Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | Blackthorn's commentslogin

> Not impossible, it just needs to be implemented at a different layer. The compositor needs to expose some API for global hotkeys.

That's a big problem. When things become an optional extension for a compositor, that means you cannot reliably deploy something that depends on it to Wayland.

At this moment, things in the wild are coupling themselves to libwayland-client and in practice ossifying its ABI as a standard no matter what the wayland orgs say about it.


xdg-shell is an optional extension for a compositor and yet you can reliably deploy things that depend on it. You're barking at the wrong tree.

OK so why wasn't this implemented in the first place? For that matter, why does our reinvented wheel have fundamental limitations?

It's not a core protocol's concern and the fact that it's being successfully implemented proves that there are no fundamental limitations there.

I'm not happy with how the collaboration and planning between various parties involved went over years and I do believe that a lot of these adoption pains are fully self-inflicted, but that has absolutely nothing to do with Wayland's technical design.


You can’t effectively dismiss a critique of something missing from the core protocol by declaring it to not be its concern.

I can, I just did. It's just not a thing that should be there at all, and it's obvious once you take a second to look at what's actually in it and why (spoiler: there's too much in it and not much can be done about it now).

Why should a display manager concern itself with routing keystrokes to every application.

Why should a display manager also have to implement window management? (I know this is a separate complaint, but I still think it's a valid one.)

I'm not a vegan but I eat Beyond. The stuff is perfectly good on its own merits. The steak tips have great protein numbers, take hot sauce well, and therefore makes a great breakfast.

With all the lovely qualified immunity doctrine? That's wishful thinking.

That may protect them personally, but not the city and the department itself from being sued.

Nope.

https://abovethelaw.com/2016/02/criminally-yours-indicting-a...

You can be arrested, indicted, and held in jail on pretrial, and there is literally no recourse. There are many other ways jail can happen without due process. Where I live:

* Civil contempt. Absolutely immunity. No due process. Record is about 16 years. Having a bad day? Judge can toss you in jail.

* "Dangerous." Half a year. No due process. He-said she-said.

* "Insane." Psychiatric hold. Three days. Due process on paper, not in practice. Police in my town can and do use this if they don't like you.

Absolutely no recourse. You come out with a gap in income, employment, and, if you missed rent/mortgage, no home. Landlords will simply throw your stuff away too.

You're also basically damned if things do move forward, since from jail, you have no access to evidence, to internet (for legal research), and no reasonable way to recruit a lawyer (and, for most people, pay for one).

Can happen to anyone. Less common if you're rich and can afford a good lawyer, but far from uncommon.


I don't know what you're responding to, but I don't think it's my comment.

Qualified immunity protects individuals, not departments, from liability.

The particular thread (in this thread) that I was responding to:

>> I hope she wrings at least several million dollars out of the government.

> With all the lovely qualified immunity doctrine? That's wishful thinking.

I was responding to the claim that qualified immunity protected the government, it does not.


The GP seems to be suggesting that there's no recourse at all, usually. You might bring suit against a police department or LE agency, but you'll fail to find any relief there. True that qualified immunity only protects individuals, but there's a raft of other things that makes it hard to get a judgement against a police department, too.

I think there's probably one major exception: civil rights violation investigations. But even then, the people doing the investigating seem to be biased toward the LEOs.

The GP's linked article doesn't seem to even talk about this, so not sure why that's there.


> You might bring suit against a police department or LE agency, but you'll fail to find any relief there.

I don't know if I'd go so far to say she won't find any relief, but it probably still could be a pretty tough Monell claim against the department (although it's hard to tell from the sparse details in the article):

"[A] local government may not be sued under [42 U.S.C.] § 1983 for an injury inflicted solely by its employees or agents. Instead, it is when execution of a government's policy or custom, whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy, inflicts the injury that the government, as an entity, is responsible under § 1983." [1]

I could see a problem if there was a policy/custom of relying on AI facial recognition alone without any other corroborating evidence (would be a really stupid practice, but I'm sure stupider things have become part of a police department's systemic practices). Or if there was a failure to sufficiently train detectives about the erroneous tendencies of this technology. Maybe the needlessly prolonged detention without bail could be an issue if there was a lack of adequate protocols to expedite in a reasonable amount of time.

Either way, still seems hard to say this a slam dunk case for her, unfortunately. But also seems too risky for the city of Fargo to not settle, at least nominally.

[1] Monell v. Department of Soc. Svcs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978), https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/436/658/


> "Insane." Psychiatric hold. Three days. Due process on paper, not in practice. Police in my town can and do use this if they don't like you.

And there are definitely insane people who are a threat to themselves and others who wander around, making the streets and public transit systems unsafe and unpleasant, who need to be put into something like a psychiatric hold by something like the police.

And if you don't have police and a criminal justice system that are willing and able to impose psychiatric holds, you wind up with a bunch of incidents where a crazy mentally-ill vagrant kills someone in a public (the Iryna Zarutska murder, or any of the various cases where a homeless person randomly shoves someone into the path of an oncoming train at a public transit station); or incidents where someone else gets railroaded by the criminal justice system for intervening in a crazy mentally-ill person threatening people around them (the Daniel Penny incident - many people, even nominal anti-carceralists, are upset that he was not successfully convicted and incarcerated for murder). Not to mention all the less-newsworthy incidents where insane people walking the streets and public transit systems systematically ruin them for everyone else, either through vandalism or theft or simply screaming incoherently at people as they try to use the public commons.

It's certainly possible for the police to abuse psychiatric holds if they don't like you; on the other hand, the existence of large numbers of people who should be in some kind of psychiatric hold but aren't disrupting and vandalizing the public commons is one of the biggest quality of life and physical safety problems in my region and in many other American urban areas.


Go to Florida, be arrested. Have charges thrown out, dropped, dismissed or simply be acquitted. Florida doesn't care, they'll bill you for your incarceration at nearly $100/day. And failure to pay this bill is, itself, a felony.

>* "Insane." Psychiatric hold. Three days. Due process on paper, not in practice. Police in my town can and do use this if they don't like you.

A friend of mine was committed longer than 3 days without council or the ability to represent themselves in the hearing. Apparently the whole process of being committed is ex parte in practice in some states.


This is a bit hyperbolic and the exaggerations really undermine what I think is your broader point (that there is rarely recourse when you're held for short to moderate amounts of time). It is hard for me to believe that someone was held for 16 years on civil contempt without due process or that someone was held for half a year without due process after being deemed dangerous. The reason that is hard for me to believe is that the due process is implicit in the action you describe. Civil contempt is from a judge which implies that you're already in court - that's due process. Someone being labeled "dangerous" implies that a finding was made by a neutral party - that's due process.

Just because you disagree with the outcome doesn't mean that due process wasn't given.


Yeah it's "due process." In civil contempt the judge is a witness and prosecutor in the very "process" they're judging. That's the most perverted form of due process imaginable.

A judge should have to recuse themselves if they are acting as witness to the supposed infraction.


Civil contempt isn't some roving criminal charge that jumps out of the jury box randomly. It's meant to make somebody comply with a court order. Anybody in civil contempt holds the keys to the jailhouse door in their own hands, all they have to do is comply.

This statement should make you uncomfortable. It makes me uncomfortable because it is a pure expression of the power of the state. But it's still due process.


In Criminal Contempt max duration of imprisonment is limited. In civil it is not until somebody decides that one never complies. You may call it due process. I call it for what it is - A torture and fucking crime against humanity. Judge that holds person for years for being stubborn deserves nothing more than walk the plank

Any power that could force a judge to actually walk the plank for what they see as an abuse of power, is itself something like a state, that could just as easily wield that power against the stubborn defendant.

Judges are not above the law. They could be and are being made to "walk a plank". Problem is that we have many laws that are very shitty and allow abuse and are heavily distorted to benefit anyone but "we the people"

Criminal immunity? Sure. Civil immunity? Nope! She could definitely make a nice buck.

Qualified immunity doesn't apply to criminal cases. It is used to defend against civil suits. It is unfortunately very easy to find many cases where it leads to injustice. For example:

>...Abby Tiscareno, a licensed daycare provider in Utah, was wrongfully convicted of felony child abuse when a child under her care suffered brain hemorrhaging. After calling emergency services, subsequent medical tests supported these findings. However, during her trial, requested medical records from the Utah Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS) were not provided. It wasn’t until a civil suit that Ms. Tiscareno saw pathology reports suggesting the injury could have occurred outside of her care. She was granted a new trial and acquitted. Her subsequent lawsuit for due process violations, alleging that DCFS failed to provide exculpatory evidence, was dismissed due to lack of precedent indicating DCFS’s obligation to produce such evidence.

https://innocenceproject.org/news/what-you-need-to-know-abou...


Off of taxpayer money sadly. Imo we really need a fix for this. When cops are grossly negligent the money should come out of their aggregate pension fund (or at least partially).

> we really need a fix for this. When cops are grossly negligent the money should come out of their aggregate pension fund

This is on us as voters. If we didn’t piss our pants every time a police union sneezed, we’d realize wholesale restarting police departments is precedents in even our largest cities.


Yes, this is the key point. Tax payers get a nice big bill while the people who caused the problem get a nice paid vacation while they conduct an internal "investigation" that typically finds they did nothing wrong.

There is a fix to it. Elect people who will hold them accountable.

As long as you keep electing clowns that let the police do whatever they want, the police will... Do whatever they want.


Yeah, of course they need to held accountable, and we need to vote in people who will do so. What I'm suggesting is an alignment of incentives that will ensure that police will try to do their best to not be negligent.

Of course there's a balance that has to be struck so that police are empowered enough to act. So perhaps something like settlements against the police being 30% borne by the police pension fund and 70% by taxpayers is sufficient. I think this will also make police very enthusiastic about bodycams and holding each other accountable.


I'm usually a big supporter of labor unions, but police unions in the US generally have an outsized amount of power, and even when mayors etc. want to hold police accountable, the union ends up bending the mayor over a barrel.

I'm not sure what the solution is here. Forbid police from unionizing? That would probably have some bad consequences too.


Malpractice insurance

despite this being something practically everybody wants, the fact that it hasn't happened is not a coincidence and speaks to the power of police unions/guilds and their lobbying arms. outside a few toothless instances, those groups are extremely good at reframing these attempts and mobilizing their bases to vote against the broader public interest.

it sucks.


> despite this being something practically everybody wants,

No, everybody does not want police accountability. Half the population will fall on a grenade to prevent that. They know that the purpose of the police is to keep the undesirables in line, and they never envision that they will ever fall in that category.

The brutality is the point for them.


oh, i generally don't disagree with you on that point; i specifically meant that when presented with the question "do you want your tax dollars to pay for police liabilities?" the answer is probably almost always "no".

Sure. But when you ask "Do you want the police to be unable to do their job and live in a lawless hellscape ran by gangbangers and ISIS cartels?, the answer is also 'No.'

The problem is that the mass media sets the framing of acceptable discourse, and that mass media is in large part an ideological monoculture. And even when it's not, it is happy to present absolutely insane batshit lunacy as 'one of the two sides' of an issue.


yeah - i think the media is certainly culpable, but i also think this speaks to the power of police unions like i mentioned earlier. media is happy to present stories presented to them on silver platters by "respected" institutions because they carry all the hallmarks of legitimacy.

“Tough on crime” -> lenient on police -> innocent grandmas in jail.

Almost all taxpayer funded pension funds are already underfunded. It makes no difference if the funding decreases or increases, the government employee will still get their benefit. The government would have to go through bankruptcy to get the benefit amount reduced.

Very easy solution to users forgetting their passwords. It's to not need a password for your software. Something that once upon a time, Microsoft did not require with their operating systems.


They also invented that whole "you changed your video card so now you have to call support to reactivate windows" process.


Exactly, if 1/2 their support calls are PW resets, and that costs them a fortune solve the problem, don't slap AI lipstick on the chat pig.


SMT is your example here for the anti-grind, anti-boring-tbc?

I guess SMT2 was bizarrely anti-grind in a sense, but I dropped it when it turned out that leveling up made me weaker.


Pretty favorably, because the coding agents suck.


So do junior devs. I’ve gotten great results treating coding agents as junior devs where I keep my hands on the wheel


Some of you folks think way too highly of yourselves. Junior devs are awesome. You tell them what needs doing, if it's not well defined you have them write a document to figure it out, and then they churn away at it and will often surprise you with a brilliant solution.

Meanwhile, I've never once seen a coding agent give a brilliant solution or design to just about anything, and anything with the barest whiff of undefined-ness will simply zero in on your existing biases.

This whole thread reads like absolute insanity to me. I love getting new junior devs. They do great work.


Now ask a junior dev to design a concurrency implementation. To know the complete in my case AWS SDK and write a script in 3 minutes.

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/boto3/latest/

Or do the same for IAC - same surface area - and use Terraform on one project, CloudFormation on another, and the CDK on a third and to generate code for you when you give them the correct architecture. It took me a day to do that before AI depending on the architectural complexity and I know AWS well (trust me on this). How long would it take me to delegate that to a junior dev? It took ChatGPT 2 minutes before I started using Claude just by my pasting a well labeled architecture diagram and explaining the goal.

It took me about 8 hours total to vibe code an internal web tool with a lot of features that if I had estimated before AI, I would have said a mid level developer would have taken two weeks at least. It wasn’t complex - just a CRUD app with Cognito authentication. How long would it have taken a junior developer?


The one reason I can't care about these kind of arguments is that you're describing the solution, not the problem. Based on my career (maybe shorter than yours), usually you put juniors on projects of low complexity and low impact while you play the mentor role. It's not about them being a productive worker or a menial helper, it's for them to train using practical projects. Your problems don't look like suitable projects unless you want them to train them in copy-pasta from the Internet.


First let’s define roles. I am not just pulling them out of thin air.

https://www.levels.fyi/blog/swe-level-framework.html

Junior - everything is spelled out in excruciating detail, the what and the how. They are going to be slow, not know best practices, constantly bug other developers and you srs going to have to correct them a lot.

Mid level developer - little ambiguity on the business case or their role in it. They are really good coders in their domain. They have the experience to turn well defined business requirements into code. You don’t have to explain the “how” to them just the what. They should have the ability to break an assigned “epic” based on the business requirements to well defined stories and be a single responsible individual for that Epic maybe working with juniors depending on the deliverable or other mid level developers.

A senior developer works at a higher level of ambiguity and a larger scope, the business may know they want something. But neither the business or technical requirements are well defined. Think of a team lead.

Senior+ - more involved with strategy.

If I have to define everything in great detail anyway, why not just use AI? It can do it faster, cheaper, more correct and the iteration is faster. I would go as far as saying in my recent coding agent experience, a coding agent is realistically 100x faster than a junior developer since you have to give both of them well defined tasks.

My experience with Claude code and codex recently is that even the difference between a mid level developer and a coding agent is taste when it comes to user facing development, knowing funky action at a distance, and knowing the business, with a mid level developer you can assume shared context and history with an ability to learn.

So again, why do I need to hire a junior developer in the age of AI?


From the article

  As an Entry Level Engineer, you’ll be expected to develop and maintain lower complexity components under the guidance and tutelage of more experienced team members.
That does not really contradict my point.

> If I have to define everything in great detail anyway, why not just use AI?

You don't have to define everything. And to do so is detrimental to their growth. If you're their mentor, you're supposed to give them problems, not recipes. And guidance may be as little as an hint or pointing them to some resource, not giving them the solution outright. The goal is not to get a problem solved (that's just a nice-to have), the goal is to nuture a future colleague.


Okay. But that still doesn’t answer the question.

Why should I hire a junior who doesn’t know the what or the how. Instead of hiring a mid level developer who could be an excellent developer who can turn business requirements into code and is more than likely better at certain things than I am since they live and breathe it everyday and can both do the work without supervision and can offer valuable advice and say something that might convince me that I didn’t think things clearly?

Reminding you that the difference above a mid level developer and a “senior”/“senior+” is scope and ambiguity not necessarily technical depth in one area.

What does a junior developer bring to the table that I should use my open req on?


In my experience it just boils down to:

1- You need a ton of internal knowledge so it doesn't really matter what they know past the basics.

2- Testing gets expensive with seniors

3- You can't get mid-senior level employees you like. I see very often companies having really high requirements for hiring leading to the only candidates passing being friends of employees. Juniors pass easier via the 'he's motivated to learn' path.

4- Juniors bring a motivation with them. Seniors tend to generally care less so a couple of energetic juniors can get them moving a bit quicker. Especially if you find a good one, since a senior really doesn't want to get outperformed by a fresh graduate. Also, since they usually suck at politics, it's easier to prod them about why things aren't working than the seniors who've played the blame game for 20 years and have perfected the art of dodging responsibility.


> Why should I hire a junior who doesn’t know the what or the how.

I'm not saying you should. It's the business model that will answer that question. But the traditional wisdom was that juniors are not costly and have few obligations tying them down. And juniors don't stay junior.

And some may know the what and the how, at least technically. What they may lack may be just how to develop their skills further to be useful in a professional settings. It's easy to learn programming languages, tools, libraries and frameworks when you have a lot of free time. And they're not asking to be your protégés, you're just training them to be useful for your team.


Design a concurrency implementation? I sure hope they would spend more than 3 minutes on it! Concurrency lends itself to subtle bugs even when experts write it.

I'd gladly take a junior dev to do any of that work there, because they can think for themself and not hang onto any bias you unknowingly build into the prompt like it's a religion.


I can absolutely guarantee you that a junior dev or even a senior dev could do complicated IAC as fast as AI. It isn’t that knowing the architecture is the problem, it’s just very tedious. You have to look up all of the properties involved for each service and each property of each resource. I trust AI to know proper AWS architecture from being trained on the total corpus of the internet more than a junior dev.


Yes, actually. Knowingly violating the policies of a project while pretending you aren't, so you can continue participating in the fully voluntary project, does make you a jerk.

If you don't like the policies they set, just leave.

I'm willing to bet that every single person on here complaining has zero contributions to PostmarketOS.


To be fair, a lot of that is because the DX7 (or rather, FM synthesis in general) is just absolutely arcane when it comes to programming.


Yup. FM Synthesis is challenging enough to implement, but doing so on the DX7's interface is a whole other level of frustrating. It's far from the hands-on interfaces of most subtractive or modular synthesizers.


> All other electronic instruments, with the one exception being the Theramin, have a fundamental problem with human expression. There is an unsolvable disconnect between what the performer's actions and their audience.

Electric bass? Heck, even in synthesizers, you have the EWI or the Haken Continuum.

Guitar (and bass) are obviously and far and away the most successful, but it does a disservice to a number of wonderful inventions to say they're the only ones. Just look at what the Japanese band T-SQUARE does with the EWI to see people innovating at the edges.


That used to be the case (see the joke about printers) but AI completely reversed it.


AI turned a lot of tech workers into tech enthusiasts (and frankly, most cool new technologies take their toll), but there are still plenty of people here who distrust AI.


I find myself in the awkward place of being both. I use LLMs to offload busywork and to allow me to get work done that I otherwise wouldn't have time for, but I also see that we're walking a pretty tenuous tightrope when it comes to pretty much every concern we've ever had with technology bundled in one place and amplified 1000x.

It's the old rag of "tech is the tool, ethics are the user" in an era where people who are unethical have become loud and proud about it and the tech is recursive reinforcement power tools on steroids.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: