To answer your edit, I'd say your framing of those questions is likely considered antagonistic.

   - No one is saying they need to know what vehicles contain ICE agents
   - Not sure your meaning exactly, but there's no expectation for plainclothes officers to be locatable by the general public
   - Concern for whom? Whose mistaken identity?
   - This isn't about "knowing" a vehicle contains ICE agents. 
   - Government officials *should* be held to higher scrutiny than the general public.
   - Their objective was to prevent *legally permitted* public recording of these operations
   - Here you are delving into a fraught space. Given that many people in that status are guilty of *civil* infractions and the level of force being deployed is highly disproportionate, many people are understandably upset. There's a ton to discuss in just this one line item.

The issue is that the restrictions were so ambiguous as to make flying drones legally risky anywhere and anytime. The idea that a pilot should somehow know that a specific vehicle is a roving no-fly zone is ludicrous. You are attempting to flip this on it's head and make it out like people are saying they have to know ICE vehicles and such. That's 100% not the issue. I mean, it may be an issue for some other conversation, but not this one. As far as harassment of ICE agents by drone operators, all existing regulations already cover this and apply equally to a drone operator harassing the general public or government officials. Trying to carve out something special for ICE agents and de-facto making all drone flight a legal gamble is insane.

> No one is saying they need to know what vehicles contain ICE agents

Look, I agree that this is a poorly implemented policy. But it's obvious and inarguable that the clear intent is to prevent people from following ICE around with drones, whether to surveil them (and thus perhaps warn others of their approach; despite the fact that there is no logical reason for anyone to be concerned about their approach beyond actual law breakers who legally should not be in the country) or harass them (which would not be okay if done to anyone).

> Government officials should be held to higher scrutiny than the general public.

Sure. Law enforcement is also entitled to legal protections that the general public is not; in particular they are specifically entrusted with the use of force that would almost never be accepted from civilians.

> Their objective was to prevent legally permitted public recording of these operations

No, there is no such objective, because even if enforced as described this is laughably far from actually doing any such thing.

In particular, you can still record from the ground. And if your actual purpose is to show clearly and honestly what the officers are doing, that is better and more easily done from the ground.

Again, this is about flying drones, and people are crying literal fascism over it. This is technology that didn't exist when the actual Fascists were in power, and is still only feasibly accessible to a privileged few.

> You are attempting to flip this on it's head and make it out like people are saying they have to know ICE vehicles and such.

No, I am doing nothing of the sort. I'm saying they are trying to know ICE vehicles, and people who are mistakenly identified as such may suffer as a result. And that it is therefore better that they don't have the idea in their heads that it should be morally okay to harass law enforcement officers, or to try to create an information network to obstruct lawful work.

The recurring pattern with all of these things people complain about with how ICE operates, that I've noticed, is that every single one of them is a response to how they've been unlawfully interfered with previously.

> Given that many people in that status are guilty of civil infractions

If you have a "final order of removal", that is because the national government has conclusively determined that you have violated the law by entering the country, that you are not legally entitled to be within the country, and that you inherently continue to violate the law by being within the country.

This is, definitionally, not something that can be dealt with by issuing a fine and letting the person stay in the country. To allow this is to deny the nation's right to determine who is and is not allowed to stay. It is, in fact, definitionally "open borders" policy. And with this you do not have a nation any more, only lines on a map.

> the level of force being deployed is highly disproportionate

This is entirely ignorant of how law enforcement works. Force is deployed as need to be superior to the threat to the operation. If you come at a police officer with a knife, for example, you should expect to get shot. It does not matter that you have not yet caused any injury, nor does it matter why you are being apprehended.

Similarly, any law enforcement officer may (from what I have had to research over the last several months; these things are not that much different from Canada, frankly) legally order you out of a vehicle on "reasonable suspicion"; and citizens are legally not entitled to interpose themselves physically between a law enforcement officer and the target with the purpose of interfering with law enforcement action (or persist in doing so after being advise that they are in the way). The fact that said citizen is recording with a cell phone at the time does not change that, any more than shouting political slogans during a hold-up would exonerate a bank robber.

If you interfere in such a manner, you thereby commit a crime in full sight of an officer, and are therefore a valid candidate for arrest. And resisting arrest generally justifies physical force, no matter how bad it might look on a citizen's cell phone recording. (Activists specifically train to resist arrest in ways that make the response look bad, despite being completely legally justified, and always having been completely legally justified, in many other countries as well as the US.)

> I mean, it may be an issue for some other conversation, but not this one.

Well, you are the one who brought up levels of force and "civil infractions", so.

CC is riddled with bugs and poor UI/UX. It's effective in spite of that. Just think what a well-designed agent would do in place of that. I don't use other coding agents currently because the subscription with CC gets me what I need and I don't want to pay retail token rates. I would 100% prefer an open source agent so I could fork it and tweak it to my needs.

Every time I hear someone say that software is successful in spite of something I find that looking harder shows some interesting choices.

If this software succeeds despite the manifest failures that are pointed out here, that’s a sign that something is working. We could argue that something is just access to the model, but plenty of other companies sell that and they don’t seem to do as well.

In this case it's because they gate subscription access to their agent. If not for that, I wouldn't be using Claude Code. I like Anthropic overall, but it disappoints me that they didn't make CC open source and that they insist on tying subscription use to CC.

I've been using unix systems in one way or another for the last 30+ years. I only last week figured out I could use authorized_keys with dedicated commands per key as a way to transparently ssh directly into a container on a remote host.

That ability to transparently start a container and connect it to the SSH pipr is useful for isolation methods for coding agents involving containers and I imagine it would work equally well for things like Firecracker VMs. It's made my experiment working with an "immutable OS" (Universal Blue based) much more ergonomic. Also, it's the only way I've found to let Zed run remotely inside a container without having the container run a ssh server.

Just one comment

> a piece of contemporary art often has very little point in itself. The art is in the artist's process (their point of view, intent, history, etc), not the piece.

I personally find no enjoyment in art where I have to have context for it to be "interesting". Either it is or it isn't interesting on it's own merits. I find all art the same though. If it isn't interesting on it's own, then it's not interesting on the whole (for me).

Did your receipt say anything about a government tariff?

The government was busy telling the hoi polloi that foreign companies were paying the tariff. They fought US companies that wanted to list the tariffs on receipts. They were actively suppressing clarity on the matter to end buyers. Your claim that customers assumed the higher prices was going to the government is specious or simply misinformed.

Costco explicitly itemized in their public earnings call that part of the price increase was the tariff.

  "When we looked at -- we also source flowers from Central and South America. We looked at that item and decided that while we were able to offset some of the tariffs through similar activity that we did increase some price there because we felt that, that was something that the member would be able to absorb and it was more of a discretionary item there."

So Costco was straight up telling the public that when they raise price part of that is to pay these government tax. You keep talking about assumptions but want us to ignore that you're asking us to make alternative assumptions about the factual representations made by Costco in order to find parity with your argument.

Costco was telling it's investors why they had to raise prices. That's a conversation with investors about business costs.

Customers purchasing from them are on the revenue side and there was no line item on receipts listing tariffs, just increased prices. As a customer if you assumed that 100% of a price increase is because the business is paying tariffs, then you are almost certainly mistaken. Even if the price increase was 100% because of the tariff, the business made the decision to internally absorb the fees and not directly involve the customer. They absorbed that extra cost of business by increasing prices as needed to maintain business margins within acceptable ranges.

TL;DR: A customer paid a unit price for a good from a vendor. The cost the vendor paid or any future refunds they may receive on those costs do not factor into the transaction.

That only works if we pretend investors and customers are wholly disjoint sets of people who don't talk to each other, or are sometimes even the same person/people. However, they are/can, so we can't pretend they're working off different sets of information. How that affects the broader case; I'm not saying here, just pointing out that we can't really treat the groups as separate in this modern era. Especially since many shareholders/investors are that because they like the customer experience so much.

I don't disagree with you at all on that point.

That being said, we should treat the designated audience of the information as an indicator how the information should be interpreted. Just because an investor shops at Costco and was on the public call doesn't somehow change the messaging on the receipt.

It was a conversation about costs driving increases in sales prices. No need to twist my words. I mentioned price in the next quoted sentence even.

It's public because they are publicly traded. How about you venture a guess at how many non-investor customers had any knowledge about that call. Maybe some number caught a news article, but it wouldn't have been an appreciable number.

> false covenant

Seriously? Even if it was a "false covenant", it was to *INVESTORS*! For an investor, it's happy days if they recoup those costs because that's a net increase in revenue.

The company set the price for the good based on their costs. Customers bought the good based on the price advertised. The fact that the company might be able to reclaim some of those costs has ZERO bearing on the price customers paid. That's as far as you need to look. Trying to contort the situation to conflate it with fraud is disingenuous. They didn't lie or defraud anyone.

> Political bias

There's no political bias in discussing the core aspect. Sure, the situation leading to it is politically charged, but the core of the issue is the company made a pricing decision based on their costs, the customers bought the products, and in the future the company might be able to recoup some of their costs.

On your last paragraph, a few things. First, tariffs were paid and have not been refunded. They are still trying to affect that change. Second, they made no promise to customers regarding tariffs. Third, you happened to use the PERFECT word here to explain why your entire argument is flawed. You said "collected in payment of a tariff" with "collected" being the operative word here. Costco did no such thing. If they had, you'd have had a line item stating so, like the one for taxes. Costco is obligated to collect and remit taxes. The importer of record is obligated to pay the tariff (or ensure it has been paid). They didn't say they were increasing prices by adding and collecting tariffs. The raised prices to offset the cost of them having to pay the tariff or to cover the higher cost of purchasing goods from parties that imported the goods and paid the tariff.

This entire lawsuit is flawed at it's core as is this entire line of argument.

The investor call said the "member" (customer) was absorbing the tariff/tax. That is, they said they were increasing prices by partially ading the tariff. End of story, Costco has made a false representation if those tariffs are zero.

Thus the whole disingenuine "gotcha" where we say " ha ha ha, it's not on the receipt" is just a fraud to pretend the customers weren't explicitly itemized out in the investor call that they were partially paying a non-zero amount for what turns out to be a zero tariff.

Of course, we reveal your whole 'receipt' nonsense as a fraud -- the investor call came before many of these purchases while a receipt comes after the purchase yet you anachronously flip things expecting the receipt to be used to know about something that is only issued after the transaction. So you're receipt argument is flawed it its core and safely dissmissed.

I'm saying that semantically a business that simply raised base prices to cover their increased costs cannot be attacked by using the logic that "I assumed the price increase was going to the government" unless that was specifically enumerated on your receipts. What you assume is on you.

Had the business been listing tariffs directly on receipts it would be a very different conversation.

You think a seller has some price obligation to you? If they set a price and you pay the price, what they paid for the good is irrelevant unless you had some cost-plus contract that they violated.

If they had listed a line item for tariff fees then I could see the argument and would say that any refunds should go to customers. By not listing a tariff line item, Costco absorbed the additional costs and likely increased prices. In that scenario they, Costco, are the ones that should be entitled to a refund.

This is the same if you walk the chain backwards. Suppliers to Costco that simply raised prices and internally absorbed the tariffs are the ones due a refund, not Costco. Suppliers that sent Costco and invoice with a tariff line item should be on the hook to refund Costco (which means they should be seeking a refund from the US)

Amazon did try to add that line item and the administration pressured them to remove it. And you are making a very big assumption that either Costco or their suppliers absorbed the cost of the tariffs. Because I don't have a link handy, one study I read said more than 80% of the cost of tariffs came from the consumer's pocket, not the supply chain.

When I say absorbed I don't mean they didn't raise prices. I mean they didn't just transparently pass those extra tariff fees on to customers as a line item. With that increase in base costs they either lower their margins and earnings or they increase prices to keep them in a stable range. They are a for-profit business so it's highly unlikely they'd simply absorb the increased costs and not raise prices. There may have been some initial elasticity where costs rose faster than price rose.

Why would a company you are consulting for invest in training you up exactly? They are paying a consultant with the expectation that they are bringing the knowledge.

Eh, consultants are brought in not for the knowledge or advice! Management already knows what todo and where to go- they just want somebody external sanctify the decision!

You: > "TigerData" is a pernicious entity

TigerData: > pg_textsearch v1.0 is freely available via open source (Postgres license)

They deemed AGPL untenable for their business and decided to create an OSS solution that used a license they were comfortable with and they are somehow "pernicious"? Perhaps take a moment to reflect on your characterization of a group that just contributed an alternative OSS project for a specific task. Not only that, but they used a VERY permissive license. I'd argue that they are being a better OSS community member for selecting a more permissive license.

Laundering actual freedom respecting licenses through genai may give the poster more freedom, but that additional freedom is solely to avoid sharing any improvements to the freedom respecting code they are benefiting from with others.

They aren't using analog circuits, are they?