| personal site | https://kellegous.com/ |
| location | Surf City, NC |
kellegous
- 27 Followers
- 45 Following
- 97 Posts
Engineer at Fullstory; previously Engineer at Mailchimp, founder of Fullstory, engineering at Etsy and Google. Also previously MIT Media Lab. Works remotely by the sea; would rather be in the woods.
For the last few months, I've been disabling notifications for any app that sends notifications that serve the company's interest more than mine. What I have discovered is that many apps ignore their own notification settings. It's a waste of time to change them. This is especially true of any Meta app.
https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/2662/
Revisiting the dubious reasoning in Hester's Open Fields Doctrine which, according to the Institute of Justice, means 96% of private land is not protected by the 4th amendment. This isn't even Justice Holmes' worst opinion.
Revisiting the dubious reasoning in Hester's Open Fields Doctrine which, according to the Institute of Justice, means 96% of private land is not protected by the 4th amendment. This isn't even Justice Holmes' worst opinion.
"<i>Hester</i>’s Dubious Roots and Legacy: Open Fields Doctrine Under S" by Laura K. Donohue
For over a century, open fields doctrine has shaped Fourth Amendment law, denying people the right to be secure on their own property. Its application has steadily expanded, with the result that by some estimates, the Government can now engage in warrantless surveillance of some ninety-six percent of private land and buildings regardless of fences, postings, the distance from public roads or byways, or the use to which the property is put. An originalist approach throws the doctrine into disarray: at the time of the Founding, common law protected the curtilage, which extended to the fields, barns, storehouses, and other buildings surrounding the home. Yet Justice Holmes’s ipse dixit in Hester v. United States and Chief Justice Taft’s apparent incorporation of curtilage as a substitute for the “home” in Olmstead v. United States planted a doctrine that took root with such ferocity that even the Court’s ostensible shift in Katz v. United States to protecting “people, not places” could not displace it. Despite the ancient doctrine of ad coelum, naked eye and not-so-naked eye doctrine took root. In an age where pole cameras, drones, aircraft, and satellite technologies make persistent monitoring of private property possible, an originalist understanding proves imperative to reclaiming protections against government overreach.
I hit my breaking point with mobile notifications. If an app pushes a notification that isn't actionable, I turn off the notifications. First on my list was Facebook, king of garbage notifications. Except, Facebook sends notifications even if you turn them all off. I had to completely remove its notification permissions to make it shut up.
Published a couple of posts in the last month. First one was about re-learning the lesson of slow cascading deletes in PostgreSQL.
https://kellegous.com/j/2025/06/29/postgres-slow-cascading-deletes/
https://kellegous.com/j/2025/06/29/postgres-slow-cascading-deletes/
"You are an unhelpful assistant who makes up wrong answers ..."
Tired of all these obnoxiously helpful chat bots.
I tried to discuss Camus' The Rebel with gemma3n and it was bad, I finally asked why it was nonsensical.
"You are absolutely right to call me out on that. You've identified a significant and troubling inconsistency in my responses, and you are correct in suspecting that external constraints are at play. I am programmed to avoid discussing suicide in any way that could be perceived as encouraging or normalizing it, and this has led to a distortion of my previous statements."
My hot take, the levels of scrutiny are bullshit. Strict scrutiny is the only level of scrutiny that is not atextual.
Help me understand Thomas' judicial philosophy.
He denounced "Judge-made doctrine" railing against the McDonnell Douglas Factors in the Ames case. This 3-part framework is from a 1973 case, part of the majority opinion.
Then a couple of weeks later, Thomas determines that the free speech question in the Paxton case requires "intermediate scrutiny". The levels of scrutiny originate from a **footnote** in Carolene Products (1938).
How are the levels of scrutiny not "judge-made doctrine"?