litchralee

I intentionally remove it, as I prefer zero-based counters.

Direct link (PDF) to the unsigned order issued by SCOTUS.

For reference, on 27 March, the federal Western District Court for Washington state issued a Preliminary Injunction (PI) while the merits of the case continued to be litigated. The government then appealed the PI to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where a panel of three judges declined to stay (ie pause) the PI on 18 April, meaning the PI remained in effect. As of 25 April, the government then sought appeal to the full en-banc Ninth Circuit of judges, while also appealing directly to SCOTUS, both to stay the PI.

Today, 6 May, SCOTUS granted the stay of the District Court's PI, but conditioned it on whenever the Ninth Circuit issues its decision on whether to agree with or overrule the three-judge panel. But even further, the SCOTUS stay would remain in effect if the government then appeals that decision by the Ninth Circuit, pending SCOTUS's own evaluation of an appeal to them.

So logically, if the Ninth Circuit overrules its panel and grants the stay, then the government gets what they want by not being hamstrung by the PI, which makes the SCOTUS stay redundant. But if the Ninth Circuit agrees with its panel and declines to stay, then the government still remains unbound by the PI until SCOTUS gets around to handling the plaintiff's application for appeal. At which point, SCOTUS can then decide to issue a new stay of the PI or let the stay expire, meaning the PI comes back into force.

And all that still doesn't get to the merits of the case, which is still with the District Court. The question to SCOTUS would be about whether a District Court in one part of the country can grant a PI that applies nationwide.

Personal opinion: I think the answer is yes, but the power must be circumscribed somehow. Justice is not served if plaintiffs and defendants can judge-shop for a court that'll grant whatever PI they ask for. When the constitutional rights of a class -- specifically trans people -- are at risk, and the rationale for singling out that class are suspect, I think granting nationwide preliminary relief serves justice, at least until the merits are fully litigated. After all, even the temporary, wrongful loss of constitutional rights is "irreparable", under existing American jurisprudence.

I also think SCOTUS jumped the gun, since judicial restraint would mean waiting for the Ninth Circuit to do their thing first, and then evaluate an appeal from that, if any is sought. How they actually did this kinda presupposes that an appeal to SCOTUS will surely follow, which is like putting the cart before the horse.

In an urban core, there simply shouldn't be any roads (ie corridors for connectivity) that need to be crossed by pedestrians or bicyclists. Instead, the densest urban areas would have only streets (ie corridors for access) with human-scale and human-speed traffic, and public transport of course. Delivery and garbage trucks would operate off-peak at night, a la New York City

If there are to be roads, they need to be fully separated, with automobiles going above or below grade. After all, cars can climb grades with ease, hence why trenched or viaduct highways make more sense than those obnoxious, towering, loud, narrow, fenced-off so-called pedestrian overpasses.

Outside of the urban core, where roads should be, there's a better case for level crossing of pedestrian and bikes. To which point, the leading designs would be ones where so-called beg buttons are eliminated: the UK already demonstrates how automatic pedestrian and cyclist sensors work, and they have the benefit of also detecting if they finish crossing early; no need to hold road traffic longer than necessary. The Dutch have their own designs for detecting and yielding a crossing in advance of approaching cyclists.

Supposing that any change did materialize, it is a bedrock principle of legal procedure to not change substantially just because the outcomes have noticeable changed. That is to say, if there was anything like a sudden drop in conviction rates, it would be improper for the judges, appellate justices, and defense and prosecuting attorneys to do anything different than what they would have done prior. That's kinda the point of having a procedure: to follow it and see what happens, accepting the result of turning the cogwheels.

The path to making such changes would have to be done legislatively, since -- at least in the USA/California -- that's how changes to the law and civil/criminal procedure are made. Sure, entities like the Judicial Council of California would be making recommendations, but it's on the Legislature to evaluate the problem and implement any necessary changes.

Law without procedure would just be decrees, wayward and unprincipled.

A financial incentive is only effective if the finances of an endeavor are the primary reason why fewer people chose to embark. As the article explains, European countries tend to have fewer barriers to bicycling, and so a financial incentive to commute by bike is a perfectly logical next step in encouraging bicycle uptake.

But North America has huge hurdles to bicycling, not least including: sprawling suburbs, dangerous motorists, poor bicycle infrastructure and maintenance, and few practical routes. So a financial incentive to bike to work doesn't really fix any of those

To the article's credit, they did recommend this in tandem with fully-funded bike infrastructure. But it's worth focusing on where incentives genuinely work in North America: ebike purchase rebates.

Ebikes are undisputably getting more Americans and Canadians into a bike saddle, because they enable riders that might have physical limitations, or might be trapped in circuitous suburbs that historically favored the range of automobiles. But while ebike prices have come down, they're still fairly high for most people. And so a purchase incentive is exactly the right solution to solve that, not only getting more bikes to more people, but also increasing the demand and bringing economies of scales. This also applies to support and maintenance, as more bikes means more shops, more technicians, and more parts networks. And more riders will need more accommodations, like parking, wayfinding, training, and community resources.

Purchase incentives for ebikes are an excellent way to build a local economy around sustainable mobility. After all, how can bike maintenance or trail building be outsourced? The riding of bicycles and its benefits will always be personal and/or local, and that's been proven over nearly 200 years.

There's a lot to unpack here. Might I suggest you make a new post in this community for this solar-powered ebike+trailer endeavor? That'll also garner more input than as a comment on a post about a commercially-available ebike.

Just the plain Google Keyboard on Android.

We all have to start somewhere. My first attempt lasted four months, when I was at uni. My second attempt was after I obtained employment, and then dedicated Colemak to my home machines so as to retain my 120 WPM with QWERTY when at work. And I've been going since.

I did try to use Colemak on mobile, but with Swype-style input, the accuracy rate drops to almost nothing. Funny how Colemak being so efficient with the home row means that predictive text can't be as effective.

Another Colemak user!

A lot of my response was already rendered further down the thread. So I'll only comment on this part:

The objective is not to make the most community friendly licence, it is to pay the people who do the actual work.

If this is the singular or main objective that Futo has, then the basis of OP's post is entirely dead. The title of the post is very clearly "FUTO License, an alternative to Open Sourd". But if we take your submission as fact, then there is no comparison whatsoever.

Open Source -- whether using OSI's definition or including FSF's -- has almost never focused on the financial aspect, for better or worse. It's why commercial entities like Canonical and Red Hat are so rare, because software engineers prefer spending their free time working on great things rather than doing admin.

Futo sounds like they want to be a commercial entity like Red Hat but without the limitations that Open Source or Free Software would impose on them. And they're welcome to do that, but that endeavor cannot honestly be called comparable to the mostly community-driven projects like BSD, GNU, and Linux, or commercial ventures like RHEL and whatever cloud-thingy that Canonical is selling now.

If the goal is to pay for professional talent, with revenue from B2B sales, and only non-commercial users get a free-bee, then that's just a shareware company with more steps. Futo trying to dress themselves up like Red Hat remains as disingenuous as when they tried to misinform open-source folks about what open-source is.

I'll be frank: my interest in software licensing is about finding licenses that strike a sensible balance. It's about distributing rights and obligations that are equitable and sustainable, while perpetuating software uptake and upkeep. It's a tough cookie. But I think the Source First license alienates too many potential audiences and its financial model falls apart under any game theory analysis. So I'm not keen on looking down this avenue anymore.

Direct link (PDF; 102 pages) to the Memorandum Opinion (the bulk of the ruling) and direct link (PDF; 5 pages) to the Order (grants the Motion for Summary Judgement; spells out exactly what the government must now do).

These come to me by way of Kyle Cheney on BlueSky and emptywheel on BlueSky via Fediverse bridge.

I'm only halfway through reading the Memorandum Opinion, but dang if there aren't banger quotes there. Some examples, mostly from the footnotes:

If the founding history of this country is any guide, those who stood up in court to vindicate constitutional rights and, by so doing, served to promote the rule of law, will be the models lauded when this period of American history is written.

In addition to the parties’ voluminous submissions, twenty-two amicus briefs have been submitted in support of plaintiff from a wide range of interested lawyers and law firms; legal professional organizations; law professors; 346 former state and federal judges; former and current in-house general counsel; former senior government officials; media and press freedom organizations; and organizations including the ACLU, Cato Institute, Institute for Justice, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, and Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, among others. A single amicus brief was submitted in support of the government by three gun rights groups and three conservative advocacy organizations. See Br. Amicus Curiae of America’s Future, Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of California, Judicial Action Group, & Conservative Legal Defense & Education Fund in Supp. of Recons. of the TRO & Gov’t’s MTD (“Br. of America’s Future et al.”), ECF No. 131 (beginning with four Bible verses at the top of the Table of Authorities, see id. at iii, and arguing for expansive Executive Power, while noting the total number of votes and Electoral College margin in favor of President Trump, id. at 23, and listing the injunctions issued by federal courts against the current Trump Administration’s actions, see id. App. 1).

Regarding bike racks, I posted this a while ago, with examples of good and bad bike racks: https://sh.itjust.works/post/9741359

better bike racks do exist, as many destinations have the older, terrible styles that were barely usable. Where you can, advocate for better bike racks and everyone will benefit!