psi's recent activity
-
Comment on Key moments from landmark US Supreme Court arguments on Donald Trump’s immunity claims in ~news
-
Comment on US Federal Trade Commission bans new noncompete agreements in ~life
psi (edited )Link ParentThe main difference is that what a rule-making agency can giveth, a rule-making agency can taketh away. It's not exactly the same as Congress outright banning non-competes via legislation since...I don't know that there is a difference that makes a difference between a rule and a law when you are talking about rule making authority.
The main difference is that what a rule-making agency can giveth, a rule-making agency can taketh away. It's not exactly the same as Congress outright banning non-competes via legislation since
- it's easier to challenge a rule than a law (as has already happened; in their lawsuit, the Chamber of Commerce has argued that this rule "reflects an arbitrary and capricious exercise of the Commission's power");
- it's easier for a new agency head to rewrite a rule than for Congress to pass a new law; and
- Chevon deference is probably doomed, which means we should expect a future in which courts are also in the business of rulemaking (and probably not to our benefit).
But yes, with respect to @DefinitelyNotAFae's question, there is no operational difference.
-
Comment on US Federal Trade Commission bans new noncompete agreements in ~life
psi Link ParentJust to be a little pedantic, this is a rule, not a law. Basically Congress passes legislation that tells a US agency to regulate something (in this case, unfair business practices, 15 U.S.C. 45...Just to be a little pedantic, this is a rule, not a law. Basically Congress passes legislation that tells a US agency to regulate something (in this case, unfair business practices, 15 U.S.C. 45 and 46(g)) and the agency promulgates rules interpreting that law.
But to address your question, the actual rule banning non-competes is here:
I think these are the relevant bits?
Proposed § 910.2(a) would not apply retroactively. An employer would not violate proposed § 910.2(a) where—prior to the compliance date—it entered into or attempted to enter into a non-compete clause with a worker; maintained with a worker a non-compete clause; or represented to a worker that the worker is subject to a non-compete clause. Instead, proposed § 910.2(a) would require employers to refrain from these practices starting on the compliance date.
and
2(b) Existing Non-Compete Clauses
Proposed § 910.2(b) would clarify employers' obligations, and impose additional requirements, related to non-compete clauses entered into by the employer prior to the compliance date (“existing non-compete clauses”).
2(b)(1) Rescission Requirement
Proposed § 910.2(b)(1) would state that, to comply with proposed § 910.2(a)—which states it is an unfair method of competition for an employer to maintain with a worker a non-compete clause—an employer that entered into a non-compete clause with a worker prior to the compliance date must rescind the non-compete clause no later than the compliance date. The reasons why the Commission is proposing this rescission requirement are described above in the section-by-section analysis for proposed § 910.2(a).
The requirements in § 910.2(b)(1)-(3) do not apply where a worker's obligation not to compete elapsed prior to the compliance date. This is because the requirements in § 910.2(b)(1)-(3) derive from § 910.2(a), which establishes it is an unfair method of competition to maintain with a worker a non-compete clause. An employer does not maintain with a worker a non-compete clause, in violation of the Rule, where the obligation not to compete elapsed prior to the compliance date. For example, if a worker left their job in 2019 and was subject to a two-year obligation not to compete, that obligation would have elapsed in 2021, and the employer would not violate the Rule by failing to rescind the non-compete clause.
So, if I understand these points correctly, all non-competes are invalid starting from 120 days after the publication of the rule, but if your non-compete obligation has already elapsed/will have elapsed before the rule comes into effect, you can't retroactively use this rule to invalidate your old non-compete.
-
Comment on Weekly US politics news and updates thread - week of April 22 in ~news
psi Link"The Circus Trump Wanted Outside His Trial Hasn’t Arrived." The New York Times. There's not much to this article, so no gift link this time. Basically Trump has been (unsuccessfully) calling for...There's not much to this article, so no gift link this time. Basically Trump has been (unsuccessfully) calling for supporters to protest outside the New York courthouse, but he's only managed to draw maybe a couple dozen supporters at most.
But I'm posting this article anyway for this absolutely wacky quote:
“They say Laura Loomer is obsessed with President Trump,” she [Laura Loomer] said on Monday. “Well, everybody should be obsessed with making America great again and obsessed with taking their country back. And sometimes you have to put your personal life on hold and go out and organize for President Trump.
“That’s what I do,” she added. “You think I have a social life? You think I have a dating life? You think I’m married? You think I have kids? Do you think I go out and do fun things? No. Because I’m always putting every extra bit of time that I have into supporting President Trump.”
Yikes!
-
Comment on Weekly US politics news and updates thread - week of April 15 in ~news
psi Link"Where Jurors in Trump Hush-Money Trial Say They Get Their News." The New York Times. [gift] As one might expect, most of the jurors and alternates gets their news from left-leaning sources (13/18...As one might expect, most of the jurors and alternates gets their news from left-leaning sources (13/18 read The New York Times, for example). There is one notable juror who breaks this trend, however: juror 2, who exclusively gets their news from X/Twitter and Truth Social. It's a reminder that, despite Trump's claim that he can't get a fair trial in New York, it only takes a single juror to prevent a conviction.
(But I write this with a caveat: we shouldn't read too much into their news consumption predilections; if any particular juror displayed clear bias, the judge would've dismissed them for cause.)
-
Comment on Ukrainians contemplate the once unthinkable: Losing the war with Russia in ~misc
psi (edited )Link ParentI should have made your point explicitly, as your point is the more pressing issue. Europe can't provide what it doesn't have. I only meant to explain why it's reasonable that Europe would lack...I should have made your point explicitly, as your point is the more pressing issue. Europe can't provide what it doesn't have. I only meant to explain why it's reasonable that Europe would lack armaments compared to the US.
-
Comment on Ukrainians contemplate the once unthinkable: Losing the war with Russia in ~misc
psi Link ParentThe US has been telegraphing for decades that it will provide military support to Europe. I don't see how Europe is at fault for trusting the US to follow through with its promises. I agree that...How is that not Europe's choice? They can very well choose to spend money on armaments. Evidently what is being provided to Ukraine is far from enough. Presidents since Obama have urged Europe that American military interests are shifting to the east. Putin absorbed Crimea in 2014; it's not like there hasn't been any warning.
The US has been telegraphing for decades that it will provide military support to Europe. I don't see how Europe is at fault for trusting the US to follow through with its promises.
I agree that Europe will need to increase its military spending -- and in fact, Europe has increased its defense spending following the invasion of Ukraine. But if the US wants to reduce its support to Ukraine, it needs to communicate that intention clearly and give its allies time to adjust, not suddenly and capriciously. Currently Congress is sitting on an aid package because a few right-wing extremists would rather have that aid sent to the southern border. It's total nonsense. Europe can't plan around nonsense. Sure, I guess Europe could raise a US-sized army under the assumption that America will ultimately betray its allies. But that's fundamentally an issue with America, not Europe. No alliance -- not even the EU -- can withstand a lack of trust.
The US does not have any kind of defensive treaty or obligations to Ukraine, which is not a NATO member or part of any other military obligations
Of course not. But Ukraine does share a border with a NATO country (Poland), and Russia could justify an invasion of Poland under the same twisted logic it used to invade Ukraine. It's in NATO's benefit to ensure that Russian aggression is contained.
NATO's most valuable asset is its unity. Ideally NATO would like to deter adversaries without any shots being fired on NATO territory. If NATO capitulates to Russia due to intra-party US squabbling, Russia will have succeeded in undermining the alliance.
The US will never face direct consequences from Russian aggression, aid from it will always be unstable, because its populace will never have non-existential foreign policy ambitions as their number one priority (in fact, it's about as low as it gets on American voter's priority list).
A Russian invasion of Europe would have devastating consequences on the international economy, America included.
-
Comment on Ukrainians contemplate the once unthinkable: Losing the war with Russia in ~misc
psi Link ParentAs others have said, in terms of pure financial aid, Europe has done more for Ukraine than the US. [1] The US has only outpaced all other countries through materiel support. But it's worth bearing...- Exemplary
As others have said, in terms of pure financial aid, Europe has done more for Ukraine than the US. [1] The US has only outpaced all other countries through materiel support.
But it's worth bearing in mind that the US spends more on its military than the next 10 countries combined. [2] I mean, of the top five largest military air forces in the world, the US Air force ranks first, the US Army ranks second, and the US Navy ranks fourth. [3] Simply put, the US spends a stupid amount of money on defense. That's not Europe's fault; that's America's choice. It's not surprising that America is better capable of arming Ukraine than Europe.
But despite this, Europe still confers military benefits to the US. The US has built a stupidly large military, having deciding to take it upon themselves to be the world's police force. Europe provides room for US military bases and nuclear weapon silos. The US and much of Europe have a joint defense agreement through NATO. And it's not as if NATO's defense clause has only ever been invoked for Europe's benefit; on the contrary, article 5 has only been invoked once and only by the US, which is how Europe managed to get dragged into the 20+ year war in Afghanistan following 9/11. If the war in Ukraine expands to Poland, the US will be duty-bound to respond, assuming the US still intends to make good on its promises as Europe already has. It's in the US's interest to keep the war contained.
The problem here isn't that Europe hasn't provided enough support to Ukraine. As I mentioned at the start, Europe has contributed more financially than anyone else. The problem here is that the US is wavering on its pledges and proving to be an unreliable partner. At worse, if Trump and his allies are further empowered, NATO could collapse altogether. [4]
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1303432/total-bilateral-aid-to-ukraine/
[2] https://www.pgpf.org/chart-archive/0053_defense-comparison
[3] https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/largest-air-forces-in-the-world
[4] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/09/us/politics/trump-2025-nato.html -
Comment on Truong My Lan: Vietnamese billionaire sentenced to death for $44bn fraud in ~finance
psi Link ParentI think at some point criminals either assume they won't get caught or wildly underestimate the penalties (as @Tigress already mentioned). I have a hard time imagining someone balancing the risks...How do we know she didn't risk this because she assumed the death penalty wouldn't be the judgement[?]
I think at some point criminals either assume they won't get caught or wildly underestimate the penalties (as @Tigress already mentioned). I have a hard time imagining someone balancing the risks and deciding, "I don't want to suffer the death penalty, but life imprisonment wouldn't be so bad."
-
Comment on Botswana threatens to send 20,000 elephants to Germany in ~enviro
psi Link ParentI would say it's a fairly strong condemnation of trophy hunting. Reading your post, I was under the impression that trophy hunting was single-handedly raising a significant fraction of people out...Not that it's not beneficial, but that it's not as beneficial as some might think. Which is a fair point, but hardly a condemnation of trophy hunting.
I would say it's a fairly strong condemnation of trophy hunting. Reading your post, I was under the impression that trophy hunting was single-handedly raising a significant fraction of people out of poverty, but now I see that the number is almost negligible.
Trophy hunting must be considered on-balance. Your post glossed-over the most important counterargument against trophy hunting: that killing large game for sport -- especially elephants, which live for decades and practice death rituals -- is wrong. Personally I am not particularly fond of arguments in which people attempt to offset a moral harm to an individual of a group by a monetary contribution to the entire group. I mean, imagine if the US attempted to solve homelessness by granting licenses to hunt homeless people. Sure, maybe you could use those proceeds to lift some people out of poverty, but that would still be morally reprehensible!
I would be willing to accept trophy hunting if there were almost literally no alternative. But having read @ChingShih's post, I'm not convinced there's really even a problem that needs to be addressed.
-
Comment on Not every student needs Algebra 2. UC should be flexible on math requirement. in ~science
psi Link ParentI don't disagree with the value of a liberal education, but it's worth pointing out that in European countries tertiary education tends to be more specialized and they don't seem to be worse off...I don't disagree with the value of a liberal education, but it's worth pointing out that in European countries tertiary education tends to be more specialized and they don't seem to be worse off for it. For instance, in Germany there is a distinction between Universität (basic research, e.g. physics), Fachschule (applied sciences, e.g. engineering), Kunsthochschule (art school, e.g. architecture), and Berufsakademie (vocational school, e.g. social work). A typical university in the US would have all of these programs.
-
Comment on Not every student needs Algebra 2. UC should be flexible on math requirement. in ~science
psi (edited )Link ParentDo you mean to suggest quantum field theory is not practical? Let me introduce you to the highly troublesome sign problem! Just kidding. By "basic" I meant relatively simple, not necessarily...outside electrical engineering, it’s hard to find practical situations where you need [complex numbers]
Do you mean to suggest quantum field theory is not practical? Let me introduce you to the highly troublesome sign problem!
Just kidding. By "basic" I meant relatively simple, not necessarily useful (poor wording on my part). I'm sure there are plenty of students who have no trouble with complex numbers but struggle with linear systems, for example, so I think it does the students a bit of a disservice to assume that the folk struggling with Algebra 2 are struggling with the former when they might just be struggling with the latter. That's all I meant to suggest.
Edit: oh right, but yes, you probably wouldn't need them outside a STEM major. But maybe you would need them for a science prerequisite?
-
Comment on Not every student needs Algebra 2. UC should be flexible on math requirement. in ~science
psi LinkSince it doesn't seem like anyone has mentioned it yet, here are some of the subjects covered in Algebra 2: Complex numbers Roots of quadratic polynomials The binomial theorem Division of...Since it doesn't seem like anyone has mentioned it yet, here are some of the subjects covered in Algebra 2:
- Complex numbers
- Roots of quadratic polynomials
- The binomial theorem
- Division of polynomials
- Reasoning about inequalities
- Modeling exponential, logarithmic, polynomial, and linear behavior
- Linear equations of two variables
- Introductory statistics
- Conic sections
Some of these topics are admittedly pretty basic (e.g., arithmetic with complex numbers) while others are fairly arcane (when was the last time you thought about hyperbolas?). I personally don't have much of an opinion about whether Algebra 2 should be a requirement for college (I'm way too deep in STEM to be generalizing about other majors), but I am genuinely curious:
- For which majors could you get by without knowing any of the above topics? Don't most (all?) majors have at least one science prerequisite? I can't think of an introductory science course that wouldn't mention logarithms, for example.
- Or is the first question misleading? For instance, are most of these topics already covered in Algebra 1 (or some other class)?
-
Comment on Hey, monthly mystery commenters, what's up with the hit-and-runs? in ~tildes
psi LinkFinally, an opportunity to explain myself! There are some people who can type-out a well-reasoned essay almost as quickly as they can type. Not me! I spend at least 15 minutes on each paragraph I...Finally, an opportunity to explain myself!
There are some people who can type-out a well-reasoned essay almost as quickly as they can type. Not me! I spend at least 15 minutes on each paragraph I write, often double that. (Total time to write this comment: 57 minutes.) Every time I add a sentence, I reread the whole paragraph, checking for flow, gaps in reasoning, and possible misinterpretations. Like, I'm sure everyone does this to some extent, but I do this almost obsessively. And I have other obligations! I can't afford to spend an hour on a four paragraph essay.
So why do I obsess so much? Am I yet another perfectionist? Ha, if only! No, I suffer terribly from social anxiety. Sometimes I feel like an extrovert trapped in an introvert's body: I'm a city person, not a rural homebody; a good conversation brings me immense fulfillment, but I hate talking to people. I have close friends, but I procrastinate texting them. And to be clear, I don't think my comments are better off for this social anxiety-induced perfectionism -- I filter my sentences through their worst possible interpretations like some sort of sentence tumbler until they take their most anodyne form.
Hopefully this also explains why I do a rather poor job at responding to replies. When I do respond, it's usually more from a sense of duty than enjoyment.
-
Comment on Rumor: Insider claims Xbox handheld under development in ~games
psi LinkI wonder if/when we will see a portable with eGPU support. There's a tendency to build more powerful devices, but high fidelity graphics are wasted on a 7" screen; you really only notice the...I wonder if/when we will see a portable with eGPU support. There's a tendency to build more powerful devices, but high fidelity graphics are wasted on a 7" screen; you really only notice the artifacts when they're blown-up on a television. So why not build a portable that targets 720p/60 fps at med/low settings in handheld mode but 1080p+/60+ fps at med/high settings when docked, with the extra juice coming from the dock itself?
-
Comment on Folks in those $100k+ jobs, corporate types, office workers... What would you say you actually do? in ~life
psi (edited )Link ParentI'm fairly certain OP is American, however, so I assume they were referring to discrepancies within the US.I'm fairly certain OP is American, however, so I assume they were referring to discrepancies within the US.
-
Comment on Folks in those $100k+ jobs, corporate types, office workers... What would you say you actually do? in ~life
psi (edited )Link ParentIs location really the most important factor? I'd think you'd have to reach for the extrema to find places where you could quadruple your pay by simply moving. I also kind of doubt that 25k could...Is location really the most important factor? I'd think you'd have to reach for the extrema to find places where you could quadruple your pay by simply moving.
I also kind of doubt that 25k could be considered a "good" salary anywhere in the US. Sufficient? Maybe. But good?
-
Comment on Jared Kushner says Gaza’s ‘waterfront property could be very valuable’ in ~misc
psi Link ParentKushner might not currently be part of any government, but Trump appointed him to broker a peace deal between Palestein and Israel, resulting in the Israel–United Arab Emirates normalization...Kushner might not currently be part of any government, but Trump appointed him to broker a peace deal between Palestein and Israel, resulting in the Israel–United Arab Emirates normalization agreement (the "Abraham Accords"). Kushner's firm then received 2 billion dollars from Saudi Arabia after Trump left office.
(As a side note, the blatant nepotism afforded to Kushner makes the fishing expedition against the Bidens look extremely hypocritical. )
-
Comment on "The university campus is rapidly becoming a locus of infantilizing social control that any independent-minded student should seek to escape" in ~life
psi Link ParentThe reason for the US's doctor shortage isn't rooted in salary but rather the limited number of residency slots, which artificially depresses the supply of doctors. ("Why America Has So Few...The reason for the US's doctor shortage isn't rooted in salary but rather the limited number of residency slots, which artificially depresses the supply of doctors.
“The first thing I would do is to expand the residency system so that more doctors can become residents after medical school,” Orr told me. “This might be the key bottleneck. The medical schools say they can’t easily expand, because there aren’t enough residency slots for their graduates to fill. But there aren’t enough residency slots because Washington has purposefully limited federal residency financing.” The arithmetic is simple: More funding means more residents; more residents allows medical schools to grow; more medical students today means more doctors in a decade.
Increasing doctor pay won't increase the number of doctors -- in fact, we're seeing something like the opposite. Clinics are replacing general practitioners with less expensive nurse practitioners.
-
Comment on Tell US Congress: Stop the TikTok ban in ~tech
psi (edited )Link ParentLet me preface this by saying that I take the national security concerns seriously and agree with the ban. That said, I think you're misrepresenting @papasquat's argument quite a bit. Their point...Let me preface this by saying that I take the national security concerns seriously and agree with the ban. That said, I think you're misrepresenting @papasquat's argument quite a bit. Their point is only that there are many things that could be labeled net negatives to society by an overzealous government. I don't really mind if people disagree on this matter, but I do take issue with this statement:
Your reply is no more than a strawman argument. It distracts from the facts. It's lazy. It's unresearched. It exaggerates. You haven't listed a single argument on why those categories are a net negative, and for many, once again, I have to commit to some serious mental gymnastics to think of something. For TikTok, it's the other way around.
As a general guideline: whataboutism usually results in very poor arguments. That's what seems to have happened here.
I think you're unfairly holding papasquat to higher standards than you've held yourself. I would say both your initial post and papasquat's reply contained approximately the same amount of content and similarly casual, unrigorous argumentation. You've accused them of exaggerating, but you also implied that there are no redeeming qualities of TikTok. Surely that is an exaggeration, too?
Gorsuch is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Literally every politician is at risk of being harassed by a malevolent prosecutor -- hell, so are activists and minorities and even the prosecutor 's untidy neighbors -- so why would you carve out a special exception for the President?
If Gorsuch is so concerned about prosecutors misbehaving, he should be trying to regulate that, not proposing extra protections to someone who literally tried to overthrow our democracy. And as the special council argued, if anyone is in a privileged position to understand the law, it would be the President, who has the Attorney General and the rest of the Justice Department for council.