According to the article, the caps were enacted because of a fear that the people might want too much healthcare. Do I even need to look into which party pushed this?
A minute of research has led me to conclude the discussed limit which comes from the 1997 Balanced Budget Act[1] was, like most of these sorts of efforts, passed by a Republican controlled Congress with weak opposition from Democrats. Republicans in the House voted 219 for and 7 against with Democrats 51 for and 154 against[2]. There was even less resistance in the Senate with 52 Republicans for with 3 against and 21 Democrats for and 24 against[3]. OP's "suspicion" was not "unfounded" and there was in fact "one party... driving this policy more than the other." If your complaint is simply that OP speculated on this without evidence, you're just as guilty of flagging their comment based on your own speculation without any evidence.
I’ll take it. I’ll take the flag. My comment was cynical and unfounded in the kind of discourse that we should see on HN. I will not edit it either. For posterity, I was thinking of the recent cutbacks to prevent “waste, fraud and abuse”, which, coming from a senator, should have been grounded in an even higher standard, rather than walking away from requests for clarification.
Faraday did a whole series of lectures about a single candle, essentially covering a surprising amount of physics and chemistry. Super simple and fascinating: https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/14474
There's a level where institutions are separate from the people that make them move. If your boss can get replaced without destroying your department, then that institutional layer exists.
What I have been thinking a lot about lately is that the focus should not be on the work. The focus should be on the handoff. If you build something, the goal is to have someone else use it. The work should focus on easing that transition. If it's a technology, what do you need to characterize so that the product people can work with it? If it's a product, how do you make it easy for your customers to get it? If it's an internal tool, what context and familiarity does the user group have?
You can, of course, DIY something easily enough but you can also purchase devices like this off the shelf. Needing to make legacy RS232 devices wirelessly available is a common problem in industry. Search for "wireless RS232 gateway" and you should be able to find a ton of stuff.
If you still want to DIY, an ESP32 (BLE and Wi-Fi capable microcontroller) board, and an RS232 to logic-level breakout board should be all you need. Again, I'm sure if you search, you'll find existing projects doing exactly this.
You may find esp-link interesting: https://github.com/jeelabs/esp-link
I've built a WiFi<->RS232 bridge using the firmware, ESP8266 and a UART<->RS232 converter module.
All hardware is very cheap.
'Gift' vs 'give' also rustles my jimmies. The phrase 'he gifted it to her' doesn't mean anything different from 'he gave it to her'. As a Calvinite, my stance is that 'verbing weirds language'.
Ew, likewise. I'd even go so far as to say that "verbing" this way is "impactful," and not in a good way. "Going forward," we should all try to use language more thoughtfully.
The C&H strip is wonderful. That whole comic strip is brilliant and timeless.
Nah, give implies it was just given. Something being gifted has specific emotional, cultural and character connotations that differ from simply giving, imo.
Yeah I was going to write UDP first but then thought it might be a worse analogy because of that.
So what I was trying to say is: Why can't shipping containers be more "automatically" routed over rail? Perhaps fully automatic rail car couplers would be more helpful in general than yet another gadgetbahn?
