not possible to have the text large enough for me to read while still displaying all ten digits of a phone number.
Example: `212-555-1234` would display as `212-555-12...` in my call list.
----
I have owned and primarily used Apple products since 1992; their accessibility options seem to be going backwards. An iPhone screen would still have more than enough space to display information if the UI weren't completely crammed full of junk.
It is so frustrating when I help older clients and (unbeknownst to them) some stupid notification re-focuses attention. Often they'll keep [-s-l-o-w-l-y-] typing and then get frustrated that "the computer did something I didn't tell it to, without even warning me it wasn't listening to my keystrokes anymore..." [e.g.] — this used to be eye-rolling user error, now it's just expected operating system behavior.
----
Pro-tip: You can essentially disable Apple notifications by setting `Do Not Disturb` from 3:01am - 3:00am
Back in 2011, Apple removed apps that crowdsourced warnings about DUI checkpoints. It remains Apple's policy today.
According to Grok, "In March 2011, four Democratic senators—Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), and Tom Udall (D-N.M.)—sent letters to Apple, Google, and Research in Motion (BlackBerry's parent company) urging the removal of such apps […]"
So, we have precedent where four Democratic senators pressured Apple to remove an app that allowed people to evade law enforcement.
> to remove an app that allowed people to evade law enforcement.
No, they continued to allow police location apps (Google maps will even tell you where they are).
The language they added to the app store rules were very specific: "Apps may only display DUI checkpoints that are published by law enforcement agencies, and should never encourage drunk driving or other reckless behavior such as excessive speed."
Whether or not that was a good idea at the time (it wasn't), you can't claim this is covered by the same guidelines.
You don't have to be driving impaired to have a strong desire to avoid the checkpoints. I avoid them because they're intrusive, oppressive, and upsetting.
>What purpose outside abetting in avoiding a DUI is there for publishing a live map of DUI checkpoints?
When Churchill made that famous quip about the "average voter" he was talking about the kind of people who complain out of one side of their mouth about law enforcement going hard on a particular class of laws they don't like while stating out the other that anyone who doesn't want to submit to a papers-please stop on the pretext of catching people engaged in a fairly common misdemeanor that they do want to see hard enforcement on is abetting said misdemeanor.
* You or your friends or family have had negative experiences with law enforcement, so you prefer to minimize contact
* You share a car with family members, one of whom smoked cannabis in it; the smell will result in an extended detention and investigation at a checkpoint
* Your license/registration/insurance is not current
The question was "What purpose outside abetting in avoiding a DUI is there for publishing a live map of DUI checkpoints?".
As a technical point, being an undocumented immigrant is still not a crime in the USA though it can result in law enforcement actions with impact as severe as criminal penalties. Expired registration or insurance is a civil infraction rather than a crime in some jurisdictions.
Edit: I should clarify why it matters that some of these are civil infractions rather than crimes. Navigation apps that Apple allows, including Apple's own maps app informs users about police and speed cameras, which helps people violate the speed limit without being punished. There doesn't seem to be a coherent principle at work here though.
Sometimes I take a legally prescribed stimulant / controlled substance for ADHD. Those medicines can be perfectly safe to drive with once you know how the particular dosage affects you, and driving with them is often even safer at the appropriate therapeutic dosage than driving without them. Further, as a person with ADHD and a tic disorder, I would have a fair chance of failing a field sobriety test even if I'm sober. I'm also not thrilled with the idea of lying to cops, since I know that can be a crime separately from the question of DUI.
So, putting all that together, imagine this sequence: cop at a DUI checkpoint asks me to perform a field sobriety test. I refuse, either without giving a reason or citing my ADHD and tic disorder. They ask me if I'm taking any medicine for ADHD. I don't lie and either confirm that fact or plead the fifth, or even if I do lie they still might not believe me. I probably don't have the pills or the bottle with me since I wouldn't usually be taking it in the car anyway. They then insist on a blood test, either with consent or with a quickly obtained warrant. I then have to accept a long detour going for the blood test, and then spend a lot of time and money proving in court both that I had a legal prescription and that I was not legally impaired by the medicine. (Even if I do have the correctly labeled pill bottle with me in the car, the cop still might incorrectly assume the medicine impairs me.)
Avoiding this hassle is a perfectly legal and legitimate reason to want to know where DUI checkpoints are.
Nothing I'm saying is condoning driving drunk - I certainly don't do that. When I drink, I pay attention to the advice of blood alcohol content calculators to figure out when I'm safe to drive and when it's fully out of my system. And when I take medicines that interact with alcohol, I'm even more cautious with drinking than when I don't.
What purpose outside abetting in avoiding a DUI is there for publishing a live map of DUI checkpoints?
That is easy to answer - letting law abiding citizens going about their personal business know that if they go through an area they are likely to be stopped and subjected to being searched by police without cause.
I’m returning home from the store with cold medicine for my toddler late at night and I don’t want to have my trip increased by 15mins due to some police state bullshit.
As useful data for sober civil libertarians who want the choice to route through a DUI checkpoint to exercise their rights.
I wouldn't code it because there's no way to disallow the service for the set of people over the legal limit trying to avoid a DUI checkpoint. But if, say, a group of sober civil libertarians find a way to tell each other how to always choose right-exercising routes, I don't see any obvious ethical problems with that.
We do not have DUI checkpoints in my country, but I would assume they delay the travel due to being, you know, checkpoint. So it might be desirable to take alternative route if you do not want to spend time waiting for the check. I guess?
I strongly doubt this was a reason for the app though.
And it was wrong then too. Preventing people from sharing publicly available, literally visible from the street, information has got to be the brightest line violation of 1A. I'm really over how much the supreme court—not just this supreme court—has let the government end run around the constitution using tricks like this. Especially with the tax and spend power. If the government couldn't pass a law doing X then the government shouldn't be allowed to achieve X by any means.
Congressional dysfunction isn't an excuse to allow the creation of a shadow government orchestrated by the executive but here we are.
Why did you ask an LLM which is manipulated by a single person when he doesn't like facts?
> So, we have precedent where four Democratic senators pressured Apple to remove an app that allowed people to evade law enforcement.
Yes, senators sent letters to several companies. Apple listened. What would have happened if it didn't? What would happen to Apple if they don't listen now?
Do you sincerely believe that both situations are comparable?
> Do you sincerely believe that both situations are comparable?
How are they not? In both cases US government officials applied pressure and implied legal action to force private companies to act in ways that enabled law enforcement to act with less resistance. It’s why we should always push back against government overreach and bullying. Because the “slippery slope” might be a logical fallacy, but that doesn’t stop it from also being the most likely outcome of the government pushing the boundaries.
Oh, please. Senators do not head the department of justice and requested, not demanded under threat of retribution under a "unitary executive". For them to do anything would require a quorum of 50% of the entire government to make a law.
Sure but Senators actually have the power to make law, unlike the executive. Also let’s be honest, if any government official “requests” anything it is always under the threat of retribution. See also the Jimmy Kimmel situation.
I’m reasonably confident that if a sitting US senator called you up personally and “requested” that you stop posting on HN or stop contributing to some open source encryption tool that you would find that event threatening, no matter who was currently president.
> In both cases US government officials applied pressure and implied legal action to force private companies to act in ways that enabled law enforcement to act with less resistance.
That's like saying cooking is comparable with stabbing someone because both involve moving a knife back and forth. Give me a break.
The intent of using a knife to cut flesh when cooking and the intent of using a knife to cut flesh when stabbing someone is different. Are you saying you believe that the intended outcome of the senator’s request was different?
The exact verbiage is this: "Apps may only display DUI checkpoints that are published by law enforcement agencies, and should never encourage drunk driving or other reckless behavior such as excessive speed."
While it's still bad, you can see how it's worse when it's coming directly from a regulator top-down from the president, right?
Senators gave no individual direct control over regulation. They can influence appointments or influence legislation, which is still power backing the implied threat, but that's a much more roundabout threat than a single person with direct power to destroy your business.
Only as a brief aside (don't have the timestamp right now) to talking about Smalltalk, which he mostly discusses to argue that Smalltalk was not different from C++ in seeking (most of the time) to model programs in terms of static hierarchies (according to the primary source documentation from the time of Smalltalk's design):
> And another thing is if you look at the other branch,
> the branch that I'm not really covering very much
> in this talk, because again,
> we don't program in small talk these days, right?
> The closest thing you would get
> is maybe something like Objective-C.
> If there's some people out there using Objective-C,
> you know, like Apple was using that for a little while,
> so Objective-C kind of came
> from a small talk background as well.
Objective-C is basically Smalltalk retrofitted onto C, even more than C++ was Simula retrofitted onto C (before C++ gained template metaprogramming and more modern paradigms), so it makes sense that Muratori doesn't go much into it, given that he doesn't discuss Smalltalk much.
My understanding is that your characterization is true of the Articles of Confederation, but not true of the Constitution. The federal government's power is delegated from the people.
At the top of the Articles, it's pretty clear that the delegates of the states have come together to establish a league of states. At the top of the Constitution, it's explicitly stated that "We the People […] do ordain and establish."
Individuals can't (practically) secede. And it is done via the states, for example the state governments choose senators. Right now this is done via popularity contests in every state but there's nothing in the constitution or federal law requiring that.
Yeah that's completely meaningless as far as the possibility of secession is concerned. All it means is that if you secede and reenter then all the legislation you did as a separate state is void which is completely reasonable.
I'm not going to downvote you. But Rawls never applies. Rawls is a big scam. At root, it is relativism wrapped up in the august raiment of state-of-nature social contract theory, whatever his protests to the contrary; and the relativism in this case is what "feels right" to him and his fancy neighbors living in Cambridge.
Rawls is just an extension of the golden rule, and anyone who is against treating others how they themselves would wish to be treated is probably someone who shouldn't have authority over others.
In my opinion, elementary school (grades K-5) should really focus a good deal on rote memorization, but only if this focuses on teaching every kind of game and technique to facilitate that kind of learning. By that I mean making flash cards, learning to create and use mnemonic devices, etc.
I just asked ChatGPT, and got something like 15 different techniques, some of which can be used with kindergarteners, all of which can be used by grade 5.
There are always going to be "boring" things to learn. These things are often no longer boring once you know them by heart. In fact, they're often extremely valuable to know. I think by grade 5, if kids are going to be taught anything, they need to be taught the techniques that they can use—on their own—to make learning fun.