sjtgraham

Not true. I've done this and the direct report actually responsible (another VP) was asked by the top-level VP to follow up. Very much depends on what the ask is. If it's along the lines of "my iPhone is broken" then yes, what you describe is most likely to happen.

Send a cold email to the exec whose portfolio this falls into. Probably Eddy Cue or Craig Federighi.

That is essentially "in no time" on Apple's release cadence.

It's not that secure anyway, as evidenced by the multiple 1-click exploits going around on X this week.

Requiring registration merely because an out-of-state vehicle spends more time in California than in any other single state raises a serious dormant Commerce Clause problem.

Scheiner specifically emphasized that the interstate registration system avoids requiring a vehicle to pay more than one full registration fee.

Why do you think they made this new law? It gets them to what they actually want, which is collecting tax.

Drafting gap just moved the loophole: put the car in a Montana trust with an independent Montana trustee that the California beneficiary uses in California.

I agree that you won't find forged PDF documents in the wild with any type of frequency, but they are forged in private settings. Forged or doctored bank statements are relatively more common. FinCEN identifies altered bank statements alongside W-2s, tax returns, gift letters, and employment information as examples of documents involved in mortgage fraud [1]. In March 2026, a mortgage loan officer was even charged by federal prosecutors with altering and creating bank statements to make borrowers appear qualified for a mortgage [2].

[1] https://www.fincen.gov/mortgage-loan-fraud

[2] https://www.justice.gov/usao-mdfl/pr/licensed-mortgage-loan-...

You're not forwarding to a macOS SDK. It's the iOS SDK. Enough works for most apps to run almost perfectly.

> You have to compile completely independently for it

This isn't true. You can easily patch App Store apps to run in the simulator.

3 years instead of 5 for other LPRs

There actually is a pilot to renew h1-b visa foils while in the US without a consular appointment.

I built apps like these on GOV.UK over 10 years ago for the Ministry of Justice. We built our own form wizard library that let us validate long forms in steps and break them out into multiple pages because Ruby on Rails didn't support doing that out of the box. It was a very important principle back then that everyone should be able to make use of these digital services regardless of whatever users were using to access them.

How can pay ostensibly be lagging behind big tech at Rockstar, yet GTA 6 allegedly has a budget of $3B? Granted not all of it will be allocated to development cost, but still.

I'm surprised YC funded this — not because it's a bad idea, because it isn't. But because surely one of the first questions was: what happens when Apple decides to shut it down?

> Before that fact causes you to lose sympathy for the case, note that almost every significant criminal case affirming constitutional rights involves a defendant who did something unsavory, if not reprehensible.

Not always. Often times prosecutors pick cases with bad fact patterns to be test cases when they want to attack a right. A recent example is Biden DoJ choosing to take US v Rahimi to SCOTUS in an attempt to wheel back the NYSRPA v Bruen decision.

Speaking of the forefront the UK has had interbank realtime payments (Faster Payment) since 2008. It also used to have something like Pix, i.e. bank account referenced by user's phone number called Paym from 2014, until it was discontinued due to lack of demand in 2023. Faster Payments is still operational.

I would rather speak an actual AI rather than an offshore operator using AI to disguise their accent.

I didn't know anything about any of the above.

What did you do about it at the time?

It's wild how instantly recognizable AI generated text is in any context.

The key difference is a parking ticket isn't $500.

But AB 645 is designed to punish and deter rather than compensate, which creates a genuine constitutional vulnerability under California's Article I, Section 16 jury trial guarantee.

The structural problem is that revenue goes to program costs and traffic calming, not to anyone harmed by speeding, which makes the fines punitive in character under any substance-over-label analysis.

The lack of DMV points and criminal record weakens the argument somewhat, but under California's substance-over-label approach those omissions aren't dispositive. They merely show the legislature knew how to stay on the civil side of the line, not necessarily that it succeeded.

If a court finds the penalties punitive in character, the owner-liability structure becomes a compounding problem: California's state due process protections are arguably more robust than federal, and imposing a punitive fine on a registered owner without proof they were driving, while burden-shifting exculpation to them looks increasingly difficult to sustain.

> The "exhaustion" isn't a technical crisis. It's a landlord problem.

> These aren't niche services. They are the backbone of how major VPN and proxy providers operate.

> This isn't datacenter IP space being labeled as residential — it's actual ISP networks being leveraged as proxy pipes

The "this isn't X, it's Y" construction is a bright red tell for AI slop. Posting AI slop is just bad manners.

link?

Why should users care about Anthropic's servers being overloaded?

It was one of the best places to live in up until about 10 years ago.

Places I have lived in: London, Santiago, Rio de Janeiro, Miami, New York, San Francisco.

You get what you pay for.

Incorrect. OP's view is present day 9th Circuit precedent.

Could be dev fused.

How does the Supreme Court’s elimination of Chevron deference affect USCIS’s ability to narrowly interpret the EB-1A regulatory framework, particularly at Step 1 of the Kazarian analysis? I am specifically interested in two areas: (1) whether, under a strict textual reading of the judging the work of others criterion in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), participation in code review where the beneficiary evaluates and approves the technical work of others in the same field should qualify without USCIS applying extra regulatory limitations, and (2) whether USCIS can continue using its historically restrictive approach to comparable evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) now that courts are no longer required to defer to agency interpretations. I understand that even if these issues favor the petitioner at Step 1 they may not change the outcome of the final merits determination under Step 2, and I am trying to determine how a post Chevron, strictly textual approach might influence Step 1 outcomes for petitioners whose achievements do not align neatly with the ten listed criteria.