Not all, only most Americans. For Brits it's usually after Sir Garfield (spear field) St Aubrun Sobers.
And even before Gary Cooper there were people using it for Gerald (spear power), Gerard (spear hard/brave), and (old) Gerbert (spear bright). It is a cousin to, but believed not historically derived from, Garrett/Garrod. It is unclear whether German/Germain derive from this root or not. It is usually unrelated to Jared (which is usually a Hebrew name, but does have spelling variants that overlap Garrod).
Well, programming is a tool, right? There are clearly incorrect ways to program, but that doesn't mean there's one correct way to program - because it depends on what you're trying to make.
It's incorrect to make a bookshelf that can't hold the weight of books, but IKEA isn't incorrect to make a crappy-but-adequate bookshelf that will get given away when you move, and a master carpenter isn't incorrect to make an expensive-but-beautiful bookshelf that will be used for many decades.
A seed-stage startup trying to see if anyone cares about their product at all should probably accept it being 100x slower than it theoretically could be. And the Linux maintainers should be working hard to shave milliseconds.
It's not really relevant to bring in radical overhauls to our economic system when people are talking about what politically-possible changes might help improve the housing market.
> Gen Z were heavily supporting Trump in the recent election
What on earth are you talking about? 18-29 year olds were the most Democratic age group, as usual. 18-29 year old men might have slightly favored Trump, but to a significantly lower degree than older men.
Gen Z only voted democrat by a 4% margin which is an absolute death sentence for the democrat party considering people only vote further right as they get older. For context Obama won that demographic by 20% in 2012, and won it by even more in 2008. If those numbers hold democrats have no path to winning national elections
> Gen Z were heavily supporting Trump in the recent election [and therefore Zuckerberg needed to change political course for his social media to stay relevant]
which is the false claim I was responding to.
> If those numbers hold democrats have no path to winning national elections
Yes, it's certainly the case that if Democrats keep getting the same percentage of votes as in elections they lost badly, they'll keep losing elections.
Did you just arrive from Mars to judge our discourse norms?
It's completely typical to expect someone who makes a surprising factual claim to back it up with evidence. You're talking to them because you think they might know something you don't, and be able to point to how they know it - or they might not, and them offering weak or non-existent evidence would show that.
> It's completely typical to expect someone who makes a surprising factual claim to back it up with evidence.
A citation does not necessarily provide evidence, it only guarantees the words of a third-party. A third-party can spout complete nonsense as well as anyone else. The request ultimately serves to appeal to a flawed assumption that a third-party's words are more valuable than the words of who you are speaking to.
Which also incorrectly assumes there is someone else's words to even draw from. HN is well known for attracting experts in their field. It could have very well been that the parent commenter is the only person who knows anything about the subject. There may not be anyone else. Even if there was, to dismiss his knowledge as the hypothetical leading expert to hear from some other random nobody doesn't make sense.
But, to give the benefit of the doubt, if we assume there is a greater subject matter expert who can give you better words than the parent to describe the knowledge you seek: What purpose does the middleman serve? Why not talk directly with the expert? You are going to get a lot more out of it. The middleman, if not a valuable party to the subject, isn't going to relay what is most useful if for no other reason than because he doesn't know what is useful. A citation remains pointless.
> You're talking to them because you think they might know something you don't
Of course. Which, again, questions why you would want to defer to a third-party? If you have good reason to believe someone knows something you don't, why wouldn't you want to hear it from them directly in their own words? As I said before, in this case elaboration is what would be valuable. A citation is not. A citation is completely useless here. While citations do have a place, asking for a citation in the middle of a conversation is a fallacious device.
> Which also incorrectly assumes there is someone else's words to even draw from.
The claim in question is that there is a prevalence of hyper-mobility among programmers.
That can only be backed by data. Data gathered from a large number of people. Even if we suppose that the claim is the result of a solo research effort --- one person did all the data gathering and analysis --- and that that solo researcher is the very person making the comment on hacker news, there are still other words that can be referenced. They are not another person's words, but that same researcher's words hosted elsewhere, giving interesting details about the research!!!
The comment, whether we believe it or not, simply contains insufficient detail to someone interested.
Don't you understand?
Indeed, it's as if you came from space to dictate alien discourse protocols to humans.
Okay. But the request was for citation, not data around mobility. A request for the latter would at least carry something, albeit unless you are an expert yourself you likely won't be able to take much from it, but that is not what was requested. Still, I posit that elaboration is the better approach. If the person is, in fact, an expert in the subject they may have better ways of broaching the subject with you than dumping raws value upon you. And if dumping raw data is truly the best they can offer, that is still apt to be where they end up in their elaboration anyway, so in the worst case you haven't lost anything. Demanding that you know the best way to continue the conversation when it is you without the requisite knowledge seems foolhardy.
> there are still other words that can be referenced
Why reference when he can reiterate his own words, if there is merit in retelling what he has already told before? HN is not a Wiki trying to index historical knowledge, it is decidedly a link aggregator combined with discussion forum, with the latter being the feature that is relevant to the context. Further, this seems to imply that you don't trust the words on HN, but if that is the case why bother with HN at all? There is no utility if nothing can be taken from the words posted here.
> Indeed, it's as if you came from space to dictate alien discourse protocols to humans.
I have never seen this behaviour outside of Reddit (and where Reddit memes have leaked into HN). Humans having a discussion usually talk to each other in the present, not go back and forth pointing to quotes written in the past and likely written by a third-party. Even from my alien vantage point I recognize that as something humans would find strange. What makes you think it is human protocol?
Just an hour ago read somebody say that the California fires were caused by a combination of 5G and coronal mass ejections.
At the time I dismissed his words is not being supported by scientists or other authorities but in future I will remember your wisdom that it is "a flawed assumption that a third-party's words are more valuable than the words of who you are speaking to."
> "I dismissed his words" ... "you are speaking to"
Which is it? Did you dismiss him or did you speak to him? If you dismissed him as you claim, the quote, even ignoring how it is taken out of context, doesn't work. It explicitly refers to where there is an exchange happening.
Something being in a business's best interests is very far from a guarantee that it'll happen.
I've worked on a team in a household-name big tech company where our mission was almost exactly "make sure we're not blowing up our most important customers for no reason". It's not nearly as easy as it sounds: defining who's important is hard, and defining what should and shouldn't be allowed is hard, and then implementing that all correctly and avoiding drift over time is tricky too.
"Doctors won't mention that losing weight and exercising more will make you healthier" is quite a take.
I've heard exactly the opposite from any number of people: that if you're overweight at all, many doctors will tell "lose weight and exercise" and then usher you out the door, rather than pay attention to the specifics of your medical problems - sometimes missing serious issues as a result.
When they have to turn patients over at the rate of 10 per hour due to the policy of the private equity group that owns their practice, they will be inclined to offer blanket advice that, while actually good and applicable for 80% of people, will tend to miss the edge cases.
> Media rushed to say it's not really a kill switch, just "sensors or cameras to monitor the driver’s behaviors, head or eye movements" and "block the driver from operating the vehicle". So... a kill switch.
You're selectively quoting in a way that misrepresents the article.
The post the article quotes:
> “Joe Biden signed a bill that would give law enforcement access to a ‘kill switch’ that will be attached to ALL new cars in 2026,” read several posts shared widely on Twitter and Facebook.
The actual functionality:
> In either case, if a driver is found to be impaired [by automated monitoring within the car], the car might employ a warning message, block the driver from operating the vehicle, or if the vehicle is already in motion, direct it to a safe stop or automated ride home.
> None of the technologies currently in development would notify law enforcement of the data collected inside vehicles or give government agencies remote control of vehicles, according to Jeffrey Michael, a researcher at Johns Hopkins University’s Center for Injury Research and Policy.
The car has an automatic system which can prevent the driver from operating it, but no one outside the car can trigger that system, which is clearly what the "kill switch" posts were claiming.
> The car has an automatic system which can prevent the driver from operating it, but no one outside the car can trigger that system, which is clearly what the "kill switch" posts were claiming.
That assumes that the feature is implemented securely, which is hardly guaranteed. Would you bet a large sum that it wasn't exploitable? I wouldn't.
No. But "new cars will have mandatory automated controls to prevent drunk driving, which may be implemented insecurely in a way that creates major vulnerabilities" (very reasonable) is not the same claim as "Joe Biden signed a bill that would give law enforcement access to a ‘kill switch’ that will be attached to ALL new cars" (blatantly false).
The fact that there are real concerns about something doesn't justify ignoring the truth value of inflammatory claims about that thing.
I think the greatest concern is that the cops don't seem to care about personal privacy at all. They'll do anything that's physically possible to do to prove guilt of a person, they have the Power of The State behind them. They're going to get access to this technology and they will use it to stop vehicles, it's simply a matter of time. Police in the US only ever get more powerful, more militaristic, more immune to consequences. There's an easily visible path from where we were before the bill to where the poster (incorrectly) claims we're at. Just because they don't currently have the power doesn't mean we should be taking every affordable step towards giving it to them.
You and afh1 seem to be reading both the article and my comment as focused on whether it's appropriate to characterize a device that prevents a car from starting as a "kill switch".
I didn't say anything at all about that term in my comment, and while the article says it's hyperbolic, arguing about that term is clearly not the focus of the article.
Just going to quote the whole opener here - it's about the claim that the law enables cops to monitor you and shut down your car, which is clearly false.
---------------
[Headline] Posts distort infrastructure law’s rule on impaired driving technology
CLAIM: President Joe Biden signed a bill that will give law enforcement access to a “kill switch” that will be attached to ALL new cars in 2026.
AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. While the bipartisan infrastructure bill Biden signed last year requires advanced drunk and impaired driving technology to become standard equipment in new cars, experts say that technology doesn’t amount to a “kill switch,” and nothing in the bill gives law enforcement access to those systems.
THE FACTS: In November 2021, Biden signed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, ushering into law a $1 trillion bipartisan deal to maintain and upgrade the country’s roads, bridges, ports and more.
One provision in the legislation aims to prevent drunk driving deaths by requiring all new vehicles to soon include “advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology” as “standard equipment.”
However, in the months since the law passed, some social media users have misrepresented the provision online, falsely claiming it will give police access to data collected by the technology or allow the government to shut down cars remotely.
“Joe Biden signed a bill that would give law enforcement access to a ‘kill switch’ that will be attached to ALL new cars in 2026,” read several posts shared widely on Twitter and Facebook.
> Just going to quote the whole opener here - it's about the claim that the law enables cops to monitor you and shut down your car, which is clearly false.
That's just the straw man the article is using to claim that it isn't a kill switch. They want the claim to be false so they adopt a version of the claim with a flaw in order to knock it down.
The obvious problem being that the actual implementation is at least as bad. Now you have the law mandating that the car activate the kill switch by itself, with no human in the loop you can even try to reason with.
What happens when you're driving erratically because you're on some dangerous ice road and trigger a false positive that strands you in the wilderness? What happens when you're actually impaired and then turn around to discover a wildfire approaching your location, in which case "don't die in a fire" should override "don't drive impaired" and you should immediately evacuate, but your car won't let you?
It's an ill-conceived and dangerous law and its critics are in the right. The operator should always be able to override the computer.
As I said in a sibling comment, the fact that there are real concerns about something doesn't justify ignoring the truth value of inflammatory claims about that thing.
If one person is criticizing Big Pharma because they use shoddy trial methodology when they can get away with it and heavily market minor variations on existing drugs, and another person is criticizing Big Pharma because they're poisoning our blood with fluoride in service to the Illuminati, it's not appropriate to lump them together and say "Big Pharma's critics are in the right."
(Also, I think the idea that they deliberately adopted a weak version of the criticism to argue against is rather conspiratorial - dumb unfounded nonsense gets very popular on the internet all the time! Valuable criticism that requires nuance is memetically disfavored by comparison!)
> If one person is criticizing Big Pharma because they use shoddy trial methodology when they can get away with it and heavily market minor variations on existing drugs, and another person is criticizing Big Pharma because they're poisoning our blood with fluoride in service to the Illuminati, it's not appropriate to lump them together and say "Big Pharma's critics are in the right."
But it's also not appropriate to lump them together and say "Big Pharma's critics are in the wrong."
> Also, I think the idea that they deliberately adopted a weak version of the criticism to argue against is rather conspiratorial - dumb unfounded nonsense gets very popular on the internet all the time!
It's hardly a conspiracy to suppose that media outlets choose which claims to fact check based on how they want to influence readers.
> But it's also not appropriate to lump them together and say "Big Pharma's critics are in the wrong."
And accordingly, I didn't ever say that this was a good bill or all its critics were in the wrong. A lot of people in this thread seem to be reading that into my comments, but all I did was take issue with a misrepresentation of an article that argued against a specific negative claim about the bill.
Which I think is representative - it's very hard to make a narrow point about specific arguments without people assuming that you're taking a firm stance on one side or the other of a general issue.
> And accordingly, I didn't ever say that this was a good bill or all its critics were in the wrong. A lot of people in this thread seem to be reading that into my comments, but all I did was take issue with a misrepresentation of an article that argued against a specific negative claim about the bill.
You were responding to a criticism of the article. The technology is a kill switch, which critics rightly oppose, whether or not it's a law enforcement kill switch. Here's the specific false claim from the article being criticized:
> experts say that technology doesn’t amount to a “kill switch,”
The authors are laundering the false claim through the mouths of "experts" (by which they apparently mean "proponents of the bill"), but 'that technology doesn't amount to a "kill switch"' is false. The authors then go on to knock down the narrower claim that it's a law enforcement kill switch, which is the straw man.
The article you're defending is doing the thing you're criticizing, i.e. using the narrow point (not a "law enforcement" kill switch) to malign the general point (it's a kill switch). If they were actually trying to be nuanced they'd be admitting that it's a kill switch and only distinguishing what kind of kill switch it is.
