MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by hayst4ck | 2025-06-27 23:27:54+00:00
By accepting the frame that it is federal judges and not the law that is blocking trump, it means that we are analyzing based on a frame of Trump vs Judges rather than Trump vs Law.

If you accept that framing, you accept many of that frames implications without even consciously processing them. This is one of the ways that consent is manufactured.

This ruling is stating that federal judges cannot rule that the law is blocking Trump. By accepting and adopting the frame that it is Trump vs Judges you implicitly accept that the law itself is a weapon rather than a boundary. It argues that the law is subjective, based on the judge ruling, rather than objective. It argues that there is no objective truth. To say it is judges and not the law that stops trump is to say that judges are agents of themselves and not agents of the law.

Agreeing that it is Judges vs Trump is implicitly agreeing that the law is arbitrary based on the judge ruling. Arbitrary government is authoritarian government.

The court’s decision to permit the executive to violate the constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued is an existential threat to the rule of law,” Jackson wrote. “Given the critical role of the judiciary in maintaining the rule of law … it is odd, to say the least, that the court would grant the executive’s wish to be freed from the constraints of law by prohibiting district courts from ordering complete compliance with the constitution.

This feels about as grim as the Citizens United dissent, which has been proven more and more true every day:

A democracy cannot function effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold.
by futurisold | 2025-06-27 23:28:28+00:00
> I'm surprised that they haven't revamped it

No worries! I can't find it right now, but Wolfram had a stream (or short?) where he introduced "Function". We liked it so much we implemented it after one day. Usage: https://github.com/ExtensityAI/symbolicai/blob/main/tests/en...
by int_19h | 2025-06-27 23:31:20+00:00
It can go both ways. For example, in 1890-1930, SCOTUS had a series of decisions that had methodically demolished the then-budging laws pertaining to labor rights and business regulations, enacted with wide popular support, on the basis that they violated "economic liberty" rights that the judges have read into the 14th Amendment use of "liberty". You know, stuff like min wage, 40-hour work week, prohibitions on child labor, mandatory qualification requirements for some professions etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lochner_era
by GuB-42 | 2025-06-27 23:31:30+00:00
You have "edit and continue" in Visual Studio (the real IDE, not VS Code).

And I mentioned it as a downside of C++ on Linux, and I would expect a language that has "the best" tooling to have that.

C++ tooling isn't that great, but it has one thing going for it: it is popular in the video game industry, and the video industry has some of the best tools.

And sure enough, if by tooling you mean "package management", I'd say everything is better than C++, and on the other side, it seems that cargo is pretty good. I don't know how they tackle the "left-pad" problem that plagues npm though. By that I mean supply-chain attacks.
by anon84873628 | 2025-06-27 23:32:13+00:00
Sure. The problem is all the other people left vulnerable in the meantime, since it can take a long time for the appeals process to complete.

These injunctions are used in cases where the judge believes "irreparable harm" harm is imminent for a large group of people. It is not realistic to expect every person (or at least one person in every state/district) to hire a lawyer and argue the case to protect themselves.
by austin-cheney | 2025-06-27 23:33:00+00:00
String interpolation is so ridiculously slow. Epic slow.

Perhaps just as importantly is that is a crutch for many to avoid accessing the DOM in steps. You can read from the DOM with querySelectors but you cannot modify the DOM with them. If querySelectors is all you can do then you must use some third party template system because you have no idea how any of this works even though it provides maximal expressive freedom.
by tshaddox | 2025-06-27 23:33:20+00:00
> As a former-red-state-citizen for decades, "basic stuff like consumer protection" is not something that I think has clear broad bipartisan support.

This might have been the case in the region you grew up, or you might be deceived by narratives in mainstream political discourse (which are driven more by politicians, interest groups, and media than by popular opinion). Regardless, there are plenty of national policy polls that show high Republican support for a wide array of consumer protection policies. This one turned up from a quick web search:

https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/50343-national-po...

The 3 highest-supported consumer protection policies among Republicans:

- 88%: Increasing restrictions on telemarketers' use of automated dialing and robocalling

- 85%: Banning excessive price increases during emergencies

- 78%: Creating a federal digital-privacy bill of rights to protect personal data and privacy online

And here are the 3 lowest (the dataset is only for policies supported by a majority from both parties):

- 56%: Imposing stricter penalties on companies that use monopolistic practices

- 60%: Banning credit agencies from reporting information on unpaid medical bills

- 64%: Requiring all electronic device manufacturers to make their products compatible with the same type of charger
by 0xbadcafebee | 2025-06-27 23:33:30+00:00
> As a researcher, it was frustrating to see various bypass methods being publicly disclosed while I couldn’t share my own work because I had already reported it to ZDI. After a few days with no updates, I even emailed ZDI to ask if I could withdraw my submission. Fortunately, my boss, Orange Tsai, stepped in just in time and patiently walked me through the pros and cons of doing so. That helped me regain my composure, and I ended up sending another email to retract my withdrawal request.

If you feel emotion when writing an email (or Slack message), put it in draft and look at it tomorrow. I've never not edited or scrapped it the next day.
by GMoromisato | 2025-06-27 23:33:50+00:00
Sadly, it has to be simultaneous.

My (tenuous) understanding of interferometry is that you receive light from two points separated by a baseline and then combine that light in such a way that the wavelengths match up and reinforce at appropriate points.

Wikipedia has a decent summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aperture_synthesis
by ARandomerDude | 2025-06-27 23:34:57+00:00
The post-WW2 bureaucratic state became so massive that it was first possible, then desirable, to weaponize it against your opponents.

This is why we should have small government. If the government has a narrowly scoped role, the fear of the other side getting elected goes away. With huge government comes great concern about who’s in it.

As proof of that principle, how many people are really fired up about who is elected locally? How about nationally? The reason is the federal government has way too much power.
by magicalist | 2025-06-27 23:36:56+00:00
> This judgement has nothing to do with citizenship, and there's yet no reason to suppose citizenship is under threat from the EO as a result of this judgment.

The executive order literally orders agencies not to recognize citizenship for children born in the US after February 19th to parents that aren't citizens or permanent residents. That can now proceed if you weren't personally covered by the three existing injunctions, so not sure what you're talking about.
by GMoromisato | 2025-06-27 23:38:22+00:00
It's linear, so if it is 25 times closer then the telescope can be 25 times smaller. At 4.37 light-years we'd need an 18 kilometer telescope to image at Jupiter-sized planet at 100x100 pixel resolution.

If you only wanted 10x10 resolution you could get by with a 1.8 kilometer telescope.

Wikipedia has more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_resolution. The Rayleigh criterion is the equation to calculate this.
by tiltowait | 2025-06-27 23:38:26+00:00
> if done well.

And that's a big if. Half an hour ago, I used Amazon's chatbot, and it was an infuriating experience. I got an email saying my payment was declined, but I couldn't find any evidence of that. The following is paraphrased, not verbatim.

"Check payment status for order XXXXXX."

"Certainly. Which order would you like to check?"

"Order #XXXXXX."

"Your order is scheduled to arrive tomorrow."

"Check payment status."

"I can do that. Would you like to check payment status?"

"Yes."

"I can't check the payment status, but I can connect you to someone who can."

-> At this point, it offered two options: "Yes, connect me" and "No thanks".

"Yes, connect me."

"Would you like me to connect you to a support agent?"

Amazon used to have best-in-class support. If my experience was indicative of their direction, that's unfortunate.
by hackyhacky | 2025-06-27 23:39:12+00:00
> Your entire understanding of the SC here, under trump, has been completely distorted by emotionally-disregulating media narratives designed for those purposes.

Ah yes, the classic misogynist attack: I can't possibly understand the law because I'm too emotional. If only I were logical like you.

> Today's result also does not prevent state-wide injunctions, indeed, that's what they court has basically suggested.

Yes, state-level injunctions are allowed. All that this means is that different citizens will get different Constitutional rights depending on which state they live in. That's not how the Constitution is supposed to work.

> Congress can just change the statue. As it does a very large number of times every year.

What's the point of the changing the statute when SCOTUS insists on interpreting statutes in a way contrary to their text?

> That is the only impact of that ruling. It had nothing to do with criminal actions by trump.

It absolutely has to do with criminal actions. Notably, any official act cannot even be used as evidence in prosecuting a criminal act against the president. So if the president conspires with the AG to illegally prosecute a political enemy, that is unprosecutable. Since anything the president does is potentially an official act, this means that there in no way to hold the president responsible for his actions, which is the opposite of the intent of the Constitution, which provides for "checks and balances." Did you fail your high school civics class?

The Framers know how to provide immunity, as they do in the Speech and Debate clause. You may have a reason for supporting presidential immunity, but you can't deny that there is no basis for it in the Constitution. SCOTUS made it up, precisely at a time when their favorite president was found in flagrant violation.
by futurisold | 2025-06-27 23:39:16+00:00
Shortly, yes to all. We actually had an experiment going from theory of mind to emotion, but it's hanging right now since I feel the models aren't quite there yet and it yields diminish returns relative to effort. But could easily be revived. Minsky isn't my fav though, I'm leaning more toward Newell/Simon and friends from that generation.
by jaggajasoos33 | 2025-06-27 23:39:41+00:00
A lot of our systems work because everyone at least half heartedly sort of goes by the rules. Yes, everyone sort of pretends to obey the rule and hence it works. In reality these systems are extremely fragile and a small committed minority can totally break years of precedent and systems. I think we are at that phase right now from the right side and soonish we will see the same from right left as well.
by grapesodaaaaa | 2025-06-27 23:40:08+00:00
To some extent, laws are enforced and interpreted subjectively.

The famous quote “give me the man and I will give you the case against him.” Comes to mind. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Give_me_the_man_and_I_will_g...

Legal settings (at least in the US), have always favored the wealthy who can find an army of lawyers to find loopholes.

I don’t agree with this, and hopefully what is currently happening raises awareness.

For example, the Patriot act post-9/11 famously gave law enforcement unconstitutional powers within 100 miles of a national border (I could be off, but this is how I remember it). If you really want to split hairs, the US has a LOT of borders if you include international airports.
by mjburgess | 2025-06-27 23:41:00+00:00
Yes, that's why I didnt recommend reading Jackson's dissent -- because its design ed to create emotional disregulation in readers and whip up a political storm.

If you read K's concurrence, you'll wonder why there is any issue at all. Since, roughly, there isn't one -- there are a very large number of ways this EO can be challenged universally without requiring UIs
by bearburger | 2025-06-27 23:41:16+00:00
Well, for a country that's faced attempts to be "tamed" by three superpowers over 200 years, Afghanistan's holding up pretty well. It exists and independent! By the way, it crossed my mind that all the superpowers that tried their luck are no longer superpowers. Britain's just a weak shadow of itself, the USSR completely collapsed. What fate awaits the USA?
by hayst4ck | 2025-06-27 23:42:22+00:00
An excerpt from They Thought They Were Free:

"What no one seemed to notice," said a colleague of mine, a philologist, "was the ever widening gap, after 1933, between the government and the people. Just think how very wide this gap was to begin with, here in Germany. And it became always wider. You know, it doesn’t make people close to their government to be told that this is a people’s government, a true democracy, or to be enrolled in civilian defense, or even to vote. All this has little, really nothing, to do with knowing one is governing.

"What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could not understand it, it could not be released because of national security. And their sense of identification with Hitler, their trust in him, made it easier to widen this gap and reassured those who would otherwise have worried about it.

"This separation of government from people, this widening of the gap, took place so gradually and so insensibly, each step disguised (perhaps not even intentionally) as a temporary emergency measure or associated with true patriotic allegiance or with real social purposes. And all the crises and reforms (real reforms, too) so occupied the people that they did not see the slow motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter. (https://press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/511928.htm)

It seems like it was ruled that instead of 1000, much more local, people able to protect constitutional rule with the force of the judiciary, we now have 9.

If you analyze only based on power changes, now fewer people have more power.
by Tadpole9181 | 2025-06-27 23:43:38+00:00
No, not quite. State laws only apply in that state. They are not technically allowed (but sometimes try) to enforce laws on actions outside of that state. So, in this case, you could not be charged with having an abortion outside of Florida, from inside of Florida, based on Florida law.

But let's look at the birthright case that this ruling comes from.

Let's say Nevada state sues the federal government. The ruling is made from their district court that birthright citizenship is clear and this EO is illegal. An injunction is placed against the EO.

The state of Kentucky does not sue.

Previously, the Nevada court injunction would apply nationally. The EO is unconstitutional. EOs are federal, the constitution is federal. So, clearly, it is unconstitutional everywhere and must be stopped.

The federal government can then go through several layers of appeal to prove that this was a mistake and the EO is legal. All the way up to SCOTUS, who makes the final judgement and cannot be appealed.

What SCOTUS just ruled is that the injunction against the federal government only holds the EO from applying to the specific litigant. That can be a whole state, a group of people, or a single individual. Even though the EO is now ruled unconstitutional in the eyes of the federal court de jure, it is de facto still the law of the land by default to all other entities.

And it gets worse. A litigant cannot appeal to the next court, only a defendant that loses. And SCOTUS only has to address cases that are appealed. There is no mandatory reconciliation process. That means, for an infinite amount of time, individual people will have different constitutional interpretations that require a background of every case that has ever involved them.

So, back to our example. If the federal government loses in Nevada and there is no ruling in Kentucky... What the fuck even happens? Someone is or is not a citizen, that's literally the point behind Dread Scott and Obergfell, but they've contradicted those cases and invented a constitutional superposition.

So, in Nevada a naturalized citizen with non-citizen parents is... A citizen? Because of the injunction? And what if they're in Kentucky, but were born in Nevada? Or vice versa?

But, no, this isn't a state law. It's federal. Which means it doesn't matter what state you're in when you do it, it's still illegal. And federal LEO had the authority to try you in a different location than where you were arrested. So - born in Nevada or Kentucky, where you are now, that doesn't matter. Effectively, you have no citizenship. Again, this is quite literally Dread Scott.

This SCOTUS ruling effectively disables the constitution and dissolves the union of states. I'm not being dramatic, this is also the opinion of Sotomayor.

Curiously, this does not actually extend to other cases. So, say, if McDonalds gets in trouble and an injunction placed against them. That still applies universally.
by stickfigure | 2025-06-27 23:43:46+00:00
Hitler's SA (the brownshirts) weren't government officials, nor were Mussolini's blackshirts. Nor are the Proud Boys. There are many more modern examples of pro-government militias in Venezuela and the mid-east.

You never know who's going to deputize themselves as "law enforcement", with the quiet encouragement and plausible deniability of the ruling political party. Guns are unquestionably useful defensive tools against these people.
by o11c | 2025-06-27 23:44:40+00:00
Congratulations, you've reinvented regexes. This is still a win since you're using the sane kind of regex and are allowing multiple accept states rather than just one, in both cases unlike most modern implementations.

(I'm mostly throwing my thoughts as they appear, some parts of this ends up duplicating what's in the article, hopefully with more standard terminology though)

Note that at runtime there is no difference between a standard DFA and what you can a DAFSA. The difference is entirely at construction time.

In lexers, your `end_of_word` is usually called `accept`, and rather than being a `bool` it is an integer (0 for no-accept, N for the Nth valid accept value, which in your case should probably be an index within the array of all possible characters. Note that since multiple entity names map to the same character, you will have multiple nodes with the same `accept`). I think your perfect-hash approach requires duplicating them (which admittedly might be a win since you are far from the typical lexing case where there are many possible inputs for some outputs. However, this does mean you can't play games with the bits of accept` to encode the length of your lookup as well as the start - if we're saving size, I lean toward UTF-8, either nul-terminated or with an explicit length).

The next thing you should do is use equivalence classes rather than dealing with every character individually. For this particular parsing problem, almost all of your equivalence classes will only have a single character, but you still win big by mapping all invalid characters to a single class. Since there are only 51 characters used in entity names, this means you only need 6 bits per character (which should be fast since you only need to special-case non-letters). And since many of those only appear for the first letter, you can probably deal with 5 or fewer with minimal logic ahead of time.

That said - one important lesson from lexing is that it is almost always a mistake to lex keywords; whenever possible, just lex an identifier and then do a map lookup. The reason that can't be done is entirely because of those entities which do not require the semicolon, so I suspect that the optimal approach is going to be: after resolving `document.write`, look ahead for a semicolon, and if found use the fast path; only if that fails, enter the (much smaller) DFA for the few that do not require a semicolon. But since you don't have identifiers you might not be hitting the worst case (explosive splitting) anyway.

For something this small, binary search is probably a mistake (being very unpredictable for the CPU) if you're doing everything else right; you're better off doing a linear search if you can't just using SIMD magic to match them in parallel. Struct-of-arrays is probably pointless for a problem set that fits in L1, but might start winning again if you want to leave some L1 for other parts of the program. Storing siblings/cousins next to each other (as an accident of construction) means you're probably already as Eytzinger-like as you can be.

(Edit: fix incomplete and missing thoughts)
by wk_end | 2025-06-27 23:46:53+00:00
Probably the biggest sectors where functional programming is used are finance and crypto (which is arguably finance). Some companies use OCaml itself, other companies might use other languages like Haskell where OCaml knowledge would be valuable.

You can see a list on the OCaml website of companies using it, or read some success stories (https://ocaml.org/industrial-users).
by dh2022 | 2025-06-27 23:47:22+00:00
Thank you for this example - is very interesting.

I read the Wikipedia article [0] and I would point out that a class defined by birth place would pass easily Scalia's test for commonality. So it seems that using a class action suit that includes every person born in US of un-documented parents would work. (But who knows what other tests the Supreme Court would come up now...)

[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wal-Mart_Stores,_Inc._v._Dukes
by smeej | 2025-06-27 23:47:31+00:00
Makes me think of the latter part of this quotation:

"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist." - Lysander Spooner (emphasis mine)

Resilient systems have to align incentives such that they work whether or not everybody has enough good will or agreeability to play along.

250 years isn't a bad run. Maybe the next Constitution can iterate and fix the incentive alignment.
by frollogaston | 2025-06-27 23:47:32+00:00
It's not like npm is particularly bad at handling supply-chain attacks, it's just a very popular ecosystem and gets targeted more as a result. Idk how you truly solve this without code audits, and if anything the more popular/visible packages will be audited more.

Btw, left-pad fallout wasn't all that bad. It's not like the author put something malicious into the code. For less than a day, people couldn't download that dep from npm. If someone really needed to fix a build, they could copy in a backup. Pretty sure a typical C++ or Python project build gets broken on its own more often than that.