Hacker News Reader

sykhon Comcast is leaking the names and passwords of customers’ wireless routers

I have Comcast and my own modem/router. It’s a good idea to have your modem/router as the article suggests but you’ll have to be tech savvy enough to counteract Comcasts’ tech support people. Every time there is an issue with the internet connection their tech support always say it’s my modem/router that is the problem and that I need to use a Comcast supplied modem/router. It’s annoying and those who are not savvy enough will capitulate and get Comcasts’ equipment.

I hate Comcast and would gladly pay another company double what I pay for internet service with similar speeds. Alas, no such competition exists is my area. I hope Comcast goes bankrupt some day.

sykhon Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts

Janus is not about being left out of the bargaining unit. It’s about not being forced to pay for collective bargaining that all the workers benefit from. That they all benefit from it is clear when you compare non collectively bargained workplaces with those that are.

sykhon Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts

No one is required to join the union. They are required to help pay for collective bargaining, grievances, contract enforcement etc. Those who are in the union are entitled to a refund of the portion of their dues that go toward political activities. This is all the current law without Janus.

sykhon Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts

You could Google it. Here’s a link:

https://www.unionfacts.com/article/political-money/

sykhon Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts

We assert different things. I claim your view that unions circumvent the political process is a bit extreme. Workers should be able to band together to advance their cause without regard to whether or not they are public employees. Working for the government should not necessarily mean that your rights get limited. There are exceptions. Like for the military.

Of course this is just my opinion. I can’t claim it’s objectively correct.

sykhon Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts

the collectively bargained agreement with an employer affects everyone under the scope of that agreement. This includes people who are not members of the union. The contract is for everyone within a bargaining unit. For instance, at my college every instructor's working conditions are set forth in the master contract. This includes those not in the union. The union can’t make a contract only for those instructors who are part of the union.

The free rider problem occurs once so called right to work gets enacted. There is no free rider no because everyone pays fair share (in states that don’t have right to work laws).

sykhon Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts

I’m not having anything two ways. Here are two statements which are not contradictory.

1. Unions are not government funded. 2. Those who benefit from collective bargaining ought to help pay for it.

sykhon Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts

OK, so you are not a conservative. The essence of the question remains. Perhaps answering it would be helpful instead of the response you gave.

sykhon Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts

AFSCME is not a public entity. NEA is not a public entity. These unions do not in any way limit speech.

sykhon Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts

A public employee union is not the government. With limited exceptions being a public employee does not mean you forfeit your rights. There should not be distinction between public employee union and private employee unions. If workers come together to bargain as a unit then they should be allowed to do so wether they are public employees or not.

Unions do not circumvent the normal political process. They are not seizing power from voters. Your view appears a bit extreme.

sykhon Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts

Once I earn the money it is my money and no longer taxpayer money. I fund the union with my money. The union does not receive money apportioned by the government.

Is the landlord I rent from supported by taxpayer money because I’m a public employee that rents from him?

sykhon Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts

Government is an employer. With the exception of the military employees have a right to unionize subject to certain constraints. Why distinguish between public vs. private? Why shouldn’t a union be political? Don’t workers have a right to gather in a group and be political? Government workers should be excluded from this activity?

Janus is not really about free speech. It’s an attempt to destroy unions by letting people benefit from collective bargaining without paying for it. It’s called the free rider problem.

sykhon Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts

There is no distinction between public employee unions and private employee unions. People are not forced to join unions. They are, for the time being, in some states required to pay for fair share dues to cover the costs of collective bargaining, grievances, and other administrative costs. People who join the union can get a refund of the portion of their dues that go to political activities.

Since you are making a distinction about public vs. private unions it appears that this is not a constitutional issue. It seems to be one where you don’t like that they generally endorse and support one party over the other. There are very few entities that are neutral. All sufficiently large entities become political to some degree.

sykhon Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts

I see you’ve changed your stance from no good to no net good. The former is extreme and that’s the language you used. Now you are using the latter language. That’s not extreme.

It is law that everyone gets the benefit from a union’s collective bargaining. It’s unreaonable to expect people who benefit from the bargaining to not pay for it. In economics it’s known as the free rider problem.

sykhon Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts

The supermarket analogy I used was solely to point out that unions are not publicly financed. It is the law that union members can get a refund on their portion of dues used for political purposes. I think you may not be aware of that.

sykhon Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts

It is unreasonable in my opinion to consider Janus a constitutional issue. It's not a free speech issue even though it has been popularly cropped as such. People who benefit from collective bargaining ought to help pay for it.

I'm not a lawyer and you'll be able to cite a thousand cases to my one. My sister's neighbor is on the state Supreme Court where I live. He's said to me that a good lawyer can argue any case and cite a bunch of reasons to support his/her case.

For me the case is simple. The collectively bargained rules apply to everyone in the workplace. As such those who benefit from said bargaining ought to pay for it. This has been an established practice for many, many years. Each state has the right to negate this and many have enacted misnamed right to work laws. There is no compelling reason to change the current practice. Janus' speech is not currently threatened and the greater public interest should be the one that prevails. It won't though.

sykhon Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts

Public sector unions are nothing but trouble and every step toward their destruction is a good thing.

It appears your position is that there is nothing good about public sector unions. Have they done no good? That's an extreme position. You say that every step toward their destruction is a good thing. I suppose that means you'd support illegal methods of destruction?

I'm in a public sector union. I pay union dues. That money comes from my pay and not taxpayers. My salary is paid for by the state but my dues come from my salary and are not part of my benefits. The union is not taxpayer funded. If you really think this then to the extent that my salary is used to pay for groceries does that make the supermarket partially taxpayer funded?

My union influences my workplace rules to the extent that they bargain my working conditions on my behalf. They have negotiators much more knowledgeable about negotiation than I am and they negotiate on my behalf. By law our workplace rules cover everyone whether or not they are in the union. It's reasonable to expect that everyone who benefits from the negotiation help pay for said negotiation.

Clearly, I'm not going to change your mind on the efficacy of unions; public or not. However, perhaps you will consider that your position is quite extreme. You can find no good?

I ask my liberal friends who decry Trump (as I do) can you name some good things he has done. Most can't. They are too extreme to even consider the other side. You sound like an extremist on this issue.

sykhon Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts

Yes, there are instances of decades of legal precedent being overturned. In the case of Janus though I think it's a bit different. For one, I think the argument that being forced to pay fair share dues constitutes compelled speech is not even specious. It's, on it's face, wrong in my opinion. So Janus appears from my perspective to be more on the legislative side. This is especially so given that Gorsuch in the ruling that the thread is nominally about said that it's up to the legislature to change things.

sykhon Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts

Will you believe this, that the court is not legislative in its actions, when the Janus ruling comes out? They are going to overrule decades of established labor laws.

sykhon When physics meets biology: a less known Feynman

A ring is a set. So is a group. At least this is how almost every working commutative algebraist views things. Category theory and its like are gaining traction but the objects are still viewed as sets.

sykhon Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

Overall I agree with you. I agree that for me net neutrality is not that important. But in a nation with as much voter apathy, with the growing sense of voting being futile I’ll take a single issue voter that gets galvanized. If everyone were a single issue voter it’d be a mess. With a few people not so much.

sykhon Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

Thank you for keeping the discussion in the realm of the plausible and feasible. I'd hate for extreme situations to be brought up. A number of people have given reasons for why they think net neutrality is as important as it is to them.

Thank you for definitively letting me know that

Obviously net neutrality is something we should be concerned about but a single issue voter says it's the only thing we should be concerned about. That's just not true.

Your argument has been convincing. Convincing enough that I'll be sure to consult you on other issues in the penumbra of the hierarchy of human concerns to see if they merit being single voter issue. Perhaps you can make a flier for those of us not in the know.

sykhon Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

Not all issues are a equal. Clearly not. But what is important changes from person to person. To suggest that your concerns and what constitutes a single voter issue for you is wrong is condescending. Since you think net neutrality is a stupid single voter issue then I suggest it not be one for you. But not everyone has your concerns.

It’s not a big issue for me but I can see why it is for others. People need to get involved and active. I’m not going to discourage anyone from doing this.

There is always a more important issue on the horizon. There’s always some cause that is more important. We don’t all get up in arms over the same things. To me climate change is the most important issue facing humans. I’ll advocate this position but my arrogance is not so great as to belittle someone else's pet cause.

So I’m not going to tell you that health care policy is a stupid issue to get energized about when the climate is changing.

sykhon When physics meets biology: a less known Feynman

Isn’t it true that commutative algebra is contained within set theory? Aren’t all the objects sets?

sykhon When physics meets biology: a less known Feynman

The mathematician who made the quote I mentioned said that quantum mechanics was just <some branch of mathematics that I’ve forgotten> in dimension 1. I don’t know what quantumn field theory is. If it is a branch of physics then it’s not the theory the mathematician I referred to mentioned. Some mathematicians view mathematics as superior to physics and are dismissive about physics. They tend to believe that since they mastered mathematics then learning physics is easy.

sykhon Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

That is mighty patronizing of you to tell someone that their concerns aren’t worthy enough. A majority of Americans who are registered to vote don't. There is an abundance of apathy in the U.S. toward the political process. Here we have someone willing to go so far as to contact their elected representative and you respond as you did.

Off the top of my head I can’t name another issue that has support by majorties of both parties. This is an issue that is most likely to gain sympathy of Republican senators and most likely to result in an instance of the peoples' interest outwaying corporate interests.

Instead of encouragement we have jaquesm here to let us know that you follow American politics pretty closely and we should all concentrate on something else. I do not subscribe to your patronizing attitude.

sykhon Senate votes to reinstate net neutrality

Why do you presume that net neutrality isn’t among the most pressing for OP? There are few issues where a majority of both Republicans and Democrats both agree. It seems like a worthy issue to hinge a vote on.

sykhon [dead]

But Euclidean geometry is physically impossible. So it isn’t obvious, is it? Is it more obvious than hyperbolic geometry? The two geometries contradict each other.

sykhon [dead]

There are counter intuitive consequences of the Axiom of Choice. There are counter intuitive consequences without choice [1]. There are weaker versions of the Axiom of Choice, like countable choice. Here’s a statement that is equivalent to the Axiom of Choice: The product of non-empty sets is non-empty. It seems clear, naively speaking, that the product of non empty sets should be non empty and believing this means you accept the Axiom of Choice.

Whatever you decide to believe with regard to the Axiom of Choice you end up with weird stuff happening when dealing with uncountable sets. The intuition with dealing with countable sets does not extend to uncountable sets in many cases.

[1]. https://mathoverflow.net/a/22935

sykhon Why Traffic-Choked Nashville Said 'No Thanks' to Public Transit

I like the refrain, “The trains don’t pay for themselves.” As if they ought to. National parks don’t pay for themselves. Neither do the police or fire department. Some things need public investment and shouldn’t pay for themself. We need to stop reducing everything to how many dollars are spent and consider non economic costs of not building decent public transportation.