This is fascinating! I’ve never played a YC seriously, but I have played several Yamahas and currently play on a Kawai and Baldwin. I’ve often wondered if the Baldwin or Yamaha is laid out slightly differently than the Kawai because I feel like playing broken 4 note chords the fingering can feel off on one piano vs another. It’s a slight stretch but the 4-5 on the second 4 note chord can be uncomfortable on the Kawai and comfortable on the Yamaha. I never play them in the same room, one is at my teachers and one at home.
Very interesting! Is there a spec for this? Or a layout description? Surely something as precise as piano would note this.
Generally speaking fumbling on a piano doesn’t bode well for performance… it’s a little bit like Olympic gymnastics, you only get one chance to stick the landing!
Interesting; America seems to be suffering the same fate. It takes municipalities years to fix highways. The main highway running through Silicon Valley, 101, has been under construction for more than a decade and is in dire need of improvement.
It seems the network of roads built in the 40s, 50s and 60s just can no longer be done efficiently.
You might want to look into what they define as being "late".
> A commuter train is considered on-time by the LIRR if it arrives within 5 minutes and 59 seconds of its scheduled arrival time.
The second source doesn't say, but let's assume it's the same as for LIRR, i.e. 6 minutes.
It's also unfortunate that the SBB doesn't immediately tell us the metric, but I happen to know it's 3 minutes (more specifically 2 minutes and 59 seconds).
In other words, the LIRR permits a delay of twice the time as SBB for it to constitute late. The S-trains in Copenhagen now has a punctuality of 97% using a 3 minute metric.[0]
Is on time counted as time at every stop, or just the terminal. It’s easy to fake the terminal times with little impact by padding the timetable. Being on time at every station is far harder.
Not sure how you compare a small simple system like Lord which is pretty much one line with a few branches with an integrated multi-national system like the entire Swiss railway either
The answer to your question is "it depends". Some also do weighed calculations, where it's "per passenger", which means trains that have a high passenger load being late have a larger impact than one with few passengers. At least in Denmark, where I am most familiar (though I expect most of Europe to be similar), it's per stop.
As for the LIRR, it seems it's only the terminal station that counts:
> Thus, a train is considered late only if it arrives at its final destination six minutes or more after its scheduled arrival time.
Which leads to the common trick: If a train is delayed, it will often skip the last stop and turn at a station before the last. So the train was cancelled and not late at the final destination, therefore doesn't affect the punctuality statistics.
And yes, in Germany this happens and is reflected in rising "cancelled train" statistics. KPIs for Deutsche Bahn managers haven't caught up yet ;)
> It seems the network of roads built in the 40s, 50s and 60s just can no longer be done efficiently.
Of course they can, we have not lost that capability. It's not a matter of efficiency but effectivity. Road constructions of the 1960s are not effective for 21st century traffic demands. Today's level of traffic far exceeds the anticipated level of traffic at the time of construction. Germany sees this all the time, esp. with regards to bridges. Maintaining a road or a bridge to be effective at supporting the original traffic levels is easy but under today's load would require constant maintenance to not deteriorate immediately. Those constructions need to be upgraded which is hard to impossible to do in situ.
Let's take a well-known construction in Germany, the Leverkusener Brücke an der A1. It was originally built in the 1960s for a traffic level of 40,000 cars (and trucks) per day. It was upgraded and refurbished over the decades (meaning almost constant construction work happening) to a level of 100,000 cars per day. It wasn't enough, in 2016 about 120,000 cars crossed the bridge per day. At the same time trucks got about 30 % heavier from 1960 to 1990 and we all know that passenger cars got heavier, too.
So the whole bridge was replaced, which took 7 years, ending in 2024. During that time traffic was rerouted over two nearby bridges in Cologne and Düsseldorf. The Cologne bridge was so badly damaged by the additional load that it had to be partially closed down and now is up for refurbishment or, maybe, replacement. Network effects at work ;)
Anyway, what I'm trying to say is: we are actually better at building stuff than our predecessors but the demands put on our constructions are much, much higher. I don't dare to say if our capabilities have grown as much as the demands require.
> Road constructions of the 1960s are not effective for 21st century traffic demands.
Citation needed.
As I see it, the US is still riding on the coattails of 1960-s road construction. We should be doing more of it, in fact, not sabotaging it with bike lanes and road diets.
You're thinking of Amsterdam? I used to live there.
Bikes are used there ONLY because there's no alternative to them. Transit takes too long, and there's no space for cars. And yet still around 20% of commutes in Amsterdam are by car.
> not every country has to be a nightmare for life quality like the US aspires to be.
The US is far, far, far ahead of Europe in urban quality of life that it's not even funny, if you disregard the dense hellscapes of SF and NYC.
This is easily seen in the number of children per capita. In modern societies, two groups of people tend to have more children ("inverted J-curve"):
1. Happy content people.
2. Desperately poor people.
Now look at Europe and the US, and I suggest looking at the US suburbs and not the dense cores.
I've worked in Amsterdam. Used to take my car out to a park and ride station out in "the province" and joined the first standup of the day out of the "long yellow office building" [1], then a short walk to the tall grey one to actually get coding.
In or near Amsterdam I've seen and/or used busses, trains, ferrys, trams, bicycles, cars; and aircraft on approach to Schiphol looked like they almost flew past the window.
I also kind of like New Amsterdam (New York). It's cozy!
Can't argue with taste I guess. %-)
[1] Intercity trains: Long, Yellow, with electricity, free wifi, a place to sit, and you can bring your own Starbucks on board. Do try to avoid rush hour, or you'll be taking "standup" a bit too literally.
So did I. And I had to be at the office at 7:30am. Even when the weather outside was "bracing".
> [1] Intercity trains: Long, Yellow, with electricity, free wifi, a place to sit, and you can bring your own Starbucks on board. Do try to avoid rush hour, or you'll be taking "standup" a bit too literally.
So basically, you wasted around 2 hours a day on the commute?
Total commute time was about 3 hours (90 minutes each way). I do not live in Amsterdam. About an hour of that was wasted because I needed to drive myself. The rest was often spent in useful ways in the back seat of a lovely stretched yellow vehicle with lots of horsepower and a chauffeur.
Naive intuition says adding more roads and lanes would finally solve the bottlenecks, right? And it does, briefly. But after a little while it's back to bumper to bumper. That’s induced demand [1]: when new capacity just encourages more driving.
Counterintuitively perhaps, bike lanes, road diets and public transport actually work better. Give people other ways to move around, and you take pressure off the road system, making traffic better for everyone. And that includes the drivers.
I would like to state that good bike lanes and trains also have induced demand.
The Netherlands and Switzerland, have demand for more of both (as well as more demand for car lanes as well)
It is just that trains and bikes are much more efficient in terms of land use.
The 3 lane road in front of my house is "good" for 16,000 cars a day. The 2 lane train line a 5 minutes walk from my house is "good" for 120,000 passengers a day. A train line can carry about 10x the traffic of a car lane (in practice) with similar ground usage.
So when a train system has more demand/use than expected (e.g. leman express in the geneva region) there are more options to increase throughput (in the leman express case double level trains) that require less new infrastructure to be build.
When new infrastructure is required, limitations of space mean that a 15 year period from plan to implementation is normal. Which means infrastructure which has more head-room is preferred over quickly saturated ones.
To add the adding of one lane to the A1 for 18KM costs half the total of the leman express infrastructure. But has significantly less benefits in total transit capacity.
> The 2 lane train line a 5 minutes walk from my house is "good" for 120,000 passengers a day.
But that's not true. Your chances of living within 5 minutes of a train stations are slim, unless train stations are spammed everywhere. And if stations are spammed everywhere, then they become inefficient.
Meanwhile, cars are only mildly affected by additional 400-500 meters of distance.
> A train line can carry about 10x the traffic of a car lane (in practice) with similar ground usage.
In practice, a train line effectively is only slightly better than cars, unless you enshittify your city into a Manhattan-style dense hell.
Moreover, self-driving cars with mild carpooling (think 4-6 people per vehicle) blow ANY transit mode out of the water in speed and efficiency. It's not even close. A good approximation of this are airport pickup vans (the ones that you arrange in advance).
> To add the adding of one lane to the A1 for 18KM costs half the total of the leman express infrastructure. But has significantly less benefits in total transit capacity.
Yeah. Imagine that instead of wasting money on useless transit (see: Seattle ST3), we used them to incentivize companies to build more offices outside of dense city cores.
Not much different from average commute in a lot of places TBQH. Though definitely not in big-city-traffic. If you’ve ever seen bumper-to-bumper queues in LA or Manhattan, you know there’s no way those folks are getting anywhere in the next eternity or two. That kind of gridlock pushes up the average for everyone else.
Of course I do have a slightly different set of requirements; since I've always lived out in the countryside. You trade in a longer commute for more elbow-room at home.
The trains generally run on time, so that's what I often used to use if I needed to get into a dense town.
That was before COVID. Post-COVID, telecommuting has become available to more people. In my opinion, that's the best solution where possible.
At the very least telecommuting and trains gets the OTHER cars off the road when I need to physically be at factories, labs, or workshops.
> Not much different from average commute in a lot of places TBQH. Though definitely not in big-city-traffic.
The commutes in large cities (New York is a bit more nuanced) in the US are still faster than in _any_ large European city. Mostly because of cars.
> Of course I do have a slightly different set of requirements; since I've always lived out in the countryside. You trade in a longer commute for more elbow-room at home.
My favorite city from the urban design standpoint is Houston (I hate its climate and Texas that surrounds it). People there can have beautiful and spacious single-family houses with backyards, and yet still have short commutes because it doesn't have a well-defined city core.
So it lacks the obvious traffic magnets, and people tend to chose jobs near their housing. This is the model that needs to be promoted, and it can solve housing issues.
> Naive intuition says adding more roads and lanes would finally solve the bottlenecks, right?
No. I'm well aware of induced demand. Now apply the same argument to _housing_.
And the fix for housing prices is to reduce the housing _density_. We already have more housing than needed (there are 1.1 housing units per family in the US), we just need to make sure all of it is viable.
Nope. When given a choice between grade-separated level bike lanes, and an equally good road network, people overwhelmingly prefer cars. Actually, people prefer literally _anything_ else including transit.
> When given a choice between grade-separated level bike lanes, and an equally good road network, people overwhelmingly prefer cars.
> Bikes are a freaking _miserable_ transportation mode. Try biking in subzero temps, or during rain/snow.
Your entire argument seems to revolve around car vs bikes. I am arguing for prioritizing human-centric infrastructure over car-centric infrastructure. This simply means not prioritizing cars above other modes of transit. For urban environments (high density areas) cars are sub-optimal at best and other alternatives like rail, buses, bikes, and trams are simply better. Granted, sometimes cars are appropriate, but I would not use those minority of cases as an argument to justify having a city designed around cars.
> Another example is China, it had bikes as the main transportation mode in many cities, but it abandoned them as soon as they could.
Because Chinese cities now have better public transit. Just look at the size and ridership of their suburban rail and metro networks.
> Why is your (failed, btw) idea of infrastructure is called "human-centric"? What makes it _human_?
Great question. No strict definition as such for me, but in the context of transportation, it loosely means that it must be 'easy' for most people to get from point A to point B, using the least amount of time. Ideally it must must be accessible for all people (so teens without a licenses, legally blind people, or anyone without the means to get a car etc). From a non-transportation context (just adding, not very relevant to the answer), places with no loud traffic noise and just a nice general atmosphere of people around. Think streets with trees, and lively public spaces for people to hang out.
> If cars lead to better outcomes (and they do, once self-driving is deployed), then why not? Why force people into densified anti-human hellscapes?
No one is being forced. If anything, these measures only makes the cities with high urban density more livable for people. The 'hellscapes' have more to do with the housing crisis and zoning laws than transit infrastructure.
Idk why most people think urban density is a problem to be solved (using tech like self driving for eg), because it ultimately always circles back to the fact that density is the only sustainable way for cities to develop and grow in the long run. Even if it is not perfect.
> I fail to see anything human in dense cities like Tokyo or Manhattan.
It would be even more dystopian if Tokyo didn't have a great metro and people had to wait in traffic for hours. Imagine the increased stress, lesser free time, and lower quality of life from all the noise and pollution.
> Yes. And once people can, they opt out of transit as well.
When exactly will most people have the option to opt-out, and how likely and how exactly will it happen?
I also feel like you're arguing just for the argument's sake. If not, we probably have fundamentally different views on what's 'better' and I don't think any amount of convincing will change either of our minds.
> it loosely means that it must be 'easy' for most people to get from point A to point B
OK. Drop 10 random points in a city and then map routes between them using transit, cars, and bikes. You'll find that cars are around 3 times _faster_ than anything else on average. Even in dense cities. I'm going to call this "Cyberax's constant"!
> Ideally it must must be accessible for all people (so teens without a licenses, legally blind people, or anyone without the means to get a car etc).
This means that bikes are right out, they're horribly anti-human. And transit is barely OK.
> From a non-transportation context (just adding, not very relevant to the answer), places with no loud traffic noise and just a nice general atmosphere of people around.
So, EVs are perfect? They are quieter than buses.
> No one is being forced.
People are. By economic forces. Japan is a GREAT cautiounary tale here.
> If anything, these measures only makes the cities with high urban density more livable for people.
No, they make it more inescapable.
> It would be even more dystopian if Tokyo didn't have a great metro and people had to wait in traffic for hours.
Wrong. A Tokyo without transit wouldn't have become so dense.
> I also feel like you're arguing just for the argument's sake. If not, we probably have fundamentally different views on what's 'better' and I don't think any amount of convincing will change either of our minds.
You simply have never thought about the _effects_ of urbanism. Go on, think about it and actually investigate your assumptions.
I got my driving license at the age of 27 and I lived in multiple dense cities.
> OK. Drop 10 random points in a city and then map routes between them using transit, cars, and bikes. You'll find that cars are around 3 times _faster_ than anything else on average. Even in dense cities. I'm going to call this "Cyberax's constant"!
From some level of experience doing just this all my life, this probably depends a lot on which city, how it's designed, and the time of day you do it at. There's some cities where you can actually get better results I'm sure! And there's some locations where I bet you'll get drastically worse results, especially during rush hour.
I'm really curious where you're living at the moment! And have you considered making counterpoint videos vs NotJustBikes? ;-)
> From some level of experience doing just this all my life, this probably depends a lot on which city
It doesn't depend on the city, if we're talking about cities with population more than 2 million!
It's just the result of the inherent inflexibility of fixed routes. If you pick random points, most likely there won't be any direct route between them. So you'll have to do at least one transfer, and this just kills the average speed.
That's why large cities tend to gravitate to the "hub-and-spokes" model. It's simply the only model that works. Look at the transit map for large cities: Tokyo, Berlin, Moscow, Beijing, and you'll start seeing it everywhere.
BTW, it's also the reason bikes work well in Amsterdam.
> And there's some locations where I bet you'll get drastically worse results, especially during rush hour.
For this particular test, it actually doesn't matter that much, due to randomness of the chosen points. It's likely, that at least some routes will bypass the traffic magnets and chokepoints.
> I'm really curious where you're living at the moment! And have you considered making counterpoint videos vs NotJustBikes? ;-)
> I got my driving license at the age of 27 and I lived in multiple dense cities.
This gives off "I have experience, so I must be right." vibes. There's no reason you can't be, but this goes against what most other urban planning experts and studies have to say.
> Go on, think about it and actually investigate your assumptions.
I feel like _you_ are the one who is only addressing the points that are the easiest to argue using unverified numbers and hypotheticals that would never be practical, just to support your claims, instead of addressing the argument as a whole.
> OK. Drop 10 random points in a city and then map routes between them using transit, cars, and bikes. You'll find that cars are around 3 times _faster_ than anything else on average. Even in dense cities. I'm going to call this "Cyberax's constant"!
I would like to see you prove it. Even if true, no one is actually going from a random point to another random point. Most people have overlapping commute routes, which are anything but random. It is proven mass transit reduce collective travel times, and which is why I mentioned the least amount of time for _most_ people, which you conveniently didn't account for.
> This means that bikes are right out, they're horribly anti-human. And transit is barely OK.
Again I never argued for _only_ bikes, you're dragging your own assumptions and hatred for bikes into the argument. I also don't know why you think bikes more anti-human than cars. Anyway, how is a city that needs cars to get around better than a city that doesn't, better in terms of accessibility? And again, "transit is barely OK", but you conveniently did not mention about the accessibility of cars.
> So, EVs are perfect? They are quieter than buses.
EV buses have all the advantages of being an EV and none of the disadvantages of being private cars (aka more efficient, cheaper, and more accessible). Idk why you would use EV for cars, but not do the same for buses when comparing them (if not just for pushing your agenda). If anything, I would guess the percentage of EV-to-ICE ratio for buses is higher than for passenger cars in most high-density cities (except for the US, ig idk).
> People are. By economic forces. Japan is a GREAT cautiounary tale here.
Economic forces will always end up pushing for more and more density. Pushing for car dependent cities may mitigate this to a point, but it does not create better cities. Good zoning laws have a much higher probability doing that.
> No, they make it more inescapable.
As mentioned, I fail to see how good public infrastructure is stopping a person from leaving a city more than other economic forces, if it is so insufferable.
> Wrong. A Tokyo without transit wouldn't have become so dense.
Great point. It would have become LA. Where your ideas (at least from what I understand about your ideas) have already been implemented. A place known for zero traffic, that consistently comes on top for best cities to live.
> This gives off "I have experience, so I must be right." vibes. There's no reason you can't be, but this goes against what most other urban planning experts and studies have to say.
You know, I'm not saying _anything_ that experts disagree with. And I talked at length with more than one expert, and I had taken a university course in urban planning and demographics.
I'm just not considering the outcomes of urbanization to be positive. And I try to highlight things that urbanists tend to sweep under the rug. E.g. that bike lanes or rapid transit lines do not decrease congestion in most cases (see: https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w18757/w187... ).
> I would like to see you prove it. Even if true, no one is actually going from a random point to another random point.
Will write a blog post. I've plenty of notes and code for the experiments that I need to organize, instead of doing flame wars. Although sometimes I do hear new arguments.
> EV buses have all the advantages of being an EV and none of the disadvantages of being private cars
Buses are terrible for commutes. They are rolling lifetime destruction machines, with more than one lifetime wasted on commute, every day, for large cities.
They are also terrible for roads (look up the "fourth power law"), and are way too expensive.
Self-driving personal EVs and mini-buses will kill all the rest of transit.
> Great point. It would have become LA.
Or Houston (population 5 million) that still has a faster average commute than ANY large European city.
To be fair there is a massive difference between separated bike lanes, which do achieve this, and just a painted line on the ground so the government could say they put a bike line in. Significant amounts in a lot of places are the latter.
The Texas interchange stacks are terrifying if you're not used to them. The first time I went up a five level stack I legit thought I was going off the edge of the road into the sky or something, and was gonna die. I was not prepared lol.
The interchange stacks are wild but we are also really into double decker highways. All of which also have frontage roads so that’s practically triple the amount of road.
At least they could pivot Hotdog or Not into a dick-pic classifier, which was less trivial when that show was airing.
$14 billion for a glorified mechanical turk platform is bananas. Between this, the $6 billion Jonny Ive acquisition, and a ChatGPT wrapper for doctors called Abridge having a $5 billion valuation, this AI fraud bubble is making pets.com look like a reasonable investment.
Jony Ive might be a genius, we've yet to see. Tim Cook couldn't get along with him anymore, he didn't respect him the way Jobs made him stand at attention.
Can Altman inspire him? Somehow I doubt it, the guy has never built a product in his life. Unclear if he's even a good investor... nobody reads the Altman essays, its PG that built the castle, Altman somehow managed to get the ear of the King.
I think most Americans do not understand what is a healthy food and would think of a "balanced" meal of carbs, protein and fat, with fat being bad circa the 1960s line of thinking.
"I think most people know what’s considered healthy food. They maybe wouldn’t be able to perfectly break down ideal ratios of macronutrients, but they have a rough idea. The average person whose bad diet is making them unhealthy would probably be able to point to the bad diet as part of the problem. If I walked up to the average person and asked them to make an ideal meal plan for themselves to be maximally healthy, I think most people would do a decent job."
This is why most of america is stuck in diabetes land. I bet you most americans couldn't tell you the difference between if something is high in carbohydrates or fat.
A small detail you're missing is that in the US, sugar (usually in the form of corn syrup) is added to everything.
Example: I'd bet many people who are at least gen X grew up with PBJs as a staple food. It seems healthy enough: bread, peanut-butter, and a little jelly. However, today there's sugar added to the bread, sugar added to the peanut butter, and most certainly sugar added to the jelly, far beyond what it was when growing up.
If you aren't really careful when at the grocery store or making food from scratch, you can easily end up consuming a lot more sugar than you realize.
And just to add to your point: an European with the same level of knowledge and curiosity (me, an overweight unhealthy European) would not think a PBJ is healthy at all. For me, at least the PB and the J sound like „basically pure sugar“. We make the same misjudgments about other foods, but it’s entirely learned behavior. What I mean is: these judgments are rarely objective, but always subjectively derived from learned behavior.
> For me, at least the PB and the J sound like „basically pure sugar“.
As a side note, there is good peanut butter that is just roasted peanuts and salt. It’s pretty damn healthy — much more balanced and healthier than most breads or jellies.
It also tastes really good. If anyone reading this hasn't had peanut better which is just peanuts and salt, go buy some. Regular peanut butter doesn't taste good afterwards.
Read a few more posts and it shouts GPT occasionally. Plus the author's (as I like to call them still) role is listed as 'Content Engineer' which isn't inspiring either. Too bad, the topics sounded interesting.
Yeah, I thought he was talking about 1 out of 20 features, but that's kind of why I was wondering if AI had written it. Sometimes it'll have mis-aligned figures etc.
Software 3.0 is the code generated by the machine, not the prompts that generated it. The prompts don't even yield the same output; there is randomness.
The new software world is the massive amount of code that will be burped out by these agents, and it should quickly dwarf the human output.
I think that if you give the same task to three different developers you'll get three different implementations. It's not a random result if you do get the functionality that was expected, and at that, I do think the prompt plays an important role in offering a view of how the result was achieved.
> I think that if you give the same task to three different developers you'll get three different implementations.
Yes, but if you want them to be compatible you need to define a protocol and conformance test suite. This is way more work than writing a single implementation.
The code is the real spec. Every piece of unintentional non-determinism can be a hazard. That’s why you want the code to be the unit of maintenance, not a prompt.
Right. Great idea. Maybe call it ”formal execution spec for LLM reference” or something. It could even be versioned in some kind of distributed merkle tree.
Interestingly, I was generating some scraping code today. I prompted it fairly generically and it decided to spit out some Selenium code. I reported the stack trace failure, and it gave me a new script with playwright. That failed also and it gave me some suggestions to fix it. I asked it to update the whole script rather than snippets, and it responded with "Hey let's not use either of these and here we'll use the site's API." and proceeded to do that.
Kind of crazy, it basically found 3 different hammers to hit the nail I wanted. The API unfortunately seems to be timeing out (I had to add the timeout=10 to the post u_u)
Code is read much more often than it is written. Code generated by the machine today will be prompt read by the machine going forward. It's a closed loop.
Software is a world in motion. Software 1.0 was animated by developers pushing it around. Software 3.0 is additionally animated by AI agents.
How I understood it is that natural language will form relatively large portions of stacks (endpoint descriptions, instructions, prompts, documentations, etc…). In addition to code generated by agents (which would fall under 1.0)
It is not the code, which just like prompts is a written language. Software 3.0 will be branches of behaviors, by the software and by the users all documented in a feedback loop. The best behaviors will be merged by users and the best will become the new HEAD. Underneath it all will be machine code for the hardware, but it will be the results that dictate progress.
Why is this country insisting on this ridiculous infighting? Why do you have a democracy if your bureaucracy is set up to resist the person the people elected? Didn't this exact sort of thing happen when a democrat was elected, the republicans basically stonewalled all progress? Now the dem bureaucracy is stonewalling the republicans? Is this how checks and balances is supposed to work? Am I being naive in thinking it wasn't always like this?
We elect Presidents to faithfully execute the law, not Dictators to ignore it. The courts have always ruled against executive for disobeying the law. Preventing any one branch from amassing too much power is the whole reason the system of checks and balances exists.
The system, while sometimes aggravatingly slow to change, has allowed us as a country to continually operate under the same system of government with peaceful transfers of power for nearly 250 years.
Executive orders are shot down by courts all the time. And it always starts in lower courts, with appeals going up to higher courts (both sides can appeal!). This is true for any president, Democrat or Republican, the judicial system is a check on executive power, with the understanding that the executive gets to nominate judges and congress gets to approve them.
It is really weird how many people don't get this, and think Trump is getting special treatment! And an executive order with lofty legal reasoning will always be challenged. And judges on either side...they actually have some idealistic notion that law matters, not who nominated, so the 3 judges who unanimously decided against trump: one was a Trump appointee, one was an Obama appointee, and one was a Bush appointee. In an idea system, judges try to be impartial to law (they don't have to, and their only check is that they can be impeached by congress).
The discourse coming from the political right is clearly meant to attack the Judicial branch. They are going after what they call "Partisan judges" or "Activist judges" or "Radical leftist judges" or "Clinton and Obama appointees". They want to remove all judges who do not let them support whatever the administration wants to do.
> Is this how checks and balances is supposed to work?
Yes, check and balances assume a conservative* theory of government in which politicians should be restrained and changes should be require overwhelming support to implement.
*- not conservative in the sense of political ideology, but conservative in the sense of attempting to conserve.
> White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller said to X, "The judicial coup is out of control."
So? That's the same overheated rhetoric they trot out every time the courts rule against Trump. It's pretty tired by now. It's like they can't even come up with a new set of inflammatory adjectives; they're always reaching for the the same old ones.
The White House deputy chief of staff making a post on X has exactly zero to do with whether the decision was right or wrong.
In particular, the Trump camp acts like every time the courts rule on the legality of Trump's actions it's an overreach of judicial authority. They either failed Civics 101, or they want everyone else to forget what it said. This is the courts' job.
Very interesting! Is there a spec for this? Or a layout description? Surely something as precise as piano would note this.