litchralee

@litchralee@sh.itjust.works

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨What's wrong with Bluesky App?⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  To start, let’s verify that Bluesky the app is indeed open-source. Yep, it is. But that’s not the same as having all the machinery be open-source, where anyone could spin up their own, compatible service; maybe named ExampleSky. To be compatible, ExampleSky would need to use the same backend interface – aka protocol – as Bluesky, which is known as ATProto. The equivalent (and older) protocol behind Mastodon and Lemmy is ActivityPub.

  ATProto is ostensibly open-source, but some argue that it’s more akin to “source available” because only the Bluesky parent company makes changes or extensions to the protocol. Any alternative implementation would be playing a game of chase, for future versions of the protocol. History shows that this is a real risk.

  On the flip side, Mike Masnick – founder of Techdirt, author of the 2019 paper advocating for “protocols, not platforms” that inspired Bluesky, and recently added member of the board of Bluesky – argues that the core ability to create a separate “Bluesky2” is where the strength of the protocol lays. My understanding is that this would act as a hedge to prevent Bluesky1 from becoming so undesirable that forking to Bluesky2 is more agreeable. To me, this is no different than a FOSS project (eg OpenOffice) being so disagreeable that all the devs and users fork the project and leave (eg LibreOffice).

  But why a common protocol? As Masnick’s paper argues, and IMO full agreement with what ActivityPub has been aiming towards for years, is that protocols allow for being platform-agnostic. Mastodon uses are keenly aware that if they don’t like their home instance, they can switch. Sure, you’ll have to link to your new location, but it’s identical to changing email providers. In fact, email is one of the few protocol-centric systems in the Internet in continued use. Imagine if somehow Gmail users couldn’t send mail to Outlook users. It’d be awful.

  Necessarily, both ActivityPub and ATProto incorporate decentralization in their designs, but in different fashions. ActivityPub can be described as coarse decentralization, as every instance is a standalone island that can choose to – and usually does – federate with other instances. But at the moment, core features like registration, login, or rate limiting, or spam monitoring, are all per-instance. And as it stands, much of those involve a human, meaning that scaling is harder. But the design suggests that instances shouldn’t get too large, so perhaps that’s not too big an issue.

  ATProto takes the fine-grained design approach where each feature is modular, and thus can be centralized, farmed out, or outright decentralized. Now, at this moment, that’s a design goal rather than reality, as ATProto has only existed for so many years. I think it’s correct to say for now that Bluesky is potentially decentralizable, in the coarse sense like how Mastodon and Lemmy are.

  There are parts of the Bluesky platform – as in, the one the Bluesky organization runs – which definitely have humans involved, like the Trust and Safety team. Though compared to the total dismantlement of the Twitter T&S team and the resulting chaos, it may be refreshing to know that Bluesky has a functional team.

  A long term goal for Bluesky is the “farming our” of things like blocklists or algorithms. That is to say, imagine if you wanted to automatically duplicate the block lists that your friend uses, because what she finds objectionable (eg Nazis) probably matches your own sensibilities, then you can. In fact, at this very moment, I’m informed that Bluesky users can subscribe to a List and implement a block against all members of the List. A List need not be just users, but can also include keywords, hashtags, or any other conceivable characteristic. Lists can also be user-curated, curated by crowd sourcing, or algorithmically generated. The latter is the long goal, not entirely implemented yet. Another example of curation is “Started Packs”, a List of specific users grouped by some common interest, eg Lawsky (for lawyers).

  So what’s wrong with Bluesky then? It sounds quite nice so far. And I’m poised to agree, but there’s some history to unpack. In very recent news, Bluesky the organization received more venture capital money, which means it’s worth mentioning what their long term business plan is. In a lot of ways, the stated business plan matches what Discord has even doing: higher quality media uploads and customizations to one’s profile. The same statement immediately ruled out any sort of algorithmic upranking or “blue checks”; basically all the ails of modern Twitter. You might choose to take them at their word, or not. Personally, I see it as a race between: 1) ATProto and the Bluesky infra being fully decentralized to allow anyone to spin up ExampleSky, and 2) a potential future enshittification of Bluesky in service of the venture capitalists wanting some ROI.

  If scenario 1 happens first, then everyone wins, as bridging between ActivityPub and ATProto would make leaps and bounds, and anyone who wants their own ATProto instance can do so, choosing whether they want to rely on Bluesky for any/all features or none at all. Composability of features is something that ATProto can meaningfully contribute to the protocol space, as it’s a tough nut to crack.

  But if scenario 2 happen, then we basically have a Twitter2 cesspool. And users will once again have to jump ship. I don’t personally use Bluesky, being perfectly comfortable in the Fediverse. But I can’t deny that for a non-tech oriented audience, Bluesky is probably what I’d recommend, and to opt-in to bridging with the Fediverse. Supposed episodes of “hyping” don’t really ring true to me, but like I said, I’m not currently an invested user of Bluesky.

  What I do want to see is the end result of Masnick’s paper, where the Internet hews closer to its roots where interoperability was the paramount goal, and the walled gardens of yore waste away. If Bluesky and ActivePub both find their place in the future, then IMO, it’ll be no different than IMAP vs POP3.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Why do the majority of women still take their partner's last name?⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  Pew Research has survey data germane to this question. As it stands, a clear majority (79%) of opposite-sex married women changed their family/last name to their husband’s.

  But for never-married women, only a third (33%) said they would change their name to their spouse’s family name. 24% of never-married women were unsure whether they would or wouldn’t change their name upon marriage.

  From this data, I would conclude that while the trend of taking the husband’s last name is fairly entrenched right now, the public’s attitude are changing and we might expect the popularity of this to diminish over time. The detailed breakdown by demographic shows that the practice was less common (73%) in the 18-49 age group than in the 50+ age group (85%).

  Pew Research name change data

  However, some caveats: the survey questions did not inquire into whether the never-married women intended on ever getting married; it simply asked “if you were to get married…”. So if marriage as a form of cohabitation becomes less popular in the future, then the change-your-family-name trend could be in sharper decline than this data would suggest.

  Alternatively, the data could reflect differences between married and never-married women. Perhaps never-married women – by virtue of not being married yet – answered “would not change name” because they did not yet know what their future spouse’s name is. No option for “it depends on his name” was offered by the survey.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨what can I use to cushion my knee when exercising with it on the floor so it doesn't hurt?⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  In my homegym I have an AbMat foam pad which I also use as a knee pad. And while I think the thick foam would work outdoors on tougher terrain, it would not meet your criteria to fit in a backpack.

  My other suggestion would be a scrap piece of horse stall mat, which are nearly solid rubber sheets commonly employed for homegym floors. This is what I use when working in my yard, for tasks requiring a lot of kneeling. Such a piece – while heavy – could be cut to whatever size you need, using a sharp knife or a jigsaw.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨How do I get over fear of cooking?⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  I am a software engineer by trade, so when I started cooking, everything and every tool was intimidating, because I had no idea how it worked nor what it was meant for. I knew nothing about knives besides not to drop one, didn’t know the difference between a wok and a skillet, and didn’t understand how oil creates a non-stick surface on a non-non-stick pan.

  What helped me was a book that wasn’t like a recipe or cook book, but something closer to a food and kitchen textbook. The Food Lab by Kenji Lopez-Alt goes into some excruciatingly scientific detail about the role of different kitchen implements, and then showcasing recipes that apply theory to practice. Each step in the recipes thoroughly describe what to do, and the author puts a lot of content onto his YouTube channel as well.

  It was this book that convinced me to buy, strip, and season a cast iron pan, which has already proven its worth as a non-sticking vessel comparable to my old Teflon-coated pans. And I think for you, reading the theory and following some of the recipes might develop sufficient experience to at least be comfortable in an active kitchen. It’s very much a chicken-and-egg problem – if you’ll pardon the poultry pun – but this book might be enough to make progress in the kitchen.

  Also, since it was published in 2015, it’s very likely available at your local library, so check there first before spending money to buy the book. Good luck with your culinary development!

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Did something about mass produced ice cream change like 10 years ago?⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  As there may be regional differences, you might want to specify your area. For example, ice cream in the UK doesn’t have to meet the same requirements as in the USA, so oddities like cheap ice cream made with no dairy or cream is possible, using vegetable oil instead. Evan Edinger has a video on UK ice cream in particular: youtu.be/CfM7yZD0PlE

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨What's the point of reading aloud the digits of the golden mean and recording the whole damn thing?⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  My guess is that reading tomes like this is useful as a vocal exercise and can be a way of “getting one’s name out” for aspiring vocal talent. After all, what better way to showcase voice work on a resume than to point to examples online? As for the exact tome, it doesn’t really matter for this purpose but might as well also contribute to the wealth of human media.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨How long do you think we'll keep seeing "formerly Twitter"?⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  When I see “Xitter”, I think it might be pronounced Exeter, like the town in southwest England. But that feels like an undeserved slight against the good people of Devon and England.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Do PhDs HAVE to use Dr?⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  So far as I’m aware, non-occupational pre-nominal honorifics inure to the individual, so generally speaking, if that person doesn’t want to use their title, they don’t have to. And in the same way that most people will go along with someone’s acquired honorific of Dr or Capt or whatever, the same should also apply if someone expressed that their honorific should not used. I have no citation for this, other than what I’ve seen in life.

  As a sidenote, in Britain, I understand that medical doctors are able to use the pre-nominal of Dr, but surgeons specifically will drop the Dr and just use Mr. or Ms.

  Apparently this stems from ages ago when surgeons did not have to have a medical degree, and the doctoral view was that surgeons were akin to butchers. This may have reflected the crudeness of early surgeries. As a result, surgeons developed a history of being Mr – it’s not clear if female surgeons also took on Mr. So after the various laws/rules changed so that surgeons also had to be doctors, they still kept the tradition of Mr.

  Thus, a male student of medicine in the UK could go from Mr, graduate to Dr, and then graduate as a surgeon to Mr again. I have no citation for this either, but it’s plausible for the ardently traditional British nation.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨For states on the coast with excess solar energy why don't they invest in water desalination and pump that water back upstream?⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  If you were to properly consider the problem the actual cost would be determined by cost per distance traveled and you essentially decide the distance by which ever you are budgeted for.

  I wrote my comment in response to the question, and IMO, I did it justice by listing the various considerations that would arise, in the order which seemed most logical to me. At no point did I believe I was writing a design manual for how to approach such a project.

  There are much smarter people than me with far more sector-specific knowledge to “properly consider the problem” but if you expected a feasibility study from me, then I’m sorry to disappoint. My answer, quite frankly, barely arises to a back-of-the-envelope level, the sort of answer that I could give if asked the same question in an elevator car.

  I never specified that California would be the best place to implement this process.

  While the word California didn’t show up in the question, it’s hard to imagine a “state on the coast” with “excess solar” where desalination would be remotely beneficial. 30 US States have coastlines, but the Great Lakes region and the Eastern Seaboard are already humid and wet, with rivers and tributaries that aren’t exactly in a drought condition. That leaves the three West Coast states, but Oregon and Washington are fairly well-supplied with water in the PNW. That kinda leaves California, unless we’re talking about Mexican states.

  I’m not dissing on the concept of desalination. But the literature for existing desalination plant around the world showcases the numerous challenges beyond just the money. Places like Israel and Saudi Arabia have desalination plants out of necessity, but the operational difficulties are substantial. Regular clogging of inlet pipes by sealife is a regular occurrence, disposal of the brine/salt extracted is ecologically tricky, energy costs, and more. And then to throw pumped hydro into this project would make it a substantial undertaking, as dams of any significant volume are always serious endeavors.

  At this point, I feel the question is approaching pie-in-the-sky levels of applicability, so I’m not sure what else I can say.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨For states on the coast with excess solar energy why don't they invest in water desalination and pump that water back upstream?⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  I’m not a water or energy expert, but I have occasionally paid attention to the California ISO’s insightful – while perhaps somewhat dry – blog. This is the grid operator that coined the term “duck curve” to describe the abundance of solar energy available on the grid during the daylight hours, above what energy is being demanded during those hours.

  So yes, there is indeed an abundance of solar power during the daytime, for much of the year in California. But the question then moves to: where is this power available?

  For reference, the California ISO manages the state-wide grid, but not all of California is tied to the grid. Some regions like the Sacramento and Los Angeles areas have their own systems which are tied in, but those interconnections are not sufficient to import all the necessary electricity into those regions; local generation is still required.

  To access the bulk of this abundant power would likely require high-voltage transmission lines, which PG&E (the state’s largest generator and transmission operator) operates, as well as some other lines owned by other entities. By and large, building a new line is a 10+ year endeavor, but plenty of these lines meet up at strategic locations around the state, especially near major energy markets (SF Bay, LA, San Diego) and major energy consumers (San Joaquin River Delta pumping station, the pumping station near the Grapevine south of Bakersfield).

  But water desalination isn’t just a regular energy consumer. A desalination plant requires access to salt water and to a freshwater river or basin to discharge. That drastically limits options to coastal locations, or long-distance piping of salt water to the plant.

  The latter is difficult because of the corrosion that salt water causes; it would be nearly unsustainable to maintain a pipe for distances beyond maybe 100 km, and that’s pushing it. The coastal option would require land – which is expensive – and has implications for just being near the sea. But setting aside the regulatory/zoning issues, we still have another problem: how to pump water upstream.

  Necessarily, the sea is where freshwater rivers drain to. So a desalination plant by the ocean would have to send freshwater back up stream. This would increase the energy costs from exorbitant to astronomical, and at that point, we could have found a different use for the excess solar, like storing it in hydrogen or batteries for later consumption.

  But as a last thought experiment, suppose we put the plant right in the middle of the San Joaquin River Delta, where the SF Bay’s salt water meets the Sacramento River’s freshwater. This area is already water-depreased, due to diversions of water to agriculture, leading to the endangerment of federally protected species. Pumping freshwater into here could raise the supply, but that water might be too clean: marine life requires the right mix of water to minerals, and desalinated water doesn’t tend to have the latter.

  So it would still be a bad option there, even though power, salt water, and freshwater access are present. Anywhere else in the state is missing at least one of those three criteria.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨What happens when the US runs out of SSNs?⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Haha, your reply beat out mine by only a minute.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨What happens when the US runs out of SSNs?⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  This does not agree with what the Social Security Administration has published:

  Q20: Are Social Security numbers reused after a person dies?

  A: No. We do not reassign a Social Security number (SSN) after the number holder’s death. Even though we have issued over 453 million SSNs so far, and we assign about 5 and one-half million new numbers a year, the current numbering system will provide us with enough new numbers for several generations into the future with no changes in the numbering system.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨What is the stock market?⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  For the historical questions, I don’t really have answers, especially where it involves departures from the Western world. I did, however, briefly touch up on Islamic banking, which I’ve always found intriguing as the Islamic faith does not permit charging interest on loans, viewing it as usurious. I’m informed that Christianity also had a similar prohibition on usury, but apparently it fell due to the need to fund the constant wars in Europe.

  I’m not really seeing the difference in feudalism except a members only kind of participation with a crony pool of inbreds, not all that different than the billionaires of today.

  I think the important distinction insofar as stock markets is that the crony pool of inbreds have access, so too does the commoner. Well, the middle-class commoner usually. And we’ve seen David-vs-Goliath cases where the commoners put up a decent fight against the inbreds’ institutions; the whole GameStonk fiasco comes to mind. An equivalent economic upset would have been wholly impossible at any point during any feudal period in history.

  What are the idealist or futurist potential alternatives between the present and a future where wealth is no longer the primary means of complex social hierarchical display? My premise is that basing hierarchical display on the fundamental means of human survival is barbaric primitivism.

  From conversations I’ve had previously, possible answers to that question are presented in the works of Paul Cockshott, author of Towards A New Socialism. I’ve not read it, but friends in Marxist-Leninist parties have mentioned it. The Wikipedia page, however, notes that it’s an economics book, which could be fairly technical and difficult to read. Sort of like how Das Kapital is more-or-less a textbook, in contrast with how Wage Labour And Capital was meant for mass consumption.

  Wealth extraction neglects the responsibility of the environment and long term planning.

  True. The cost to the environment is not “internalized”, to use the technical term. Hence, it doesn’t need to be paid for, and is thus “free real estate”. Solutions to internalize environmental harm include carbon taxes or cap-and-trade. But the latter is a lukewarm carbon tax because it only looks at the end-result emissions, rather than taxing at the oil well, so to speak.

  I’m curious how humanity evolves in a distant post scarcity future but without becoming authoritarian or utopian/dystopian

  Might I recommend The Three-Body Problem and the trilogy overall by Liu Cixin? This phenomenal hard scifi work describes a space-based future where the human species faces a common, external threat. After all, much of today’s progress was yesterday’s scifi. So why not look to scifi to see what tomorrow’s solutions might be. It’s no worse than my crystal ball, which is foggy and in need of repair.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨What careers are relatively easy to get into with decent unions behind them?⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  If you’re in the USA, I cannot understate how useful it may be to refer to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics’s (BLS) Occupational Outlook Handbook (OOH), a resource which I believe has no direct comparison:

  How can I learn about an occupation that is of interest to me?

  The Occupational Outlook Handbook (OOH) provides information on what workers do; the work environment; education, training, and other qualifications; pay; the job outlook; information on state and area data; similar occupations; and sources of additional information for more than 300 occupational profiles covering about 4 out of 5 jobs in the economy.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨What is the stock market?⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  I’ll take a shot from the hip at this question, but note that I won’t add my customary citations or links.

  The stock market is the paragon of property and trusts, contracts, corporations and law, and the capitalist socio-economic system. The very existence of the stock market implies a society that has some or most of these concepts.

  For example, for shares to be traded, there generally must exist ownership rights upon the shares, distinct from the ownership rights that the company has of its own property. Or if not outright ownership of a share, then the benefit that a share provides (eg dividends). It also implies a legal system that will enforce these rights and the obligations of the company to its shareholders.

  For a tradable company to exist, it must be organized/chartered as an entity distinct from any single person. This is different than the feudal days, when ventures would be undertaken “in right of the King” or some member of the nobility. It has to be this way, or else the King/Duke/Count/whatever could stiff the shareholders by just taking all the earnings. The company still needs to be created by legal means, either an Act of Parliament/Congress, by letter patent from the Monarch, or the modern administrative method of applying to the state Secretary of State (USA) or Companies House (UK) as examples.

  Even the structure of a for-profit tradeable company – when to a state-owned enterprise, a non-profit, a co-op, an NGO or QUANGO – is a representation of the values inherent to capitalism. A company is obliged to use the shareholders’ funds – which is held by the company but is owed to the shareholders – to extract the greatest return. But this can come in many forms.

  Short-term value from buying investments and quickly flipping them (eg corporate home buyers) is different than rent-seeking (eg corporate landlords) and is still different than long-term investments that actively work to build up the value (eg startup incubators, private wealth funds, Islamic banking, transit-owned adjacent property). If a for-profit company doesn’t have a plan to extract a return… they’re in hot water with the shareholders, with penalties like personal liability for malfeasance.

  Another way of looking at the stock market is that if you have all the underlying components but don’t yet have a stock market, it would soon appear naturally. That is to say, if the public stock markets were banned overnight, shares would still trade but just under the table and without regulation. But if any critical part underpinning the markets stopped existing, then the market itself would collapse.

  History shows numerous examples where breakdowns of the legal system resulted in market mayhem, or when corporate property is expropriated for the Monarch’s wars or personal use, or when funds invested into or paid out of companies is hampered by terrible monetary inflation.

  As for what the stock market does, its greatest purpose is to organize investments into ventures. Historically, ventures were things like building a ship to sail to the New World and steal obtain goods to sell at home. Merchant ships were and are still very expensive, so few singular persons could afford it. And even if the could, the failure of the venture could be catastrophic for that person’s finances. Better to spread the risk and the reward amongst lots of people.

  What was once the sole domain of the landed gentry and nobility, slowly opened to the nouveau riche during the Industrial Revolution(s), then in turn to everyday people… for better or worse. It’s now almost trivial to buy a share in any particular listed company, but just opening the stock market to everyone would have been chaotic at best. I think it’s NYSE that still has on-floor traders/brokers, but imagine if all shares in that market had to be traded in a single room. It’s already quite lively, now add all the online trades from middle class Americans on payday. It would be impossible.

  Likewise, a pure capitalist stock market would permit awful things like bribing journalists to write fake stories to crash a stock, then buy it for cheap. Or pump and dump scams. And would have no “circuit breakers” that halt during so-called flash crashes.

  I’m reminded of a scene from the ITV show Agatha Christie’s Poirot in the episode “Appointment With Death”, where a wealthy woman is not only murdered but her business empire collapses because the markets panicked and sold up. The relevant implications here is that despite her company not having changed its financial picture, it got cut up for scrap and thus lost most of its value, rendering the business worthless in the end.

  Suffice it to say, the stock market is a lot of things. But I view it as a natural result of certain other prerequisites, meaning we can’t really get rid of it, so instead it should be appropriately regulated.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨If the Federal Government wanted to make a new planned city, would they be able to use Eminent Domain?⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  From an urban planning perspective, there are some caveats to your points:

  A new downtown would make a subway very easy and cheap to build, you could cut and cover instead of tunnelling

  Cut-and-cover will make shallow underground tunnels cheaper to construct in almost all cases irrespective of building in an old city center or as part of building a new city center from scratch. In fact, older pre-WW2 cities are almost ideal for cut-and-cover because the tunnels can follow the street grid, yielding a tunnel which will be near to already-built destinations, while minimizing costly curves.

  Probably the worst scenario for cut-and-cover is when the surface street has unnecessary curves and detours (eg American suburban arterials). So either the tunnel follows the curve and becomes weirdly farther from major destinations, or it’s built in segments using cut-and-cover where possible and digging for the rest.

  Cheeeaaap land for huge offices, roads, and even houses

  At least in America, where agricultural land at the edges of metropolitan areas is still cheap, the last 70 years do not suggest huge roads, huge offices, and huge house lead to a utopia. Instead, we just get car-dependency and sprawl, as well as dead shopping malls. The benefits of this accrued to the prior generations, who wheeled-and-dealed in speculative suburban house flipping, and saddled cities with sprawling infrastructure that the existing tax base cannot afford.

  Green field is just so cheap.

  It is, until it isn’t. Greenfield development “would be short term appealing but still expensive when it comes to building everything”. It’s a rare case in America where post-WW2 greenfield housing or commercial developments pay sufficient tax to maintain the municipal services those developments require.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Instead of having customers donate a dollar and giving them a coupon book "worth" $30, why doesn't KFC just donate those $30 themselves (or even half)?⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  The thing to keep in mind is that there exist things which have “circumstantial value”, meaning that the usefulness of something depends on the beholder’s circumstances at some point in time. Such an object can actually have multiple valuations, as compared to goods (which have a single, calculable market value) or sentimental objects (“priceless” to their owner).

  To use an easy example, consider a sportsball ticket. Presenting it at the ballfield is redeemable for a seat to watch the game at the time and place written on the ticket. And it can be transferred – despite Ticketmaster’s best efforts – so someone else could enjoy the same. But if the ticket is unused and the game is over, then the ticket is now worthless. Or if the ticket holder doesn’t enjoy watching sportsball, their valuation of the ticket is near nil.

  So to start, the coupon book is arguable “worth” $30, $0, or somewhere in between. Not everyone will use every coupon in the book. But if using just one coupon will result in a savings of at least $1, then perhaps the holder would see net-value from that deal.

  That said, I’m of the opinion that if a donation directly results in me receiving something in return… that’s not a donation. It’s a sale or transaction dressed in the clothes of charity. Plus, KFC sends coupons in the mail for free anyway.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Why would someone desite a pension instead of a 401k?⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Notwithstanding the possible typo in the title, I think the question is why USA employers would prefer to offer a pension over a 401k, or vice-versa.

  For reference, a pension is also known as a defined benefit plan, since an individual has paid into the plan for the minimum amount will be entitled to some known amount of benefit, usually in the form of a fixed stipend for the remainder of their life, and sometimes also health insurance coverage. USA’s Social Security system is also sometimes called the public pension, because it does in-fact pay a stipend in old age and requires a certain amount of payments into the fund during one’s working years.

  Whereas a 401k is uncreatively named after the tax code section which authorized its existence, initially being a deferred compensation mechanism – aka a way to spread one’s income over more time, to reduce the personal taxes owed in a given year – and then grew into the tax-advantaged defined contribution plan that it is today. That is, it is a vessel for saving money, encouraged by tax advantages and by employer contributions, if any.

  The superficial view is that 401k plans overtook pensions because companies wouldn’t have to contribute much (or anything at all), shifting retirement costs entirely onto workers. But this is ahistorical since initial 401k plans offered extremely generous employer contribution rates, some approaching 15% matching. Of course, the reasoning then was that the tax savings for the company would exceed that, and so it was a way to increase compensation for top talent. In the 80s and 90# was when the 401k was only just taking hold as a fringe benefit, so you had to have a fairly cushy job to have access to a 401k plan.

  Another popular viewpoint is that workers prefer 401k plans because it’s more easily inspectable than a massive pension fund, and history has shown how pension funds can be mismanaged into non-existent. This is somewhat true, if US States’ teacher pension funds are any indication, although Ontario Teacher’s Pension Plan would be the counterpoint. Also, the 401k plan participants at Enron would have something to complain about, as most of the workers funds were invested in the company itself, delivering a double whammy: no job, and no retirement fund.

  It is my opinion that the explosion of 401k plans and participants in such plans – to the point that some US states are enacting automatic 401k plans for workers whose employers don’t offer one – is due to 1) momentum, since more and more employers keep offering them, 2) but more importantly, because brokers and exchanges love managing them.

  This is the crux: only employers can legally operate a 401k plan for their employees to participate in. But unless the employer is already a stock trading platform, they are usually ill-equiped to set up an integrated platform that allows workers to choose from a menu of investments which meet the guidelines from the US DOL, plus all other manner of regulatory requirements. Instead, even the largest employers will partner with a financial services company who has expertise on offering a 401k plan, such as Vanguard, Fidelity, Merrill Edge.

  Naturally, they’ll take a cut on every trade or somehow get compensated, but because of the volume of 401k investments – most people auto-invest every paycheck – even small percentages add up quickly. And so, just like the explosion of retail investment where ordinary people could try their hand at day-trading, it’s no surprise that brokerages would want to extend their hand to the high volume business of operating 401k plans.

  Whereas, how would they make money off a pension fund? Pension funds are multi-billion dollar funds, so they can afford their own brokers to directly buy a whole company in one-shot, with no repeat business.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Could I patent harmful technology to prevent it from being put on the market?⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Although copyright and patents (and trademarks) are lumped together as “intellectual property”, there’s almost nothing which is broadly applicable to them all, and they might as well be considered separately. The only things I can think of – and I’m not a lawyer if any kind – are that: 1) IP protection is mentioned broadly in the US Constitution, and 2) they all behave as property, in that they can be traded/reassigned. That’s it.

  With that out of the way, it’s important to keep in mind that patent rights are probably the strongest in the family of IP, since there’s no equivalent “fair use” (US) or “fair dealing” (UK) allowance that copyright has. A patent is almost like owning an idea, whereas copyright is akin to owning a certain rendition plus a derivative right.

  Disney has leaned on copyright to carve for themselves an exclusive market of Disney characters, while also occasionally renewing their older characters (aka derivatives), so that’s why they lobby for longer copyright terms.

  Whereas there isn’t really a singular behemoth company whose bread-and-butter business is to churn out patents. Inventing stuff is hard, and so the lack of such a major player means a lack of lobbying to extend patent terms.

  To be clear, there are companies who rely almost entirely on patent law for their existence, just like Disney relies on copyright law. But type foundries (companies that make fonts) are just plainly different than Disney. Typefaces (aka fonts) as a design can be granted patents, and then the font files can be granted copyright. But this is a special case, I think.

  The point is: no one’s really clamoring for longer parents, and most people would regard a longer term on “ideas” to be very problematic. Esp if it meant pharmaceutical companies could engage in even more price-gouging, for example.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Could I patent harmful technology to prevent it from being put on the market?⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  If you hold a patent, then you have an exclusive right to that invention for a fixed period, which would be 20 years from the filing date in the USA. That would mean Ford could not claim the same or a derivative invention, at least not for the parts which overlap with your patent. So yes, you could sit on your patent and do nothing until it expires, with some caveats.

  But as a practical matter, the necessary background research, the application itself, and the defense of a patent just to sit on it would be very expensive, with no apparent revenue stream to pay for it. I haven’t looked up what sort of patent Ford obtained (or maybe they’ve merely started the application) but patents are very long and technical, requiring whole teams of lawyers to draft properly.

  For their patent to be valid, they must not overlap with an existing claim, as well as being novel and non-obvious, among other requirements. They would only do this to: 1) protect themselves from competition in future, 2) expect that this patent can be monetized by directly implementing it, or licensing it out to others, or becoming a patent troll and extracting nuisance-value settlements, or 3) because they’re already so deep in the Intellectual Property land-grab that they must continue to participate by obtaining outlandish patents. The latter is a form of “publish or perish” and allows them to appear like they’re on the cutting edge of innovation.

  A patent can become invalidated if it is not sufficiently defended. This means that if no one even attempts to infringe, then your patent would be fine. But if someone does, then you must file suit or negotiate a license with them, or else they can challenge the validity of your patent. If they win, you’ll lose your exclusive rights and they can implement the invention after-all. This is not cheap.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Is the bitwise AND of subnet masks and IP addresses redundant?⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  I’ll address your question in two parts: 1) is it redundant to store both the IP subnet and its subnet mask, and 2) why doesn’t the router store only the bits necessary to make the routing decision.

  Prior to the introduction of CIDR – which came with the “slash” notation, like /8 for the 10.0.0.0 RFC1918 private IPv4 subnet range – subnets would genuinely be any bit arrangement imaginable. The most sensible would be to have contiguous MSBit-justified subnet masks, such as 255.0.0.0. But the standard did not preclude using something unconventional like 255.0.0.1.

  For those confused what a 255.0.0.1 subnet mask would do – and to be clear, a lot of software might prove unable to handle this – this is describing a subnet with 2^23 addresses, where the LSBit must match the IP subnet. So if your IP subnet was 10.0.0.0, then only even numbered addresses are part of that subnet. And if the IP subnet is 10.0.0.1, then that only covers odd numbered addresses.

  Yes, that means two machines with addresses 10.69.3.3 and 10.69.3.4 aren’t on the same subnet. This would not be allowed when using CIDR, as contiguous set bits are required with CIDR.

  So in answer to the first question, CIDR imposed a stricter (and sensible) limit on valid IP subnet/mask combinations, so if CIDR cannot be assumed, then it would be required to store both of the IP subnet and the subnet mask, since mask bits might not be contiguous.

  For all modern hardware in the last 15-20 years, CIDR subnets are basically assumed. So this is really a non-issue.

  For the second question, the router does in-fact store only the necessary bits to match the routing table entry, at least for hardware appliances. Routers use what’s known as a TCAM memory for routing tables, where the bitwise AND operation can be performed, but with a twist.

  Suppose we’re storing a route for 10.0.42.0/24. The subnet size indicates that the first 24 bits must match a prospective destination IP address. And the remaining 8 bits don’t matter. TCAMs can store 1’s and 0’s, but also X’s (aka “don’t cares”) which means those bits don’t have to match. So in this case, the TCAM entry will mirror the route’s first 24 bits, then populate the rest with X’s. And this will precisely match the intended route.

  As a practical matter then, the TCAM must still be as wide as the longest possible route, which is 32 bits for IPv4 and 128 bits for IPv6. Yes, I suppose some savings could be made if a CIDR-only TCAM could conserve the X bits, but this makes little difference in practice and it’s generally easier to design the TCAM for max width anyway, even though non-CIDR isn’t supported on most routing hardware anymore.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Why are doctors so hands off and unhelpful in the USA?⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  To start off, I’m sorry to hear that you’re not receiving the healthcare you need. I recognize that these words on a screen aren’t going to solve any concrete problems, but in the interest of a fuller comprehension of the USA healthcare system, I will try to offer an answer/opinion to your question that goes into further depth than simply “capitalism” or “money and profit” or “greed”.

  What are my qualifications? Absolutely none, whatsoever. Although I did previously write a well-received answer in this community about the USA health insurance system, which may provide some background for what follows.

  In short, the USA healthcare system is a hodge-podge of disparate insurers and government entities (collectively “payers”), and doctors, hospitals, clinics, ambulances, and more government entities (collectively “providers”), overseen by separate authorities in each of the 50 US States, territories, tribes, and certain federal departments (collectively “regulators”). There is virtually no national-scale vertical integration in any sense, meaning that no single or large entity has the viewpoint necessary to thoroughly review the systemic issues in this “system”, nor is there the visionary leadership from within the system to even begin addressing its problems.

  It is my opinion that by bolting-on short-term solutions without a solid long-term basis, the nation was slowly led to the present dysfunction, akin to boiling a frog. And this need not be through malice or incompetence, since it can be shown that even the most well-intentioned entities in this sordid and intricate pantomime cannot overcome the pressures which this system creates. Even when there are apparent winners like filthy-rich plastic surgeons or research hospitals brimming with talented expert doctors of their specialty, know that the toll they paid was heavy and worse than it had to be.

  That’s not to say you should have pity on all such players in this machine. Rather, I wish to point to what I’ll call “procedural ossification”, as my field of computer science has a term known as “protocol ossification” that originally borrowed the term from orthopedia, or the study of bone deformities. How very fitting for this discussion.

  I define procedural ossification as the loss of flexibility in some existing process, such that rather than performing the process in pursuit of a larger goal, the process itself becomes the goal, a mindless, rote machine where the crank is turned and the results come out, even though this wasn’t what was idealized. To some, this will harken to bureaucracy in government, where pushing papers and forms may seem more important that actually solving real, pressing issues.

  I posit to you that the USA healthcare system suffers from procedural ossification, as many/most of the players have no choice but to participate as cogs in the machine, and that we’ve now entirely missed the intended goal of providing for the health of people. To be an altruistic player is to be penalized by the crushing weight of practicalities.

  What do I base this on? If we look at a simple doctor’s office, maybe somewhere in middle America, we might find the staff composed of a lead doctor – it’s her private practice, after all – some Registered Nurses, administrative staff, a technician, and an office manager. Each of these people have particular tasks to make just this single doctor’s office work. Whether it’s supervising the medical operations (the doctor) or operating/maintaining the X-ray machine (technician) or cutting the checks to pay the building rent (office manager), you do need all these roles to make a functioning, small doctor’s office.

  How is this organization funded? In my prior comment about USA health insurance, there was a slide which showed the convoluted money flows from payers to providers, which I’ve included below. What’s missing from this picture is how even with huge injections of money, bad process will lead to bad outcomes.

  financial flow in the US healthcare system Source

  In an ideal doctor’s office, every patient that walks in would be treated so that their health issues are managed properly, whether that’s fully curing the condition or controlling it to not get any worse. Payment would be conditioned upon the treatment being successful and within standard variances for the cost of such treatment, such as covering all tests to rule out contributing factors, repeat visits to reassess the patient’s condition, and outside collaboration with other doctors to devise a thorough plan.

  That’s the ideal, and what we have in the USA is an ossified version of that, horribly contorted and in need of help. Everything done in a doctor’s office is tracked with a “CPT/HCPCS code”, which identifies the type of service rendered. That, in and of itself, could be compatible with the ideal doctor’s office, but the reality is that the codes control payment as hard rules, not considering “reasonable variances” that may have arisen. When you have whole professions dedicated to properly “coding” procedures so an insurer or Medicare will pay reimbursement, that’s when we’ve entirely lost the point and grosdly departed from the ideal. The payment tail wags the doctor dog.

  To be clear, the coding system is well intentioned. It’s just that its use has been institutionalized into only ever paying out if and only if a specific service was rendered, with zero consideration for whether this actually advanced the patient’s treatment. The coding system provides a wealth of directly-comparable statistical data, if we wanted to use that data to help reform the system. But that hasn’t substantially happened, and when you have fee-for-service (FFS) as the base assumption, of course patient care drops down the priority list. Truly, the acronym is very fitting.

  Even if the lead doctor at this hypothetical wanted to place patient health at the absolute forefront of her practice, she will be without the necessary tools to properly diagnose and treat the patient, if she cannot immediately or later obtain reimbursement for the necessary services rendered. She and her practice would have to absorb costs that a “conforming” doctor’s office would have, and that puts her at a further disadvantage.

  The only major profession that I’m immediately aware of which undertakes unknown costs with regularity, in the hopes of a later full-and-worthwhile reimbursement, is the legal profession. There, it is the norm for personal injury lawyers to take cases on contingency, meaning that the lawyer will eat all the costs if the lawsuit does not ultimately prevail. But if the lawyer succeeds, then they earn a fixed percentage of the settlement or court judgement, typically 15-22%, to compensate for the risk of taking the case on contingency.

  What’s particularly notable is that lawyers must have a good eye to only accept cases they can reasonably win, and to decline cases which are marginal or unlikely to cover costs. This hereustic takes time to hone, but a lawyer could start by being conservative with cases accepted. The reason I mention this is because a doctor-patient relationship is not at all as transactional as a lawyer-client relationship. A doctor should not drop a patient because their health issues won’t allow the doctor to recoup costs.

  The notion that an altruistic doctor’s office can exist sustainably under the FFS model would require said doctor to discard the final shred of decency that we still have in this dysfunctional system. This is wrong in a laissez-faire viewpoint, is wrong in a moral viewpoint, and is wrong in a healthcare viewpoint. Everything about this is wrong.

  But the most insidious problems are those that perpetuate themselves. And because of all those aforementioned payers, providers, and regulators are merely existing and cannot themselves take the initiative to unwind this mess, it’s going to take more than a nudge from outside to make actual changes.

  As I concluded my prior answer on USA health insurance, I noted that Congressional or state-level legislation would be necessary to deal with spiraling costs for healthcare. I believe the same would be required to refocus the nation’s healthcare procedures to put patient care back as the primary objective. This could come in the form of a single-payer model. Or by eschewing insurance pools outright by extending a government obligation to the health of the citizenry, commonly in the form of a universal healthcare system. Costs of the system would become a budgetary line-item so that the health department can focus its energy on care.

  To be clear, the costs still have to be borne, but rather than fighting for reimbursement, it could be made into a form of mandatory spending, meaning that they are already authorized to be paid from the Treasury on an ongoing basis. For reference, the federal Medicare health insurance system (for people over 65) is already a mandatory spending obligation. So upgrading Medicare to universal old-people healthcare is not that far of a stretch, nor would further extending it to cover every person in the country.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨If Necromancy suddenly became possible, can the undead be called as a witness during court proceedings?⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  I’m not a lawyer, but let’s have some fun with this.

  To start, I’m going to have to assume a jurisdiction. I’ll go with California, because Hollywood films have depicted a lot of walking dead, zombies, and whatnot. And also because that’s the jurisdiction I’m most familiar with. I think that such a case where the undead might be a witness would mostly arise in California state courts, since zombies rarely walk/jump/crawl quickly enough to cross state lines from the major population centers of California, which wokld invoke federal jurisdiction.

  Now, we need to hone in on the type of case. A murder case where the victim is called as a witness would certainly be very juicy. But the same legal intrigue would arise from a less-interesting inheritance or family law case. We could also go into contracts and see whether or not the presence of an undead counts as an “act of God” but maybe that’s a bit too niche and law-school theoretical.

  To really showcase the problems this would pose to the court, we will focus on the undead being witness in a criminal trial, as the standard of proof to convict the defendant would be proof “beyond a reasonable doubt”. As the most stringent category of proof, it necessarily follows that the court must err on the side of the defendant in matters of impartiality. This is because the court is technically an arm of the state, and the prosecution wields all the resources of the state against an individual who stands accused of some criminal act.

  As such, for criminal trials, there are certain constitutional rights of the defendant that the court must uphold. The foremost is the right to due process, guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. One of the results from applying due process is that evidence introduced in a criminal trial must not be “unduly prejudicial”. That is, no evidence can be admitted which so irresponsibly causes the jury to render a verdict based on anything but the law.

  Often, this rule is invoked to set aside irrelevant evidence which has no bearing on the charges, except maybe to impune the reputation of the defendant so that the jury thinks they’re a terrible person. Other times, it can be used to exclude relevant but really-bad evidence. The US courts have been through cycles where novel science is used in a prosecution but which later turns out to be bunk and lacking any foundation in reality. It certainly is “evidence” but because it purports to be science when it’s really not, it must be excluded. Psychics are certainly not going to be welcomed witnesses as a subject matter of expert.

  Finally, the other category for evidence being unduly prejudicial is when the jury – through no fault of their own – would weigh that evidence as being the primary factor, above all else, whether it’s DNA or video evidence. This is more a matter of testimony evidence rather than physical evidence. Imagine a small, devoutly religious town where the local pastor is called to testify about whether the defendant could have committed hit-and-run.

  Having a respected community authority figure testify about someone’s potential to commit a crime might be something the jury members would be open to hearing, but the judge might have to weigh whether the fact the fact that the lay witness is a pastor will cause the jury to put too much weight on that testimony. If there are other ways to obtain the same evidence – such as bringing in the defendant’s mother or employer – the judge should not allow the pastor to testify, because it could jeopardize the soundness of the trial and lead to an appeal.

  So now we come back to zombies. Would a jury be able to set aside their shock, horror, and awe about a zombie in court that they could focus on being the finder of fact? If a zombie says they’re an eye-witness to a mugging, would their lack of actual eyeballs confuse the jury? Even more confusing would be a zombie that is testifying as an expert witness. Does their subject matter need to be recent? What if the case needs an expert on 17th Century Parisian fashion and the undead is from that era? Are there no fashion historians who could provide similar expert opinions?

  But supposing we did overcome all that, there might be one form of testimony which – even though very prejudicial – might be allowable for a lay-witness (ie not expert) zombie witness could testify about, and I already mentioned it earlier.

  In most jurisdictions and in California, a dying person’s last act which might point to their killer will not necessarily be excluded for being irrelevant or being circumstantial. It is a rebuttable presumption that someone dying has no incentive to lie, and will likely have been the final witness to their own murder.

  To that end, it’s entirely plausible that a zombie who died by murder could come to court to testify against their killer. Of course, how long does it take for the dead to become undead? If this takes longer than the statue of limitations allows, the defendant would walk. Likewise, if the zombie’s testimony is the only shred of evidence for the murder, that’s not likely to convince the jury. Not unless, of course, the details of the testimony match the circumstances of the crime so well that it wasn’t a fluke.

  TL;DR: rules of evidence would still apply to the undead, and judges must take care to balance the probative value of evidence with any prejudicial quality it may carry.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨If Russia takes out all the Internet cables like the news is saying. How much of that traffic can be re-routed to satellite?⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Lasers work really well in space for secure sat-to-sat data links, but are a lot less viable on Earth’s surface due to diffraction and weather, nevermind the limits of the visible horizon for any height of a communications tower. For pretty much any scenario where laser comms would be considered, microwave RF links would likely be just as good, cheaper, and more commonly deployed and understood by telecom engineers. The only exception is when absurdly high bandwidths are needed, which is where lasers rule.

  But using RF links across thousands of kilometers of oceanic waters? For that, you must construct additional pylons on floating islands to repeat the signal. Otherwise, the only RF signals that could reach land would be too low frequency to carry much bandwidth.

  For reference, when the German Aerospace Center (DLR) set the world record in 2016 for free-space optical communications, they achieved 1.72 Tbits/sec over a distance of 10.45 km. Most optical systems observe a bandwidth/distance relationship, where at best, shooting the signal farther means less available bandwidth, or more bandwidth if brought closer. This is a related to the Shannon-Hartley theorem, since the limiting factor is optical noise.

  So if 1.72 Tbits/sec at 10 km is the best they achieved in free air in 2016, then that pales in comparison to the undersea fibre cables of 2006, where a section of the SHEFA-2 Scottish-Faroese cable runs unamplified for 390 km and moves 570 Gbits/sec aggregate.

  In short, free-space lasers are fast and long-distance. But lasers within fibre cables are much faster and cover even longer distances.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨How can I register to vote?⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  This page appears to describe the standarsized process for registering to vote as an overseas absentee voter: www.fvap.gov/citizen-voter/

  It states that whether or not you just want to vote for federal offices, the important criteria is to establish your “voting residency”, and then the elections office of that county would send you a ballot for what you’re eligible to vote for.

  I can’t imagine this will be simply to navigate, but I applaud you for seeking to exercise your right to vote. Good luck!

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨What have you been pondering about as of late?⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Not the Roman Empire. :)

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨[deleted]⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  If you’ll permit me to broaden the question to “why are political subdivisions allowed to sue each other?”, then the answer often is two-fold: 1) political subdivisions are incorporated entities under the law, so they have a right to pursue redress in front of a higher court, and 2) when the higher power is unclear about the division of rights to the subdivisions, then only a court can dispense the issue.

  For #1, this is the same power which allows a city, county, municipality, special district, state, and sometimes the federal government to obtain an enforcement order against an individual or company. An example would be an injunction to stop dumping more toxic waste into a river. It should be clear that if a city, county, or state was dumping toxic material into a river, the higher level of government would want to stop that too.

  For #2, ambiguity is rife when it comes to poorly drafted legislation or decisions which “passed the buck” far into the future. Historical examples involving borders include the British Partition of India or the Delaware Wedge, the latter which was in dispute for nearly 300 years. You can also find examples in international law, such as whether or not certain islands count as territory for the purpose of extending a country’s Exclusive Economic Zone.

  In the Delaware Wedge case, because the matter involved three or four US States, the matter would ultimately have to be adjudicated by a federal court, either directly before the US Supreme Court or through arbitration under the auspices of the court. Alternatively, Congress potentially could have settled the matter forthright, but since the dispute predates the founding the union, Congress probably thought the states would quickly work it out on their own.

  Here in California, we see some similar misgivings between the state’s own political subdivisions, with a recent example where a county District Attorney brought suit against the most populous city within that county, alleging that state law was being violated.

  As for how a county is allowed to prosecute a state law violation, and why a city can be a target or such prosecution, we need to briefly look at the structure of California governance. Despite what some critics have suggested, California is not a homogenous, unitary state with a singular political and social identity. Rather, it may be one of the most decentralized states in the union, with cities with populations in the low hundreds to the low millions, all coexisting within one set of general state laws.

  The state’s primary subdivisions are the counties, which divide all the land into 58 counties. Counties are responsible to citizens within their borders, authorized to write and enforce laws, except that county laws don’t apply within incorporated borders. That is, cities.

  In essence, the incorporation of a city creates an enclave within a county, and while the state limits what categories of laws a county may author, cities have much more “home rule” authority. This is what allows the City of Los Angeles (pop. 3.8 million) and Amador City (pop. 200) to have similar powers yet clearly applied much differently. It would be a madhouse in the state Legislature if every city needed custom legislation to enable them to serve their people appropriately. So California just lets the cities do their own thing, within reason.

  In terms of enforcement, to prevent overworking the state Attorney General, enforcement of the state’s laws are delegated to the county District Attorneys. These 58 attorneys wield the power of the state within their county borders, such as brokering a plea deal or bringing enforcement lawsuits.

  The safeguard is that the state Attorney General can – at any time – take over an ongoing prosecution from the county DA. For example, investigations involving city police misconduct are now by-default taken away from the county DA and investigated by the state AG, because of a historical pattern of police being too cozy with the DA.

  In the earlier case where the county sued the city within in, the state AG could have also taken that case away. But seeing as the case was already slipshod, the AG probably just decided to let it run its course, where a judge would likely dismiss it.

  TL;DR: political subdivisions do weird things if no guardrails exist or if no other alternative appeara

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨How does Ohio have stock for the new cannabis stores that just opened?⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  From the State Medical Board of Ohio:

  On September 8, 2016, House Bill 523, legalized medical marijuana in Ohio.

  From a June 2024 AP article:

  Recreational pot sales are nearing reality in Ohio … The state Division of Cannabis Control began accepting applications [on 7 June] for new dual licenses that will allow existing medical marijuana dispensaries to also sell nonmedical cannabis.

  While states with medical cannabis generally issues regulations for which patients were eligible and which doctors could prescribe, the products themselves are mostly subject to meeting lab tests for containing what they say on the label, and distributed in child-resistant packaging. Otherwise, the same stock for medical cannabis customers is about the same as for recreational cannabis.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Why doesn't the American market provide efficient and effective health insurance like it does for car insurance?⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  At its very core, an insurance company operates by: 1) pooling policyholder’s risks together and 2) collecting premiums from the policyholders based on actuarial data, to pay claims and maybe make a small profit. But looking broader, an insurance market exists when: a) policyholders voluntarily or are obliged to obtain policies, b) insurers are willing and able to accept the risks in exchange for a premium expected to support the insurance pool, and c) the actuarial risks are calculable and prove true, on average.

  The loss of any of A, B, or C will substantially impact a healthy insurance market, or can prevent the insurance market from ever getting started. For some examples of market failures, the ongoing California homeowner insurance crisis shows how losing B (starting with insurers refusing to renew policies near the wildland-rural interface) and C (increase in insured losses due to climate change) results in policies becoming unaffordable or impossible to obtain.

  As a broader nationwide example, an established business sector that operates wholly without insurance availability is cannabis. A majority of US States have decriminalized marijuana for medical use, and a near-majority have legalized recreational consumption. Yet due to unyielding federal law, no insurer will issue business policies, to protect from risks that all businesses would face, such as losses from fire, due to a product recall or product liability, or for liability to employees. These risks are calculable and there’s a clear need for such policies – thus meeting criteria A and C – but no commercial insurer is willing to issue. Accordingly, the formal market for cannabis business insurance is virtually non-existent in the USA.

  With these examples, we can see that the automobile insurance market meets all three criteria for a healthy market, but it’s how these criteria are met which is noteworthy. Motorists in the USA are obliged in every state except New Hampshire and Virginia, it is a criminal offense to drive a car without third-party liability insurance, meaning the motorist might spend time in jail. Note: NH and VA won’t send a motorist to jail, but they do have administrative penalties for driving without “financial responsibility”, which includes insurance or a bond at the DMV.

  The exact requirement varies per state, with some requiring very low amounts of coverage and others requiring extra coverage a like Personal Injury Protection (PIP, aka no-fault insurance). The point is that criteria A is easily met: motorists want to avoid jail, but also want to avoid the indignity of being sued after having caused a road incident, in addition to protecting their apparently only viable mode of transportation.

  Insurers can take into account the overall trends in national risks trends for automobiles (eg new car safety) as well as local or hyper-local risks (eg hail damage in the southeast, property crime in a particular zip code). And as a large country with nearly as many cars as people, many insurers are willing to meet the demand. This satisfies criteria B and C.

  So well-organized is the automobile insurance market that you could almost say that it’s vertically integrated: the largest nationwide insurers have contracts in place with every dealership network, auto collision chain, new and used parts dealers, as well as automatic data sharing with state DMVs, plus with firms like CarFax that buy information. Despite each state being slightly different, the insurers have overcome and achieved a level of near uniformity that allows an efficient market to exist.

  Things are drastically different for the American healthcare system and for American health insurance companies. While most think of their healthcare provider as a national name like Anthem Blue Cross or Kaiser Permanente, the reality is that each state is an island. Even federal programs like Medicaid and Medicare are subject to state-level non-uniformities. Hospitals can be either privately operated (eg religion-affiliated, or for-profit) or run by a public entity (eg county or state), and can exist as a single entity or form part of a regional hospital network). Some entities operate both the insurance pool as well as providing the health care (eg HMOs like Kaiser Permanente) while others dispatch to a list of contracted providers, usually being doctor’s own private practices or specialist offices.

  With so many disparate entities, and where healthcare is a heavily-regulated activity by each state, the cost of insurable risks – that is, for routine healthcare services – is already kinda difficult to compute. Hospitals and doctors go through intense negotiations with insurers to come to an agreement on reimbursement rates, but the reality is that neither has sufficient actuarial data to price based on what can be borne by the market. So they just pass their costs on, whatever those may be, and insurers either accept it into their calculations, or drop the provider.

  Suffice it to say, there are fewer pressure to push the total cost of healthcare down, given this reality, and more likely prices will continue to climb. This fails criteria C.

  financial flow in the US healthcare system Source

  Briefly speaking, it’s fairly self explanatory why people would want health insurance, since the alternative is either death or serious health repercussions, paying out-of-pocket rates for service, or going to the ER and being burdened by medical debt that will somehow haunt even after death.. Criteria A is present.

  As for Criteria B, that was actually resolved as part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). During discussions with the drafters, insurers bargained for an obligation for everyone to have insurance (aka the individual mandate, bolstering criteria A), in exchange for an obligation to issue policies for anyone who applies, irrespective of pre-existing health conditions. Thus, Criteria B is present for all ACA-compliant policies in the USA, even though the individual mandate was legislatively repealed.

  So to answer your question directly, the costs for healthcare in the USA continue to spiral so far out of control that it causes distortions in health insurance market, to everyone’s detriment. Specific issues such as open-enrollment periods, employer subsidies, and incomprehensible coverage levels all stem from – and are attempts to reduce – costs.

  Enrollment periods prevent people from changing plans immediately after obtaining an expensive service, like a major surgery. Employer subsidies exist due to a federal tax quirk decades ago, which has now accidentally become an essential part of the health insurance and health care situation. And coverage levels try to provide tiered plans, so people can still afford coverage for “catastrophic” injuries while others can buy coverage for known, recurring medical needs.

  But these are all bandaging the bleeding which is unchecked costs. It would take an act of Congress – literally – or of state legislatures to address the structural issues at play. The most prominent solution to nip costs is the bud is to achieve the same near-vertical integration as with automobile insurance. This means a single or very few entities which have contracts in place with every provider (doctors and hospitals), negotiated at once and uniformly, so as to achieve criteria C. The single-payer model – which Medicare already uses – is one such solution.

  Going further would be the universal healthcare model, which discards the notion of health insurance entirely and creates an obligation for a government department to provide for the health of the citizens, funded by taxes. This means doctors and hospitals work at the behest of the department for then citizenry, or work privately outside the system entirely, with no guarantee of a steady stream of work.

  These models could be approached by individual states or by the nation as a whole, but it’s unclear where the Overton window for that idea currently is.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Could President Biden fully legalize cannabis before he leaves office?⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  It’s a straightforward question with a not-so-straightforward answer. I’m not any sort of lawyer, but I will borrow the classic lawyer answer of: “It Depends”.

  To start, the question of legalizing cannabis – meaning its sale, distribution, and consumption is as easy as for any other good – is distinct from the question of decriminalizing cannabis, which means it’s not a criminal offense to grow, sell, or consume.

  Right off the bat, we can say that the US President cannot fully legalize cannabis nationwide with the stroke of a pen, because the several states can (and already do?) have their own laws and regulations on cannabis and other drugs, parallel to the federal laws. But decriminalization is feasible, since the federal statues that criminalize cannabis are based on the drug schedules, which are regulations issued by DEA pursuant to authority granted by Congress.

  Of course, the several states could start writing their own laws to criminalize cannabis, but that would be kinda weird since the majority of states already allow medical marijuana, and a fair number allow recreational marijuana. So criminalizing cannabis would repeal those rather popular laws.

  So we move to how the DEA can amend the drug schedules, or how the US President can instruct the DEA Administrator. Because Congress is the grantor of such authority to the DEA and other executive agencies, and seeking to prevent regulations from whimsically flip-flopping with the passing breeze, Congress introduced the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) in 1946.

  As the name suggests, the Act sets up the rules for how regulations issued by agencies shall be performed. Most of the rules mirror those of Congressional procedure, meaning that the agency must conduct hearings on proposed rule changes openly, with the opportunity for the public to submit comments. That is, regulations suddenly appearing from behind closed doors is not permitted.

  Part of the rules require fixed timelines, such as a number of days for sending in comments, plus a number of days for publishing the full text of the proposed rule into the Federal Register, before the rule can become active.

  Furthermore, the Act instructs the judiciary to review regulations if someone raises a challenge to the adopted regulation. Among the things the judiciary will look at is whether the regulation is improperly “arbitrary and capricious”, meaning the regulation was pretextual and is instead serving a goal outside of what Congress intended for the agency to be doing.

  If the US President issued a brief executive to remove cannabis from the drug schedules, thus shortcutting the rulemaking procedure and the period for public comment, a court challenge could arise where someone claims the regulation is arbitrary and capricious, since Congress would have expected the DEA to do a full, extensive job of considering the implications of drug availability. If the executive order does not do a similarly extensive consideration of what the DEA staff would do, then the court challenge would stand a decent chance. To be clear, the regulation via executive order would be strict down on procedural grounds, per the APA.

  What if instead, the US President sternly instructs the DEA Administrator to immediately consider descheduling cannabis? This is more likely to withstand challenge, since the DEA staff would go through their normal evaluation procedure, even if it’s at an expedited rate. Thoroughness is one way to avoid being struck for arbitrary-and-capriciousness.

  But there’s still a wrinkle, due to the recent demise of Chevron Deference, a doctrine where federal courts generally defer to the subject-matter experts within an executive agency, if the enabling law was silent, so long as the APA’s other requirements were met. This leads to the weird possibility that a federal judge – who is unlikely to be well-versed in drug and social implications – can substitute the learned opinion of doctors and scientists within DEA with their own judicial opinion. If this sounds similar to the very arbitrary-and-capricious issue from earlier, you’d be right: a single person – in the judiciary, no less – writing regulations for drug policy is hardly what Congress intended in authoring the Controlled Substance Act in the 70s.

  The overall answer is that the US President has significant away over the DEA Administrator and can expedite the rulemaking process to deschedule cannabis, thus decriminalizing it at the federal level. And that matters because most drug defendants are prosecuted under federal law. But even an un-expedited rulemaking process would attract legal challenges like flies to flypaper, slowing down when the regulation comes into force. And if a federal judge decides to do so, they can outright cancel the descheduling regulation, choosing to not defer to the DEA, even if the DEA articulated their reasoning well.

  It really depends.