No normal person can repair a Tesla, it’s basically a trade secret. My brother is a mechanic and servicing Teslas are a non starter due to the complexity. The notion that I can just download a manual, buy some parts and DIY my own repairs is absolutey ludicrous.
The only reason for Tesla to support right to repair is to increase regulatory burden on competitors, stunt innovation and raise costs for their competition. Shame on this anticompetitive behaviour.
I do not agree. The parts of the mechanical drivetrain or the molded plastics can be impossible to obtain before a large number of Teslas have been scrapped and sold for parts. But the battery and electronics can be understood and repaired without schematics. The software reverse engineering is possible. I agree that repairs can be far to time-consuming to be economically viable, but given free labour it can be done.
EVs could be a gigantic step down in complexity but that doesn’t benefit their manufacturers. It would risk making them a commodity that can be assembled from parts like an old school PC.
Instead the industry is looking at the EV transition as a way to increase costs and decrease customer freedom. This is absolutely artificial and in no way mandated by the technology.
A similar case in computing is what happened with mobile and tablets where a change in form factor allowed lock down to be smuggled in without people asking too many questions. A Mac is now a big overgrown tablet in terms of its CPU and innards but you can install your own OS on a Mac but not an iPad. Why? No technical reason at all.
Right to repair is good but it’s actually less than what we need. We need a huge rebirth of DIY technology and less centralized supplier ecosystems. This may require some regulation but it also requires consumers to stop being so passive and prioritizing shininess and laziness over every single other thing. The “millennial minimalism” era needs to end both as an aesthetic and a framework for consumer-producer relations. (The two are related.)
When we transition to 4WD in-wheel motors the drivetrain and the moving parts could become standard. The inverters could become programmable. We designed programmable networks of per-battery-cell (dis)charger computers that would take the danger out of clusters of battery cells of unequal batteries. When each battery is wired in parallel, not in series not only can you go from 800 charge cycles to 20000 cycles (lifetime nearly 50 years) but you would eliminate fires and prevent short circuits in the power networks. It would thus be possible to build cars completely from standard parts. Mind you, not a single company has tried this yet, but there is no economical or theoretical impediment to build from off-the-shelf components in the next two decades. EV car kits will be poossible and probably cheaper. After an amateur has build one, for example the Dutch Government RDW would test the car for safety for less than a thousand Euro's, like they already do for car, truck and camper conversions. I remember an Scientific American article in the 90's predicting single mechanic African custom EVs as a future possibility.
We need a Framework for EVs perhaps to get this going.
The EV I want is a simple super reliable easily repairable one.
I personally went for the Nissan Leaf in lieu of this because it’s basically a Nissan Versa with a motor and batteries where the engine and gas tank go. Not good for road trips but a nice city car and decently repairable. (I have an older ICE for road trips that I don’t drive much otherwise.)
> EVs could be a gigantic step down in complexity but that doesn’t benefit their manufacturers. It would risk making them a commodity that can be assembled from parts like an old school PC.
But the step down in complexity also makes it easier to become a manufacturer, and as battery costs come down this is likely to happen.
At which point a startup with no other way to distinguish themselves can start selling highly repairable electric cars. Customers figure out that these have a lower ownership cost (whether or not they do the repairs themselves) and start preferring them. The incumbents then follow suit or lose the market.
The main reason this doesn't happen for phones is that the market is so consolidated. The main SoCs are made by only a small handful of companies who don't publish documentation, and producing a competitive one is capital-intensive because of the constraints of the form factor. But even there it may not be permanent -- what's going to happen to phones once there is a fully-documented RISC-V SoC on the market that has tolerable performance and power consumption?
It's not the best example unfortunately. People do build custom headers by cutting and welding various pipes using off-the-shelf tools. Welp, ICE is an old tech (from 18c), so it doesn't take dark magic to fix a whole ICE car mechanically. The real deal breaker is electric controllers w/ proprietary software.
That's assuming you need the controller to do the exact same thing in the exact same way as the OEM one. But in many cases people are replacing it because they want it to do something different anyway.
And these functions are in many cases quite simple. You replace the controller for the door locks. It operates a solenoid that locks and unlocks the doors. Maybe they no longer function by calling the call center to have them unlock your car, but maybe you don't want that anyway. They still function if you press a button on your key fob.
Seriously, I've read that some EV makers require that two persons be present when working on the HV system, the second one on watch with a pull-up hook in case the first one seizes up touching some 400 or 800 V DC part.
There are a very few private tesla repair garages that do know how to repair some things. They seem to be run by former tesla repairmen. They have been able to salvage a lot of dead cars. They seem to be mostly in california.
Go to service.tesla.com, login with a free account, you can access all repair information and service manuals for free. You absolutely can download a manual, buy some parts, and DIY
If you're on apple silicon and the VM is x86, I agree the performance is abysmal. I'm pretty sure this is just a QEMU issue and not really the fault of UTM. If your VM is aarch64, the VM performance is amazingly great and I can't recommend UTM enough.
Get up at 6am. Get kids ready for school. Help my wife with any chores around the house for a bit. Start working. Lift on my lunch break in my home gym. Back to work. Kids come home. Feed them. Help with homework. Do something with them outside weather permitting. Put them to bed, read to/with them. Get lunches ready for tomorrow. Load the dishwasher. Load the laundry. My turn to walk the dog. Be mentally and physically drained. Hopefully this all gets down by 9:30 so I can get to bed before 10 and get enough sleep to start it all over again.
The trick is to learn during your working hours. I generally subtract one hour each day from the time i do actual work for my company and put that time towards learning. You'd be surprised at how in the long run i'm actually doing much better than my peers. I think this is because fundamentally, there is a large percentage of work that is just muscle memory. I'm speaking as a senior software engineer but 30% of my work is design (this actually involves the most research and thought, i put 100% of my focus here), 50% is just coding (after many years on the job, if i design it correctly, it should mostly be muscle memory and coding from the design) and 20% meetings. That 50% of coding, that is where you can slack off and use that time for self improvement.
This really is it. Most knowledge / white collar / software developers (not all) have downtime during the day. We are posting on HN during work hours. Its within the realm of reality to pare off an hour 3x a week to learn. Now I generally spend that hour doom scrolling, but if I was dedicated I could absolutely study, thats on me.
Wake up at 4AM. Stretch Achilles (gets stiff when I sleep), make a coffee and check emails/prep for the day in my notebook. From 4:20 to 5AM I run 5K and then shower. From about 5AM to 7AM I work on my own stuff/learn/whatever. At 7AM I wake up the wife and help get kids ready for school. I walk with the kids to school at 8AM. From 8:30 to 3PM I work on my stuff and have lunch somewhere in there. I walk to the kids' school and pick them up at 3PM. Work on my stuff until 5-6PM. Help out with dinner, kids, play, etc. Put kids to sleep around 9PM.
Not sure what other regions are like, but i believe this is more necessary the less children receive adequate attention in the school setting. Ie overfilled schools warrant more individual time outside of school.
Without "help with homework", the child may have gotten no individual instruction/teaching, so how are they expected to learn?
Even beyond that though there's the possibility of needing more and/or unique care. Parents are the end-of-the-road for ensuring that they raise a capable, educated human. Some children just struggle in standard school settings.
I was in classes that averaged 30 chilren per class. I haven't gotten any individual instruction/teaching, and did just fine until high school math kicked in (bear in mind, this was Polish high-school math, and in a class that focuses on math), when I got lost and needed help of a tutor. But the other 98-99% of my school time, I was completely fine on my own. Also, I don't think I was any kind of exception.
Not sure what your point is? Ignore the child because Badpun was fine?
It honestly sounds like you're arguing against "Interact with your child, help them if you think they need it", which seems.. odd. You could perhaps be arguing that parents are wrong usually, and should go against their intuition on helping the child - but that's also a mixed bag.
I'm arguing that school's difficult level is set up for children to manage on their own just fine. Also, managing on their own means learning grit, figuring out what to do when you're stuck, learning how to find information etc. If a parent is hand-holding their child through their school experience, they may be taking away a chance to develop these skills in their kid.
Agreed, but who else can make that judgement? Certainly you can't accurately make blanket decisions for all children, right? Who is the last in line, the final judgement, then?
No one is saying parents should hand-hold and hurt their children by way of robbing them of essential experiences. What i am saying, though, is that parents are the last-mile. The only ones who are ultimately responsible.
It sounds like you're ignoring a very wide gulf between doing nothing and doing the homework for children. Kinda sounds like you advocate sink or swim style learning. Which works great for those who swim, perhaps. Less so for those who sink.
I am not advocating for any style of learning, I was merely responding to someone who said that it's constant help by parents is "more or less necessary in schools with large classes". I provided a counterpoint to that, citing myself as an example, and also giving the fact that most of the other children were like me (children helped by their parents were an exception), and we turned out perfectly fine.
So your reply is to counter children receiving "adequate attention" (to quote the reply you're referencing). Which is to say that you don't believe inadequate attention is a problem.. which by definition is inadequate.
However there is of course the important matter of what we, or parents, define as inadequate. You argue that children are fine to receive inadequate attention. which seems.. odd.
I also said nothing about "constant attention". Rather all i said was the more inadequate the attention, proportionally the more attention they're likely to receive at home. Which is a very reasonable statement, no?
Do you not expect parents to fill in where they feel their school is failing to teach?
My kids are in elementary school now and all homework except reading is optional. However, I have them do their homework then I review it when I'm done with work. Any concepts they don't understand I go over with them. It's usually 5-10 minutes per night per kid.
If I didn't do this my oldest would have easily flunked math last year. But just a few minutes per night of making sure she understood the concepts was the difference between that and her acing it.
I started this because we had a teacher that was really bad at noticing if one of our kids was understanding things or not. For example, we got worksheets back from school where everything was done incorrectly and there was just a giant star on it. Fuck that.
Homework shouldn't exist anyway. Maybe, for higher level high school classes it makes sense. There's no reason to be giving homework to elementary and middle school kids. They get them for 8 hours a day, they don't need to be spending more time on school stuff after school.
> Homework shouldn't exist anyway. Maybe, for higher level high school classes it makes sense. There's no reason to be giving homework to elementary and middle school kids. They get them for 8 hours a day, they don't need to be spending more time on school stuff after school.
Yes, also because it creates inequalities very early between children with parents who can afford spending time helping them (or paying someone to do so) and those who can’t.
I didn't think of that one but that is a consideration as well. Children don't have the attention span to be working on school work for 8+ hours a a day anyway. Additionally, they should be developing through play/socializing just as much, if not more, as in-classroom and paperwork time.
I help my kids with homework, 5 minutes here and there. Seems like that shouldn't be too hard for most people, unless they literally never see their kids.
around me, only kids whose parents are illiterate and/or busy make a living who don't get helped by their parents to do their homework and study. so, yes. cultural thing.
It's cheating to help a 7 year old understand how to do basic math? Because the alternative is them staring at a paper and writing random numbers down.
It sure would be nice and just if the schools had the means to provide the personalized tutoring most children need to understand. Reality is that the parents do that - and yes, it is an advantage to children with parents able to invest time and skills in their education.
The thing is, what if your parents aren't educated. Because of lots of reasons, my parents didn't even attend high school, they wouldn't have been able to tutor me after I was 10. I really think tutoring should be done in school else it would be very difficult to rise above your previous generations. Also, children should play after school, not do more work IMHO.
So, you're suggesting we limit everyone's potential so a few uneducated/poor families don't feel left behind? That's ridiculous.
Should schools offer extra tutoring and support for kids and families that need it? Sure. Should people limit what they learn at home or out-of-school? No.
They're children, not some neural network you can train. They're all going to learn at different rates, and individualized education in a school setting is simply not possible. You're lucky if there's a breakdown by remedial, regular, and advanced classes. Even within those, kids are going to struggle and need some help outside of class time.
Is this “help” meant only to be available to kids with rich parents, as it is now? Or is the school at fault for not being willing, or able, to teach all kids to an acceptable degree?
I'm surprised to see that you think there is a clear dichotomy between what can only happen at school and at home when it comes to learning.
You'd be even more surprised to learn that learning can happen anywhere, anytime and from anyone in any kind of form.
Helping kids at home with school work as a parent is not only accessible to rich families. You should help your kids when they really need it regardless of your socioeconomic background.
Now if you're talking about personalized/paid tutors outside of school, then yes - it's much more accessible to richer families but there is fundamentally nothing wrong that. What you decide to do with your kids outside of school is your choice.
A person’s “socioeconomic background” may dictate that they don’t have time to spend many of their vanishlingly rare non-working hours on being a teacher. I'm surprised to see you assume that everyone has this kind of time. I assure you that they do not.
Not everyone does but it's not something restricted to the rich like you said in your first comment. Growing up, my wife had a lot of help at home and she came from a middle class, dual income household. I came from an upper middle class household and my parents were so busy working so they could keep up with the Joneses that I never had any help whatsoever with my homework.
I'm not going to deny that schools can probably do better, but telling people you need to be rich to help your kids with school is, in my experience, not true. I think the bigger problem for many is relationship dynamics - most parents I know lack the patience to help their kids with homework.
> Not everyone does but it's not something restricted to the rich like you said in your first comment.
Very well; I grant it. Now, does that invalidate the rest of my point in any way? Some kids are still going to have a large advantage over other kids, whatever the cause. If teachers are aware of this, would this be a reasonable way for a teacher to handle education? To just dole out homework, and leave any help or not to the vagaries of chance depending on that kid’s home situation? And any kids getting help would probably getting this consistently over other kids, giving some a huge permanent advantage over a long period of time. Why would teachers do this? I chose, instead, to charitably assume that teachers meant for homework not to be done with assistance by parents or tutors. In which case “helping” would indeed be cheating.
What is your obsession with correlating good parenting with generational wealth? You can be poor, have relatively uneducated parents and still be taught by them.
My father died when I was five. My mother never finished high school and worked in a medical factory. She still found an hour to try an teach me and help me learn (even when I was beyond her upper skill limit).
When “generational wealth” correlates directly with “availble hours to spend with the kids”, then it matters a great deal. It’s great for you that your parents did not have to work every waking hour to afford food and living space, but many are not as lucky.
I didn't have tutors or parents helping me with homework when I was in school. Also, bad grades were not tolerated in my household, so I had to keep up.
You had a household where bad grades were not tolerated, but no support in achieving better grades? Sounds like a crappy household/parenting. That doesn't mean everyone else should have a crappy household or parenting philosophy because you managed to get through it.
I do not call this is cheating. but this is a crazy advantage of children. some kids never learned learning is important, parents can let deep in their mind. teachers have some chance, but there are too many kids in classroom.
If parents “help” kids with homework, the teacher will get a misleading view of what the kid has learned and is capable of. Other kids, lacking this “help”, will get worse grades.
If you want to argue that the teacher understands that parents are helping their kids with the homework, then:
1. Why aren’t teachers sending study aids, pedagogical material, etc. to the parents, on order to aid in the further education of the kids? Why are teachers universally acting as though kids are supposed to do the homework on their own?
2. This would still only help kids with rich parent who can afford the time to be a part-time teacher to their kids.
In summary: If teachers assume that kids do all their homework themselves, unassisted, then “helping” is (culturally normalized) cheating. If teachers instead assume that kids get help from their parents, it would be burdening kids with poor and/or busy parents with a severe disadvantage.
You're dying on a very strange hill. Yes, children that have active and engaged parents have an advantage over those who do not. "Cheating" implies that the parents are doing the homework for the child without the child's involvement. Of course, that's not what is happening, and I'm sure you know that.
I'm sure you also know that not all school districts, teachers, and children are equal. Some are funded better than others, some are better trained than others, and some learn in different ways than others. If my child is struggling for one reason or another, I am going to be engaged in several ways. First, I may speak to the school and/or the teacher to understand the details. Second, I may speak to my child about their assignments and offer to explain unclear concepts to them. I won't take a pencil and start solving the problems for them.
> children that have active and engaged parents have an advantage over those who do not.
You’re not answering my questions, or responding to my summary. Either teachers are aware of this – in which case teachers should logically help the parents, not arbitrarily assigning homework to kids – or teachers are unaware, in which case parents helping kids is skewing teachers’ perceptions of the kids’ abilities – i.e. cheating. I made the charitable assumption that teachers are acting reasonably based on what they know.
> I won't take a pencil and start solving the problems for them.
But this is what the stereotypical, commonly depicted, behavior is. It may not be universal, but I am sure it is not uncommon.
Exactly this. I have three kids and a dog. There is zero spare time. I typically sit down for the first time at 9pm at which time I'm so exhausted that learning is not really possible. I may get to read for 30 mins to an hour before I crash.
One thing I realize while reading this is that, having recently signed up for a local gym, I'll lose that "alone time in the home gym", where I would often listen to podcasts and watch videos while I lift. Sure, I can get some headphones and lug my phone around at the local gym, but it's certainly not as conducive to learning as having a screen set up that I can walk around and view as I work out.
Only way to gain some advantage is to delegate/hire help. Which is beyond the reach for most ppl. At the same time, there is a lot more filler admin-work for adults.
Wondering, are kids (after a certain age) more helpful around the house? So parents get back time?
How can you work on side projects while playing with your kids? My kids get 100% of my attention because otherwise it ends up more like being 0%. I can’t learn the next whiz-bang framework while inventing storylines for plying with Batman figures or playing hide and seek.
Great question. I include them in the process. If I clean the garage I give them jobs.
I was cleaning the workbench and provided a few boxes of random screws, nails, nuts, and bolts - had him sort them by size and shape. This teaches pattern recognition, sorting methods, names of objects, function of objects, and fine motor skills. If I ask for a 10mm socket the 3 year old can identify it including telling me it is used for tightening bolts.
Why bother saving for a home when buying one is now out of reach for most people in their lifetimes? Why bother having children when climate change is going to boil everyone alive? Why bother getting a good job when even good ones barely pays enough to live outside of living to work while I’m stuck with tens of if not hundred of thousands of dollars of student debt? Why look forward to a comfortable retirement when inflation is making my savings worth less and less and social security will be insolvent in 10 years, or I’ll just die or be bankrupt from healthcare before that?
America has failed to keep up housing construction with population growth for a long time now so if your “guardrails” requires places for people to live you’ve already lost.
The most exhausting aspect of climate denial is the rehashing of bad faith arguments that have, for all intents and purposes, been refuted hundreds of times.
I don't deny climate change. Quite the opposite. I just don't believe there's anything we can actually do about it. Seems a lot of the climate fanatics also agree with me, because we've passed many of their so-called "points of no return" and failed to achieve anything that would have averted them.
Seems to me that we should be trying to make people's lives easier in the meantime, rather than making them miserable and poor with bonkers legislation, regulation and taxes.
Until the prognosis is "100% chance of the imminent death of all humans", there will always be something we can do. We have passed "points of no return" meaning we won't avoid all consequences of climate change, but climate change isn't a binary "either we're fine or everybody dies" kind of thing. The more we reduce emissions, the fewer people will ultimately die from climate change, the fewer people will be displaced as climate refugees, the fewer people will have their quality of life reduced, the slower the changes will occur, etc.
In terms of outcomes, "climate change is real but nothing we could do would have any effect" is identical to "climate change is fake", which is why you're getting lumped in with the deniers.
This fails to take into account the reduced quality of life from implementing things like carbon taxes and other regulations that increase the costs of everyday goods and services, ultimately increasing the cost of living. Essentially making everyone poorer. Poverty increases your risk of mortality quite substantially.
Canada implemented carbon taxes to reduce emissions. Emissions still rose and everything just became more expensive.
From what I understand, large infrastructure investments (such as building out a green electric grid) are great for the economy.
Even if it's a net cost though... it's not like there isn't enough money to go around. If only there was a way to redistribute that wealth so that poor people didn't get even poorer.
I really truly don't think the only two options are "do nothing" or "do something but at such a great cost to people's quality of life that the cost outweighs the many millions or billions of lives saved".
I'm all for large infrastructure investments in clean energy. Unfortunately the people in power where I live (Northern Ontario in Canada) only seem interested in inneffective taxes and crony capitalism.
Any so-called attempt to "redistribute wealth" has led to massive inflation and a borderline humanitarian crisis in our cities with people losing their homes and becoming addicted to deadly drugs on the streets.
I'm much more likely to agree with criticism of any particular climate policy than the general statement "it's too late and the cost of any climate policy would outweigh the benefits".
The "Earth is dying, oh well let's live it up in the meantime" argument is one I keep hearing more and more from former climate deniers. This is the third stage of grief if I'm not wrong.
I've believed/had a basic understanding of the science since around high school, and at this point, I'm pretty much in the "get my kicks before the whole shithouse goes up in flames" camp too. It's quite clear at this point what direction it's all headed. I suppose the deniers "won".
I think solar radiation management is the only last-ditch idea that might pull things out.
This would be incredibly insightful if only we didn’t know that the current rate of extinction is extremely high, and on par with (if not exceeding) that of other mass extinction periods in our planet’s history.
Mass extinction events are generally not good for the animals which happen to exist during them. As one such animal, I would prefer if we tried to limit the damage.
There are many technologies which are inspired by animals found in nature as they have adapted several features after many generations, all such knowledge will be lost.
Especially due to animal agriculture (80% of agricultural lands).
Animal ag is the leading driver of biodiversity loss, deforestation, droughts, water usage, eutrophication etc.
We could switch to plant-based diets, reforest the pastures (the size of both Americas) and stop climate change (together with phase-out of fossil fuels) and store enough carbon in those forests to cause new little ice age and reverse the warming.
what is your story for fault tolerance and replication (hopefully cross geo zone). Do you set and run everything yourself? How much effort(including learning curve) and expertise does it require?
Why wouldn't you use some cloud offering where you can get many of these for cheap if your data is not large?
What makes you think cloud is cheap, or reliable? AWS lambda does not provide any guarantees other than compensation if the uptime is less than 99.95 %. That is ~22 minutes/month. It's terrible. If it was reliable they would provide better guarantees. How long since a major outage? A couple of months.
Few people run everything themselves. Most use existing datacenters or rent the hardware. Then its basically the same as using a VPS from a cloud provider when it comes to difficulty and expertise.
> What makes you think cloud is cheap, or reliable?
"cheap" is relative, if your data is not large (gigabytes) then cost will likely be much smaller compared to expenses on engineer supporting custom solution.
> if the uptime is less than 99.95 %
It doesn't mean their services experience this downtime. They have their reputation supporting revenue on the line. Customers will go somewhere else if experience frequent downtime.
But the point is that with custom pgsql installation it is nontrivial to setup and support any kind of fault tolerance, plus you have a chance of all other kind of outages: network, your hosting provider, etc.
Buying cloud offering with one click looks like no brainer base line.
The only thing that should require very strict uptime is the database. Lambda (for your backends) says 99.95% per region, which does seem kinda low, more what I'd expect for an AZ than an entire region. Can you easily add a second region for more 9s?
The only potential issue I've seen with cloud managed DBMSes is latency between application and DB, since they might be far apart. But that's something you check out day 1 and move away from if it's not tolerable. I would totally start there, not try to set it up myself.
Well there's same region, same AZ (if AWS), and same machine. Different levels of location for GCP or whatever. Same machine is probably never doable on a cloud provider, but it's rare that you'll need that.
I thought that SpaceX, due to the nature of their work (rockets) were specifically prohibited from hiring non-citizens?
Edit: seems like the DOJ is claiming that that is not the case. Weird…so this is basically going to boil down to each side arguing their interpretation of a regulation.
Can’t say this doesn’t smell just a little political.
>Can’t say this doesn’t smell just a little political.
The President of the United States very publicly called for Musk and his companies to be investigated back in November of ‘22. Ironically, this was because of supposed relationships with other countries.
So he deserves investigation due to foreign business relationships, then gets sued for not hiring (edge-case) foreigners to build state of the art rocket technology. Cue the Curb Your Enthusiasm theme song.
Both laws in this case being related to business relationships with potential adversaries of the United States, with the Executive branch straddling arguably opposing public positions. But you already understood that and you’re pretending that the irony isn’t there because you don’t like Musk, right?
No I really don’t see any conflict between “don’t collaborate with officials of a foreign government” and “don’t discourage foreign-born people from applying for jobs that you offer.”
I was noting the irony of it all. If a billionaire gets publicly called out by the president to be investigated for potential foreign influence during his acquisition of low-stakes social media Company X, one typically wouldn’t expect the DoJ to charge them for NOT hiring non-citizens in their high-stakes state of the art rocket Company Y less than a year later. That sequence of events can be ironic without technically being legally contradictory.
But again, you already understood all that. You’re just being a pedantic little geek because you don’t like Musk.
I was wondering about that too. They are restricted from exporting the knowledge and are restricted (ITAR, EAR, FARS/DFARS, etc.) in some roles to use non-US citizens, and not even "lawful permanent residents" are allowed to take them. (Background 19 in DoJ filling) Export means sharing the information with non-US citizen or green card holder, irrelevant where the action takes place (i.e. the non-US recipient can be in Richmond, VA; it is the citizenship/green card that matters not the location).
It is possible that the roles identified by the DOJ are not under these restriction.
That said, how is this going to be resolved with the compliance requirements
Per the website linked, asylees and refugees do not come under the export control act, as opposed to citizens of other nations. The timing of the lawsuit does seem interesting though.
It’s not citizenship (otherwise asylees, refugees, and even permanent resident aliens would be excluded.)
A “foreign person” is defined in ITAR (22 CFR Sec. 120.63), by reference to two sections of immigration law in Title 8 of the US Code, as someone who is none of the following: a US citizen, a lawful permanent resident, an asylee or refugee, a person lawfully admitted for permanent residency (I haven’t done the analysis to see if this is distinct from “lawful permanent resident” or if its overlap with different language between the categories referenced from different parts of Title 8 of the US Code), a person lawfully admitted for certain classes of temporary residency.
I dunno, if the people they are discriminating against are “US persons” and not “foreign persons” under ITAR, then the whole ITAR argument for discrimination, whether its direct coverage or some kind of indirect risk creating something that Tesla wants to try to argue is a bona fide occupational qualification justifying discrimination, is cut off at the root.
I suppose a “long time” is relative. I don’t have a Twitter account and haven’t cared much about what he does for about…3 months or so? with a 24 hour news cycle that fees like an eternity.
I thought gp was alluding to something within the last few days.
SpaceX is prohibited from hiring non-US-persons (for at least some roles.) US Persons includes all US citizens, and several other groups of people. It is also illegal to use the differences between types of US Persons in hiring decisions. The lawsuit is because SpaceX wrote US citizens instead of US Persons. They now list all categories of US Persons in their job listings (in response to this suit, most likely), so this is about past behavior and probably will be trivially settled for a fine.
There is also an active question of if the discrimination is still happening, in which case the governments goal is to prevent compliance only in the job listings.
> The reason client-side rendering is so popular (IME) is that it creates a clear separation between frontend and backend devs. You can use separate repositories, languages, deployment flows/cadences, code review, etc, with an API as your connection point.
You say this as if it is necessarily good, but I disagree and would even say it's actually a hindrance for many teams. It often adds inefficiences, increases costs and makes planning and collaboration more difficult.
> the fact that you get an API by default with CSR is also nice
The vast majority of applications don't need an API.
The only reason for Tesla to support right to repair is to increase regulatory burden on competitors, stunt innovation and raise costs for their competition. Shame on this anticompetitive behaviour.