I used to write a lot of Ruby, so I appreciate the author's enthusiasm for the language and community's future. I think it's a great language in many ways, and deserves more attention. I was never a Rails person and have long felt that the community was overly shackled to Rails, and it could be a very good thing for that to be shaken apart.
On the other hand, I find the comparison to Weimar Germany a little nuts. My association with the period is a little less Fritz Lang and a little more "paramilitaries terrorizing the Ostjuden." It feels strange to use this as the analogy for Ruby's revitalization, in no small part because of DHH's openly reactionary leanings.
(I don't think this comparison is ill-intended, I just think it doesn't produce the author's intended reaction.)
There’s a great deal to be said for having (inter alia) matrices, job dependencies, and cross-platform runners already working and available. Docker won’t immediately provide those things.
It seems like a good rule, and I am eager to see what NYC’s enforcement is going to look like. I have historically been disappointed (as a life-long resident) by the discontinuity between the city’s eagerness to legislate and its recalcitrance around enforcement, particularly when public interest in any given topic fades.
(Compare the city’s historic problems around preventing illegal de-stabilization of rental units, inability to prevent the NYPD from parking on sidewalks, and so forth.)
Parking enforcement in NYC is currently also handled by the sanitation department. They can and do ticket cars blocking street cleaning operations, which parked personally-owned vehicles of cops do interfere with.
I would settle for a bit of towing, or even just fining the individual cops who park their personal cars on the sidewalk. Parking of city-owned vehicles is also a problem, but the former seems easier to enforce per your point.
I'd love to see a division of DOT have a bounty program for illegal parking. They do it for idling trucks, why not do it for vehicles parked in bike lanes/illegal double parking/etc?
The type of enforcement that the public supports is only a tiny sliver of what the kind of people who make the most use of such programs are willing to submit.
It only works for idling trucks because the person letting the truck idle is almost never the owner and the person idling the truck is usually doing work so they're not around to notice they're being reported and there's a lot more public apetite for enforcement against businesses than the general public and they write it off as a cost of doing business.
If you open up the floodgates of anyone v anyone that generic parking enforcement entails I give it about a week before some "super reporter" gets curb stomped by an uber driver who's having a bad day. And then you'll have public scrutiny, the tough question that come with that and the entire program is likely to be walked back as a result.
> the discontinuity between the city’s eagerness to legislate and its recalcitrance around enforcement
For consumer-corporate disputes, learning to leverage New York's regulatory state is a bit of a superpower. Basically, sending in a written complaint with the regulator copied and then having them open a regulatory-investigatory file is real leverage because even if you're full of shit, it's going to burn legal dollars on the other side. That, in turn, makes a letter to the company threatening regulatory escalation as the next step land seriously.
Not a NYC-only problem though. There are tons of federal, state, and local laws that go under-enforced or unenforced. Legislators love the performance art of writing these kinds of popular laws, but law enforcement often doesn't care enough to enforce most of them. In this case, the website says the penalty is "starting at $525" which is basically nothing to a corporation, and nothing to the police/government. So you can file a complaint but it will probably go to /dev/null. After a year of this people will give up on even filing complaints.
What needs to happen for rules like this is: 1. the complaint should be easy/automatic to validate and rule on, 2. hard for the company to appeal and stonewall, and 3. the fine money should go to the person who filed the complaint as a bounty to motivate people to look for violators.
Naturally. I mean only that NYC is an instance of this.
(It's worth noting that the city does sometimes enforce new regulations well, and in a way that the public is aware of. For example, businesses in the city are required to accept hard cash as payment, and the penalties for not doing so can be significant. Friends have told me that the city is very proactive about responding to those complaints. Anecdotally, the city has also become much better about responding to some forms of illegal parking and idling over the past few years. It certainly helps when the incentives are aligned, i.e. the cost of the enforcement program is supported by the fines collected.)
It's not clear why enforcement would be needed necessarily.
Assuming that you pay with a credit card, I would assume you could dispute the charge on the basis that they're violating the law and win any faceoff immediately on that basis.
If the business simply doesn't offer click-to-cancel, so you haven't actually canceled your subscription, how could you successfully claim the payment was made fraudulently? The law doesn't mandate that you can unilaterally exit any agreement, it mandates that businesses have to offer an easy way for you to do so.
The example of a yearly subscription paid monthly should make this obvious. You can't exit this arrangement after 6 months and expect to simply not pay the remaining 6 months, as the contract was for a whole year. All this law does is force the business to make it easy for you to cancel any auto-renew for a second year. But if the business doesn't do that and you dispute a payment, how hard do you expect your bank to work to figure out if this payment was for a part of the original contract, or for an auto-renewal you should have been able to easily canceled, but haven't?
Have you ever actually submitted a credit card dispute? It's like a little miniature arbitration. You can submit whatever documents and justification you want.
My point would be that the argument would be clear. It stands to reason that a business cannot consider an unlawfully collected payment to be legitimate. If you can demonstrate that you attempted to give them notice of cancellation and they ignored it unlawfully, then that's your justification that the payment wasn't authorized. You can, of course, revoke authorization to collect payment anytime you want.
This is a really common kind of dispute that businesses have with credit card users. Typically, their response is that the user did, in fact, authorize it because they agreed to a variety of terms that mandated this and that for cancellation, and so on and so forth. In essence, if they can get the user to admit that they gave the original authorization, their argument would be that it was never withdrawn because the user previously agreed to some T&C buried definition of how cancellation would be defined.
The counter to that, of course, now, is new, which is to say that those terms are unlawful and thus negated. It seems completely sound to me as a strategy.
By my understanding, the new law says "a business must offer a way to cancel a subscription that is at least as simple as creating the subscription, and in the same medium".
However, if a business fails to do so, and the only way they have to cancel your subscription is via, say, a notarized letter, I don't see how you can convince your bank that you tried to unsubscribe unless you have sent such a notarized letter.
That's not how the burden of proof works. In a credit card dispute the merchant needs to have there be no ambiguity that you did, in fact, authorize the transfer of money to their account and that the authorization is still in effect. The absence of evidence means you win.
Typically, the way it would work is that they would say, "You authorized it," and you would say, "Actually, I didn't authorize that payment. I only authorized the prior payments. I never authorized the subsequent ones because I logged in to their site and attempted to cancel, but they did not provide me with a means to do so."
To which they could say no your initial authorization should also apply to these subsequent charges because that cancellation method is not one we accept. In the past, that defense could work. Your NEW counterargument would be: Sorry, but they cannot rely on and profit from unlawful behavior.
Surely we agree that clicking to cancel will not produce cash in your hands, and that, by definition, you physically were in a location when you paid the cash, and going back there to collect the cash is no longer unreasonable.
The codebase in question (uv) uses PGO already. I suspect there isn’t a general way to guarantee that PGO ensures that only the “right” things get inlined.
This isn't consistently true. The kind of animal sacrifice that happened during the First and Second Temple periods often involved burning the entire animal, except for its skin[1].
(To my understanding, giving the god(s) only the "undesirable" parts of the animal is popularly associated with the Greek gods, not Abrahamic faiths.)
That doesn't seem to do much in the `curl | bash` setting, given that you're not verifying the attestation in that case. You still need to download it separately and run `gh attestation verify` first.
(Note that the attestation does not appear to cover the shell script either, it only covers the script's final payload. The shell script is also referenced via `main`, so it's mutable even if the underlying payload is properly attested. That's not good!)
“Wall time” is a pretty common systems term (you see it when comparing total runtime to kernel time, for example). I wouldn’t have indexed on “wall clock time” or other variants as an LLMism.
On the other hand, I find the comparison to Weimar Germany a little nuts. My association with the period is a little less Fritz Lang and a little more "paramilitaries terrorizing the Ostjuden." It feels strange to use this as the analogy for Ruby's revitalization, in no small part because of DHH's openly reactionary leanings.
(I don't think this comparison is ill-intended, I just think it doesn't produce the author's intended reaction.)
reply