skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Respectfully, I think you should take a breath and re-read the comments to which you’re responding. I’m as big a supporter of the RKBA as you’ll find, and I didn’t read anything “anti-gun” into them.

This discussion is around the incorporation doctrine, not the Second Amendment.
I'd say this is a myth unless you have actual numbers.
Amplifying anything amplifies the noise, and being tied at the end of regulation is prima facie evidence that the difference is just noise. Even after the fact you can argue about whether one team was better, or just lucky, and people do.
> A Supreme Court case where property was seized without any charges is likely the only way we will see any progress on civil forfeiture.

I posit it's a better way (assuming SCOTUS makes decides an actual Constitutional question) than legislation, since it precludes legislators merely reinstating the practice later.
It boggles the mind to think that forfeiture is alive and well today, some police departments even brag about the state-sponsored hooliganism they're committing, and the practice has never been seriously challenged in the Supreme Court.

This looks to be the defense:

The Indiana Supreme Court ruled against Mr. Timbs, on interesting grounds. It said the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of excessive fines did not apply to ones imposed by states.

From the 14th Amendment Section 1, it's disturbing that the following isn't obvious to any high school graduate:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Equally disturbing is the thought that Illinois might just win this case anyway.

It's interesting to consider what might happen if reason prevails. A lot of people have lost a lot of property over the years to to forfeiture. I can't imagine all of them will pass on the opportunity for compensation and punishment.
Wickard's use was not purely personal. He grew more wheat than he used, and he sold that excess on the interstate market (or, from a different viewpoint: he sold wheat up to the allowable limit and gave the rest to his livestock). This directly impacted the interstate commerce of wheat, because growing his own wheat meant there was less demand for wheat from other farmers. Scaled up to an entire nation, this would have rendered the wheat control law toothless. Generally, this law has been upheld consistently in this context, though SCOTUS has struck down cases where a good was tangentially related to Congress but the targeted act/good was not actually a commercial transaction (or the avoidance of a commercial transaction, as in Wickard).
While McDonalds has figured out how to have waiters bring you the food to your table here in France.
Next step: bot that tracks real-time history of your Uber ratings, determines when you have received a 1-star rating for "no cash tips" and creates a blacklist of drivers.
The problem that blockchain solves is trusted timestamping and in that realm exactly same mechanism was used for a long time before it was called that. Various proof-of-something mechanisms layered on top of that solve the "distributed" part of the problem with varying degrees of trust and efficiency.
Such kind of information turns very improbable event to very probable.

The issue is, as I pointed out, that it works for anything and produces the same result. Anthropic arguments literally consist of stating that "P(A|A) = 1". Which of course is true, but what does that actually tell you?
As I recall, Heller v. DC established the precedent that the RKBA is an individual right, while McDonald v. Chicago established that the Second Amendment was incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendemnt’s “Due Process” clause.
"With decentralized trust we could create a decentralized uber, where drivers get 99% of the money and 1% going to developers and providers of decentralized insurance."

Why do we want decentralized Uber? Do we not want some basic vetting of the people who are driving us around? I imagine decentralized Uber isn't going to be too quick to remove drivers who sexually harass riders, if it does so at all.
Well in game design you still call them AI. Of course this use of AI does not impress anyone per se, it's just a name and not a selling point.
Those are the cases that Supreme Court likes to take on.
Having no hosts to manage is the defining feature of serverless.

When you create a DB with DynamoDB, you're just telling AWS "I need a database" and it gives you one. No need to worry about deciding how much CPU power, RAM, or storage you'll need for it.

> It seems that every every "hosted" solution is now being dubbed "serverless". :\

Got a good example of something being called "serverless" that you don't think should be? I mean, yes, DynamoDB, Lambda, etc. are all running on servers. But the idea is that you don't manage them. No packages to keep up to date. No worrying about whether or not the instance size you chose is big enough. No dealing with autoscaling to meet demand when a million reddit users hit your app.
I've lived in both poor areas and very affluent areas.

I don't think that poor people = minorities is true at all. There are plenty of minority neighborhoods where the residents are extremely caring.

Some of the worst neighborhoods I've been in have been low-income white. Constantly woken up by pounding on walls, smashing doors, police coming due to domestic violence, drug-use.

If I had to chose, I'd live in a minority neighborhood rather than one of low socio-economic status.
"Historically people started overthrowing governments and sending people to guillotines for more modest losses. You’d have riots in SF if the options were “work for $1” or “starve.”"

YES. And what would those riots be for: MORE WAGES. Basically a minimum wage or collective bargaining. Hence my point of why minimum wage has to exist!

Using an externalized or non-market function like rioting to achieve wage increase, is the same as voting to require minimum wage etc:

--> You literally just made my argument for me <--

"Texas or London will get used to a similar lifestyle which represents a massive downgrade is ridiculous."

People have no choice but to accept the economic conditions they face.

This is 'reality' , it's not 'bizarre' at all.

My argument is nothing but basic, classical economics. It's not even an argument, more so an explanation. Nothing new.

If people have to work for 'next to nothing or die' - what do you think they will do?

Die? Or work like a slave? The later in most cases.

It's economic reality.

I think what would happen in London/SF/Texas is that irregular workers would probably move in and form the basis of this ever lowering economy, and empowered citizens would be much less likely to fall - but they definitely could. And that includes you, and me, if we didn't have access to family, social services, minimum wages etc..
And people are using it today as "proof" to support their preferred flavor of an economic system.

Anyone who's been even an armchair observer of economics for 20+ years should know well how silly these conversations can get.

Just as one unimportant example: Bond vigilantes used to be a term you'd encounter regularly, when's the last time you heard it now?
They get paid minimum wage if their wage + tips do not equal minimum wage.
I feel like this is the logical conclusion of a living wage.

If we pay everyone enough to make a living wage, then it should cost the same for me to grab my own menu, utensils and water bottles as it would for a server to do so.

Honestly, the high cost of renting in SF has already made the "move to California and bus tables to get by while auditioning for movie / working on startup" dream impossible. This is just a side effect of the bureaucracy and housing policies here.
nice try, IBM.
Ask HN: A good, powerful laptop for Linux?
I'm in the market for a powerful laptop that can run some rather intensive computer vision code I'm working on. I'm a seasoned Linux user and would need good compatibility with elementaryOS.

I looked at some of the hefty gaming laptops, but wanted to get some recommendations and suggestions from the knowledgeable people on here before I buy!

Thanks in advance for your help :)
It is a "guy":

"Dylan Davis (@JennaMagius) is a senior security analyst at RiskSense. He has performed a variety of Fortune 500 incident response engagements, discovered new CVEs in major software, and performed vulnerability analysis on a wide variety of embedded devices."
Simpler: never tip a percentage. Tip a fixed amount. It makes no sense to me to pay more because I ordered a more expensive dish.
LLVM Weekly – #234, June 25th 2018
https://www.google.com/search?num=100&source=hp&ei=6ngxW9iYG...
It's called rule of law, not rule of monarch (monarchy) or rule of mob (pure democracy).
Companies also do that when trolling for investors.
Severe conflicts of interest in the development of Bitcoin(BTC) software
The link requires a login to view
By reducing the coordination of truth between so many parties to an offline, distributed data-structure, in a way that assures integrity mathematically. As alternative to the constellation of approaches (email, IT integrations, filing cabinets full of records, etc) currently in use. With a global peer-distributed database you can change the risks with your truth provider to risks that the data doesn't update. Depending on a lot of factors I think that may be more desireable

That said I don't work anywhere near international trade, just recalling some stuff I learned in an old college class
This whole article seems borderline nonsensical. It's taking outlier companies and shoehorning them in to fitting a cursory take on Foucault's work for the sake of entertainment.

It's not a lesson or meaningful or helpful in any way, which was ultimately a huge disappointment for me as the reader.
Worksnaps Review – Remote Project Management Software
I assume the original poster was exaggerating for effect.

That said, there is probably some wage at below minimum wage at which people would be willing to work. That wage would, imho, be very exploitative, but it would have a very high chance of happening.

The difference in bargaining power between employers and low-paid employees is astounding — astounding to the point that a true floating point “market rate” would be tough to describe as a living wage.
Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy [1] presents a problem for anyone seeking to rectify the problem of an organization having too much power. In order to fix the problem, you first need power, which means that you need to create the institutional structures needed to secure that power, which means you have just exacerbated the problem. If you then actually follow-through with your original goal, nobody will listen to you, because you have (by definition) removed your power. More pithily, "Organizations whose top priority is not the continued existence of the organization are replaced by organizations whose top priority is."

The only way to fix an organization that's outgrown its social purpose is for that organization to fail, outright, and then have its functions subsumed by other entities outside of the organization that can pick up the pieces. Sometimes the failure comes from internal dysfunction, sometimes it comes from external competition, but most of the time it's a mix of both, as internal dysfunction drives away competent insiders who then form the locus of external resistance.

[1] https://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/jerryp/iron.html
The logical-but-not-discernable reason is that the cost of food has gone down as a percentage of income, but the cost of labor has not, and restaurants have used guilt as a tactic to push more and more of those labor costs onto the consumer.
I started taking vitamin D (D3). I did so because of a family history of cancer et al. I had no expectation of a psychological effect.

Two days later, I was asking myself what the heck had changed. My mood seemed much more stable, even, comfortable.

The only thing that had changed, was the vitamin D.

Now, if/when I run out of it and don't get to the store for a few days, I notice my mood regressing. Particularly when I haven't recently gotten significant, direct skin sun exposure.

As for magnesium, more recently I read that, among other things, it helps with vitamin D absorption and/or utilization. This is not its only apparent benefit. And, unlike some other supplements, there appears to be direct observation of subjects/people to back up claims of these other benefits. I don't know about studies that elucidate the relative biochemical mechanisms.
There's so much brokenness here that it's hard to know where to start rebutting this. I took an hour to game through this with some people who actually work on CA initial identity verification security; here's where I land:

* First, most CAs don't do DNSSEC today, or, if they do, do DNSSEC fail-open.

* Second, CA's can already do multi-perspective DNS lookup, which means that a practical attack to defeat CAA over standard DNS requires an on-path attacker. But if the attacker is on-path, most of the mechanisms CAs use to validate a domain fail, even if you use DNSSEC.

* Finally, there's already a replacement for all this stuff in progress: RDAP, a secure JSON API that allows data to be pulled directly from registrars. Every mainstream browser and every CA/B forum CA voted to add it to the BRs; it's going to be implemented. If you really believe that something like CAA is the future for DV certs, then it seems pretty obvious that RDAP is going to be the way that happens.

DNSSEC is a dead letter.
Nothing personal, but this is exactly what I was mentioning about "future tech" not being sufficient to solve these problems. In-vitro fertilization (test-tube babies) still requires a living uterus in which to gestate. And the idea that a robot could successfully raise a child from birth to even about 8 years old seems VERY far-fetched. I think the physics of velocity, acceleration, etc will be figured out well before the human aspect, as evidenced by our ability to send a rover to Mars but not a person.
I disagree with the first point.

Owner/operators tend to be compensated with profit. However the (low/mid) middle class aren't often even compensated with stock options. This leads to rising minimum wages raising the price floor of an area without a corresponding rise in the compensation that the middle classes receive.

As a result of that cost of living increase, the poor remain effectively just as poor while the middle class become more poor (relatively speaking).

A more socially progressive stance is to influence the market supply, thus tipping the scales towards minimal profits, particularly in "need to have" categories such as housing, healthcare, and other basic social infrastructure (transportation, power, communications (of all types), water/sewer).

For some of those there is a natural monopoly within a given area; it makes more sense to focus on highly regulated quality (particularly for the last mile, where parallel infrastructure can be massively wasteful).

For others a hybrid approach can help: a regulated marketplace where there is ample competition among similarly sized players and/or a public option of last/default resort to control prices/quality.

Finally there are healthy markets for //optional extras// (such as fast food) where competition is robust and effective.
"Dylan Davis (@JennaMagius) is a senior security analyst at RiskSense. He has performed a variety of Fortune 500 incident response engagements, discovered new CVEs in major software, and performed vulnerability analysis on a wide variety of embedded devices."
The problem with that approach, is it also destroys the network. You can never revoke the bribery once it becomes a core component of how the system functions and what drives it. The hyper contributor actions on the platform, which always make up a very large share of total contribution, ultimately drifts toward maximizing the gain of tokens and away from creating / contributing content solely based on quality.

Simply put, the quality of contribution when monetary consideration isn't the primary, is going to be higher.
>But AndrewKemendo isn't saying that he is obligated. He said it's common courtesy, which is not the same thing.

But later on in your reply, yourself say "it still may be to your benefit to interact with courtesy, rather than as a selfish jerk. It may be in your interest 20 years from now rather than today, but it still may be in your interest."

So basically, you're saying if someone doesn't reply to an unsolicited recruiting email, that recruiter may hold onto a grudge for multiple decades.

That certainly sounds like the parent is describing an interaction where the sender feels there is an obligation to respond to me.
Wait, what? “Crypto” has been redefined to mean “cryptocurrency” now? Pff.
My wife and I were just at a McDonalds in Portugal that had about 10 kiosks placed in groups toward the front of the store. This was one of those multi-floor, 100+ customers at a time McDs.

I like the kiosks for the reasons you mention, but the arrangement of them in the floor plan made it impossible for people to figure out how to form a line. It was just chaos.
While you raise a valid issue, you don't know that IBM didn't also have trouble parsing large cookies. And even if they didn't, your information doesn't exactly excuse IBM for using over 8 kilobytes of data to send cookies back and forth.
Oh I agree, the table on your site says that. It's extremely wrong. Would have been much less obvious if they had selected the more important SCOTUS case just 2 years earlier.

By pushing the agenda you implied with "2A against the states" you showed your cards to not care about the facts.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I was just going off the name and the fact that their (Github, I think?) bio described them as a "girl".
Read about the situation in New Orleans, during and after Katrina (and especially during the evacuation).

Read about the debate over whether to attribute deaths to Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico (the government officially claimed fewer than 100; independent estimates run into the thousands).
> If it is logic proof, it is not functional.

Logic proofs are functional programs; at least, they are isomorphic to them, by Curry-Howard.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspon...
Considering they are taking green spaces yes they are.

This doesn’t look like a commercial solar farm also it’s a pretty small installation which looks private.

Solar farms will have fences, battery storage, support structures, access roads and essentially everything any industrial installation needs.

They won’t be pretty and you need to be really up there to advocate for taking even more space away from the public.
I agree that "pilot seat in the plane" is a much simpler problem. It's not the same as "pilot on the plane" though :-)
IANAL, so I may have some preconceived notions, so I'll just lay them out.

UCMJ is absolutely a legal system, and it deals with punishments for criminal actions. Most of the UCMJ is regular criminal law[1] covering everything from arson to rape to petty theft. (For non-Americans: criminal law is generally legislated and enforced at the state level, but military bases are under US jurisdiction.)

The UCMJ does elevate some bad performance to criminal status: sleeping on guard duty, malingering, disrespect to officers, etc. But the UCMJ says those things are crimes and punishes them as crimes, though it's far less dramatic than it sounds.[2]

Employment contracts in the US are generally "at will," so the remedy your employer has if you're not doing your job is to fire you. Your remedy if you don't like your job is to quit.

For either side to be subject to a tort (getting sued) there has to be a breach of contract, which means there was a contract you signed or at least discussed with your employer. For you to be subject to criminal penalties, you usually have to have intentionally caused harm to someone.

So if you're a salaried employee, have you ever signed a contract guaranteeing some level of performance? In any of the cases we're discussing, are people being sued for monetary damages? It happens; if you're an actor you have to complete some number of shows, but most 9 to 5 jobs aren't like that.

If there's no contract where an employee is promising a level of performance, their performance is not even a civil case, let alone a criminal case.

And that's where my claim that it's wrongheaded to put this in terms of justice. It's simply not the case that doing a bad job is something that we'd normally put someone on trial for. While courts are good at dispassionately hearing evidence and so forth, non-lawyers don't view trials dispassionately! They view them as a morality play where the righteous vanquish the wicked, which is completely inappropriate.

[1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/subtitle-A/part-I...
[2]: https://www.thebalancecareers.com/what-is-an-article-15-3354...
I am more surprised to see Oracle in adtech. I assumed ATT would want a piece of the pie when I read about Verizon's supercookies. I think I still fail to grasp the size of the ad tech/marketing industry. I know it is big but I think it is bigger than I can comprehend.
> federal laws ... use funding carrots rather than criminal-punishment sticks

There are limits to this, some of which are set out in South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987). These limits (quoting wikipedia) are:

* The spending must promote "the general welfare."

* The condition must be unambiguous.

* The condition should relate "to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs."

* The condition imposed on the states must not, in itself, be unconstitutional.

* The condition must not be coercive.

Especially the last condition is relevant. It means the withdrawal of funding cannot be so harsh as to be clearly funding. I believe the actual wording used is that the threat of withdrawal cannot be a 'gun to the head' of the states.
People lying has always been a problem with grand internet visions. Remember the semantic web? It never went anywhere because people lie in metadata. There would have to be some sort of reputation system for participants, but with that comes an independent adjudication system to determine who is telling the truth. This brings back centralization.

I was talking with some people I know who work on HyperLedger, which is really lightweight blockchain stuff connected to the Linux foundation, and they say the most used blockchain is the one used for tracking where diamonds came from. I guess they are unique enough, or identifiable enough that they can't be easily replaced by diamonds that came from outside the system.
Right, but part of that is because Uber pays so little to the drivers.
I know, we had demo day last week. Turns out it's short for "demonstration," not "demolition." :-(
> Second, the space is developing extremely rapidly, partly because the code, data, and knowledge is largely open source, and partly because of the increasing inflow of talent.

They seemed to conveniently leave out the biggest driving force behind blockchain technology: greed. I don't see how you can talk about the "rapid development" of blockchains and not mention ICOs and the type of armchair investors who gravitate towards them...
Did the change request come complete with specific requirements on what the interface should include? Because it sounds like they produced exactly what was asked for: a JSON interface. If the requirements were poorly specified, you can’t lay all the blame on them.
How do they colour-code the wires to identify them?

"Ah there's your problem: you've patched the Fire Engine Red pair, it's meant to be the Ferrari Red. Rookie error."