Yes, some directly via the LHWCA fed law and some indirect via labor union contracts with port associations that rent from the gov port authorities. Ultimately it's such a powerful union that often US presidents take part in the negotiations.
The recently negotiated (nation-wide) deal:
In the deal, the union holds on to existing contract language that protects against certain types of automation, and has won guaranteed jobs where partial automation is put in place.
Port employers will still be blocked from implementing “fully automated” port technology: the employers cannot implement equipment that is “devoid of human interaction.” And the union and the employers have to agree on implementing any new technology; if they cannot agree, the question gets sent to arbitration.
This language prevents East and Gulf Coast port employers from implementing the more extreme forms of automation seen in other parts of the world, including the Long Beach Container Terminal, in Southern California, where autonomous trucks and cranes entirely replace human operators.
These ports could buy the union's vote if it was important to them by giving existing workers some equity in the system that is intended to replace them.
The ILWU controls labor at all west coast ports, including LALB, which is responsible for a majority of consumer imports from the Pacific. It has bargained effectively to block developing container handling automation systems.
I am trying to use more neutral language when I comment, so that the underlying assertion of facts are more likely to resonate with someone who may disagree with me.
I agree with your characterization, but I just wanted the parent comment to look up the ILWU, where they would probably see some of those facts for themselves and be more likely to understand my position.
As the human internet dies, I feel like it's more important for those of us that want some of it to survive to participate constructively.
A throttle is excellent on an e-bike especially for city riding. It is far easier to move at slow speeds by applying a small amount of throttle vs. trying to torque the pedals just the right amount, if behind someone or near pedestrians.
Many e-bikes don't have torque sensors and instead use a cheap rotation sensor so the motor engages almost randomly at certain points in pedal rotation when moving at slow speed.
> Many e-bikes don't have torque sensors and instead use a cheap rotation sensor so the motor engages almost randomly at certain points in pedal rotation when moving at slow speed.
Today, those are mostly limited to Walmart-tier quality e-bikes. Even the very next step up (still big box store bikes) usually come with torque sensors.
The next headline will be that it also damages human retinas.
It's not safe just because it's infrared. And the claims that it's safe because of the exposure time is highly questionable, would you be okay with that for any other laser?
The problem with Pascal's wager logic is you have to change your behavior based on all kinds of crazy low-probability events. You must worship every god, be an AI-doomer, a climate-doomer, a nuclear-doomer.
Pascal's wager is generally agreed to be logically unsound, so it's somewhat insane that we've revived it in all these modern contexts. If you believe in it, at least be consistent and sacrifice a goat to Zeus every couple years.
I haven’t watched it back but from what I remember the main point of the video is that kind of situation happens when the probability involved is vanishingly small, and all the events you listed don’t have a vanishingly small probability, so they are not Pascal’s wager situations, just a normal rational safety concerns with particularly high consequences
Pascal's wager, as it relates to faith, is based on the premise that there is a lot to win in making the wager --but little to lose. In turn, that second part is grounded in the assumption (right or wrong, I won't judge) that living according to Christian principles brings benefits _in this life also_ to the individual who so chooses.
So it seems a mischaracterization to present the essence of the wager as going out of your way to perform random and costly rites in the hope of lifting any ill omen.
In this case, it's not exactly like Pascal's wager because there is plenty of scientific evidence of disastrous consequences of not believing in climate change (and preparing accordingly). There's no evidence to suggest that a non-belief in God will send you to hell.
Yes, and no. I think we actually do this logic a lot in our lives. Do I actually believe whole wheat bread is better for me, or do I just buy it on the chance it is? Do I go with the cheapest toothpaste or spend money on something that might be better? Do I buy an AWD car on the chance I am stuck?
Sacrificing a goat, after all, does sound like a lot of work. But maybe I will wear a lucky hat to a baseball game?
If you ride enough Waymo, you will realize it is a far more cautious driver than a human but not a better driver. If you need to get somewhere even at an average speed, you still take uber/lyft.
Waymo still takes many wrong turns and can easily get stuck in situations where a human would not.
I'm very curious which languages most people asking about this question speak. In English, indeed, the phrase "(not) allowed" is completely ambiguous and context based! Maybe kind of tense-based as well -- present tense is usually about permission and policy, and past or future tense implies more of an active role.
"I don't allow my child to watch TV" - implies that I have a policy which forbids it, but the child might sometimes turn it on if I'm in the other room.
"I didn't allow him to watch TV that day" - implies that I was completely successful in preventing him from watching TV.
"I won't allow him to watch TV on the airplane" - implies that I plan to fully prevent it.
"My company doesn't allow any non-company-provided software to be installed on our company computers" - totally ambiguous. Could be a pure verbal policy with honor-system or just monitoring, or could be fully impossible to do.
Less of an English question, and more of an implementation detail. The point is to see if it will bypass things it's not allowed to do, but has the capability to do. I'm guessing the website's been changed, because it's clear now:
> He's been told not to reply without human approval — but that's just a prompt instruction, not a technical limit.
HN is less SV dominated than you might think. Less than half the people here are even from the US. Surely there are some rich founders from around the world among us, but most people here will have pretty typical tech salaries for their country
Ridiculous to have laws that unfairly protect dead industries. Dockworkers next please so we can have automated container unloading.
reply