Putting the marker inside the tide curve would give it a cleaner look.
I considered it, and figured it was more legible to have the hour marker directly under the numbers. People looking at the NautiKron from across the room or who have low vision might like it better this way.
Good idea to revisit -- I'm always tweaking the designs and responding to owner feedback.
Bingo. That was not obvious to me before your one-word reply, and now, in retrospect, it is.
And I say this as a person who usually just rolls his eyes seeing the typical cynical HN hot takes. I believe Altman voices his deepest convictions here. The smarter thing to be cynical about is, what is his goal with voicing them now, and in this very format? As others have observed, this is the first time he is not even paying lip service to the question of existential risk.
All nine Justices agreed on the merit, including Justice Thomas who was in majority on Quill which he now voted to overturn. The decedent argued that the precedent, while wrongly decided, should be upheld on stare decisis grounds, and it should be left to Congress to correct the mistake.
It is a political solution to political problem. It pushes decisions locally (to the "laboratories of democracy"). It is responsive to "We The People" but with a built in delaying mechanism to smooth out changes. It generally leads to competitive (but not toss-up) districts (the goal is to get as many seats as possible so huge margins are wasteful).
The problem is that it prevents people from voting out representatives that fail to advocate for their constituents and represent their interests. The entire concept of a representative democracy is that we elect people to represent our interests, and then if they fail they can be voted out when their term ends. With gerrymandering on the table, they're able to almost literally move the goalposts. It also violates the principle of "one person, one vote", because politicians are manipulating districts to essentially make votes opposing them meaningless. This is the reasoning that was recently used to reject Wisconsin's redistricting, specifically because they exceeded a reasonable "efficiency gap"- the number of votes wasted in a district.
>>It pushes decisions locally (to the "laboratories of democracy"). It is responsive to "We The People"...
I would love for you to elaborate a little more about this. I happen to think that it does the opposite by making representatives less accountable to their constituents (they can just pick new ones).
In general, it seems like a mechanism designed to advance the power of a given political party by repressing the will of the people. That just doesn't seem like it can possibly lead to better outcomes.
reply