skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Too many parties in this whole drama are too incentivized to spread FUD, or at least not debunk it, for anyone with only public information to really understand what’s going on.
Also this is a good article written a few years ago that tries to tamp down a bit of the RBG cult, and that she should have retired during Obamas term if she really was concerned about keeping a liberal justice on the SCOTUS.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/11/what-cult-ruth-...
Yeah. It currently works in infrared (though they say it can be modified to visible light) and the video from the lab shows the images to look quite noisy and blurry, honestly.
Well, it's not like this flip-flop would be in the top 10 of his list of shameless actions... From his point of view, the majority of the country already hates him anyway, and sure, it's a few weeks of bad press from the predictable wing, but in the end he'll (hopefully for him) have pushed his cause (making the conservative grip more concrete) forward.

The progressives will rage on Twitter, but on the day he goes back on what he said in 2016, Mitch is going to have a pleasant dinner with company that will agree with him, and he's going to fall asleep just fine, because he's convinced (or twisted the truth to convince himself) he's doing the right thing, and those who disagree with him are the ones who are un-American...
FDR can absolutely shit on by his own party for the idea. He ended up backing down.
Absolutely not. Why would Trump eliminate one of the biggest draws to electing him? If he pushes someone through before November, he absolutely loses the senate (assuming you believe the polls). No way those purple states with senators up for election are going to carry Republicans who went from "we don't vote for the USSC during final term years" to "RUSH THROUGH THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY NOMINEE!" in 4 years.

The move is to have everything set and ready to go during the lame duck and push hard then if you lose or wait until Jan if you win. Removes the election math from the process.
The best we can look forward to is a decade of civil war if Biden manages to take office.

Unless someone figures out how to neutralize Facebook and Q immediately. Biden's still talking about being able to make deals with McConnell. We're totally fucked.

It will of course be incomprehensibly darker if Trump manages to hold power.
The popular vote means jack shit. They do have a politically legitimate claim to those seats.
I know. I'm just not sure why the OP is so confident that me putting "Cuban Sandwich" in the memo is going to get me flagged. Still good so far.
Power isn’t decided by popular vote so I’m not sure what you mean?
Unless I am out of date with my civics knowledge, the House may have a bit of financial power, but legislation still has to pass through the Senate.

The upside of being the anti-government party is that you don't have to worry about being judged by how well you govern. It's a much easier position.
>It is altogether proper to view a decision by the Senate not to act as a waiver of its right to provide advice and consent. A waiver is an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege. As the Supreme Court has said, “ ‘No procedural principle is more familiar to this Court than that a constitutional right,’ or a right of any other sort, ‘may be forfeited in criminal as well as civil cases by the failure to make timely assertion of the right before a tribunal having jurisdiction to determine it.’ ”

>It is in full accord with traditional notions of waiver to say that the Senate, having been given a reasonable opportunity to provide advice and consent to the president with respect to the nomination of Garland, and having failed to do so, can fairly be deemed to have waived its right.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obama-can-appoint-me...
You’re doing exactly what the Republicans want: they don’t need you to support them as long as you don’t get in their way.

Unless you share their goals, you might want to reconsider this strategy.
Went to try to update some of my scripts and stuff and found that most of OS X/macOS uses BSD utils which don't have the long flags found in linux versions. For example check out xargs:

https://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?xargs

https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man1/xargs.1.html
From what I've read Supreme Court Justices get more liberal with time, whether appointed by Republicans or Democrats, rather than hewing closer and closer to their original positions.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/supreme-court-justices-...
Sure. And they hopefully do their best. But it sits in tension with friendship. That is why there are all sorts of principles against it for high-integrity systems.
I think we're about to see some of the more arcane rules of debate in the Senate take center stage: repeated quorum calls, filibuster, cloture, etc. I suspect this will not go down without a fight.
One faction wants business as usual; that sucks, we need better. The other wants total control at any cost. Don't hold out for perfect.
Hitting the Wall in Math [pdf]
Democrats’ policy of importing tens of millions of future reliable Democrat voters is some solid strategic thinking.
I know it doesn't mean much, but I filled out a plea to both my Republican senators and Mitch McConnell's contact forms to respect the McConnell / Merrick Garland precedent in 2016. Obviously they've explicitly said they wouldn't, but it doesn't hurt to try.
There least I heard their WAF is just Apache's mod_security rules transpiled to Lua. So yes it's pretty much just regexes
The Senate doesn’t actually have to vote to confirm a Supreme Court justice.

> and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court

There is nothing except precedent to say the President can’t just directly appoint justices. And then when the appointments are inevitably challenged, who would ultimately rule on it? The Supreme Court. Tah dah. This is how democracy falls apart.
Putting aside the "ossification" drop, having the same sentence word for word, posted within a few minutes of each other is weird.
You're not going to like the rest of the American political and justice system. The entire process is based on purposefully creating opposing and disagreeable forces.

The whole thing was clearly created on a principle of opposing friendships between powerful forces.
Proportionality isn't one to one because half of Americans aren't republican and half aren't democrat. The problem is that polling data is absolutely awful at showing absolute support for the individual parties platforms and membership numbers are largely biased compared to what the electorate actually wants, but there are plenty of articles about GOP tactics to hold power from a minority bloc position.[1]

I wish I bookmarked the statistics on this because they were eye opening to me, but 2016 polls were showing about 40% democrat to 35% republican leaning in the country. So if the public at large is 5% more blue than red, but Republicans hold near-even seats in government, thats a bias in their favor. And as this and many other articles show this isn't the product of random swings of popular support but structurally orchestrated power grabs meant to keep a minority party in power.

[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/12/gop-man...

Edit: And to be fair the Senate isn't a democratic institution whatsoever to begin with. Its going to naturally lean red because there are many states with low urbanization and population that produce permanent seat Republican senators. Because the distribution of states has nothing to do with the distribution of people that lends the senate to be hugely incongruent with the actual ideological makeup of the populace at large.
I thought that was Sandra Day O’Conner? You know, the first woman on the Supreme Court and nominated by Reagan.
It's sad to me that people like you think it's more important that your politics are represented in the Supreme Court than that the justices do a good job working together and holding a consistent integral legal standard for the country to follow.

As a fan of the Supreme Court, I think it's one of our least-political institutions. It's certainly the least political branch of government, especially if you compare it to the Legislature (extremely political) and the President (extremely political). It's the only piece of sanity we have left.

And here you call her selfish for not playing politics. Please, consider the value of having a part of government without politics. Consider how rare it is for someone to put other ideals above their political party!
If you include the externalities of people driving to the theater, it’s probably the greenest movie he’s made.
Right. Mythbusters blew up an airliner, on a budget that I expect would be a rounding error for Nolan.

https://youtu.be/4yG2h1aDB6k
Bronze Age or Iron? – Nebra Sky Disk Might Be Younger Than First Thought
He mentioned in an interview[0] they removed and sold the engines beforehand

[0] https://youtu.be/aEdl1bByYLY?t=349
Someone who uses it told me that it can be disabled. Notifications are just notifications, that is fine if displayed only once when going above the threshold, but changing the volume is not OK.
The Democrats have literally lost ONE presidential election in a row
I would have paid to see that.
If the Supreme Court becomes a more partisan institution that shifts in viewpoints every 4 years, that's not ideal, but I think it's quite a bit better than the status quo where so many people see every appointment as an existential threat.
Wow, this is great. Definitely will try.
Ok, are you honestly saying that you think a majority of the Supreme Court justices will rule against a direct and clear Constitutional Amendment just to help a President that has no control over them or their jobs?

Has this post really gotten to this point, that we’re just posting crazy claims without any merit or knowledge or research at all? Isn’t HN better than this?
FreeCAD has an sketch [1] workbench with constrains. Once it's draw, you can extrude it, pad it, apply the geometric boolean operations, add/substract to create complex parts [2] from the result.

[1] https://wiki.freecadweb.org/Basic_Sketcher_Tutorial

[2] https://wiki.freecadweb.org/PartDesign_Workbench
If you are not an American it's hard to understand the extent to which there is a cultural vortex where everything around you feels manufactured.

I left seven years ago and now live in a terrible third-world dictatorship actually. It's not that America is so bad to live in (if you have some money), but that things should be much better for young people especially and the justifications for why it can't be better are so deeply warped.
> even she would’ve known it’s at best a wish and nothing else.

It's specifically her dying wish. IMO she's giving Senators who still support democracy something they can say to the press when they decline to vote to fill her seat.
Refusing to vote for a Trump appointee would kill their reelection, not the other way around.
> Being able to run a mainline kernel means being able to receive updates indefinitely

I wouldn't say indefinitely. Hardware that runs Linux today, mainline or not, is not guaranteed to continue to run newer kernel releases. Drivers and even whole architectures do get dropped from the tree, though they get reverted if anyone actually notices and still cares about such support.

While indefinite sounds nice, it turns out that indefinite support is not quite what people actually want in practice, even if they exclaim otherwise. Typically, because then they're responsible for maintenance, and the common response there is "no thanks."

I'm all for getting everything upstream though!
She was an advocate of gender equality long before she became a judge, famously in Moritz_v._Commissioner

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moritz_v._Commissioner
That is revisionist history at best Harry Reid (D) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Reid changed the rules and Congress have been fucked ever since.
Odds are it continues to serve some useful purpose though. Us humans have a whole lot of useful organs, and only one vestigial appendix.
Kennedy, Souter, and Thomas were all approved by a senate of an opposing party. Apparently you have to go back to the 1800s though to find a case where a Democratic president had a nominee appointed by a Republican Senate.
Okay so if cases start going back up, shut things back down.
High information Republican voters will know what he did and why, and will probably support his decision. Low information Republican voters will not know about his hypocrisy. Non-Republican voters won't vote for him regardless.

I expect McConnel to just create some reason why things are different this time, or, if he wants to be a troll, to say "I was wrong in 2016" or just to not address the hypocrisy and go right on ahead nominating a new Justice.
Obama is more of a realist than many in his party. He knew going in that no one would make it through the Senate, and that's why he nominated Garland. Why waste a quality Democrat jurist on a lost cause? I bet he was tempted to nominate Kavanaugh...
No, what happened is that Mitch McConnell refused to even allow a vote, and even Republican senators wouldn't have been able to vote for the centrist proposed by Obama.
Is the point to say that Ardern is somehow above it all? She just suspended the election, citing Covid, even though there were no transmissions for over 3 months.
One thing I like to point out is between Johnson and Clinton, Republican presidents placed 11 Supreme Court justices in a row (Nixon 4, Ford 1, Carter 0, Reagan 4, GW Bush 2), though the picks were usually not extreme because Democrats controlled the Senate except during six of Reagan's years.

After Bill Clinton seated two liberal justices there has been an unending cry about how liberal the court is.
You look at the core beliefs of the Republican Party:

Anti-Abortion: about or above sixty percent of Americans support legal abortions

Climate change: two thirds of Americans view it as a top priority and that the benefits of action outweigh the costs

Guns: sixty percent to two-thirds of Americans support stricter gun control. 90–92% support mandatory background checks

Taxing Wealthy: again, sixty percent to two thirds support higher taxes on the wealthy.

Those are the pillars. Those are the core propositions.

Americans do not support them or not by a margin of 1.1%
The whole concept of "have someone from NS8 log in to the online portal for each NS8 bank account, display the current account balance, and download monthly bank statements for fiscal year 2019." seems kind of weird and even ridiculous.

In the audits I've seen, the standard procedure to get the same information would require the company to authorise the auditors so that they could get a written confirmation of the funds directly from the bank or whoever holds the assets or debt. You would not trust the account statements that the company gives you, you would get the same (hopefully) account statements yourself. Accepting that watching a company employee log in some site is equivalent to getting an official confirmation from that outside third party is .... interesting. The whole point of an audit is to verify if everything that the company shows you is actually true instead of looking at what they show you and believing it.
They don't have the support there own party will turn on.
> I hope society is about to do a “big blink”.

Oh yeah? What does that take the form of? Does it take the form of people who have ideas that you don't like not being there when you open your eyes back up again?
That is still saying the same thing, isn't it?
I'm sorry but how exactly did they democrats get in the way last time when Obama was president? Rolling over and saying whats suppose to happen doesn't qualify as anything meaningful as far as I am concerned. If the democrats want support, they need to grow a fucking backbone and show us they deserve it.
I agree we probably shouldn't hold them legally responsible in general, but we in some cases we do.

https://reason.com/2020/08/22/do-threatened-businesses-and-i...
I can assure you that had Harry Reid been in charge of the Senate in 2016 he’d have pushed through a nominee as well.
Unfortunately, this isn't quite true. At least if by Unix you mean POSIX, i.e. you include macOS in your considerations.

1. Sadly, short options are in fact more portable than long options if you're targeting POSIX. For instance, macOS ships with versions of ls, rm, et cetera that only support short flags. This is because long options don't exist at all in POSIX (they're formalized here: https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/ge...).

2. Auto-completing partial options only happens for long flags, and it's a bit more than "some" parsers; the canonical implementation of "long" options, GNU's getopt_long, has it as a documented feature:

> Long option names may be abbreviated if the abbreviation is unique or is an exact match for some defined option.

https://linux.die.net/man/3/getopt_long

I 100% agree it's a poor feature. You basically entirely preclude yourself from adding features in a backwards-compatible way.
> Google/Amazon don't even need a complete working opensource driver - even a rough skeleton that reveals enough of the inner workings of the hardware is sufficient for them to build their own driver and save $Millions in licensing costs.

Google builds their own Mali driver? That's news to me, and I work on Android's kernel team!
Why are there life-terms on the Supreme Court? Doesn't that incentivize the justices to hold on past their prime, dying waiting for a new president or resigning in a politically motivated fashion? And don't life terms create a race to the bottom where younger justices are favored for longer remaining life?

Why not 20 year limits?
Who is paying attention to politics and thinks they are not acting in bad faith?
His constituency is all of Kentucky. Senators do not split their states, they represent it as a whole.

McConnell rules through the consent of half the senate, not alone.

This is literally the purpose of the senate. We are a union of states, and the senate is where each state is granted equal power. One could argue that states should have been defined differently, but the point was that large states should not have absolute control over small states.

Edit: I'm loving the downvotes without comments. They're clear indication that some people are either not arguing in good faith or that they simply do not understand how and why the us is set up the way it is.
The justification is the president and senate were controlled by different parties. You can already see that spin online. Also no joke, his argument was based on something Joe Biden said as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1992.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/05/mcconne...
It isn't about respect. The upcoming election may be disputed in court and the Administration wants to have as many judges on its side as possible. Even if there is no election related court challenge, there are many investigations of the current administration ongoing and it would be helpful to have more conservative justices for insurance.
Filibuster was abolished for SCOTUS nominations.

There was nothing procedurally that Democrats could have done to stop Kavanaugh. If there were, they would have.

They cannot stop this nomination by traditional means.
Visby's portable Covid-19 test gets FDA approval
The filibuster has always seemed anti-democratic - it’s not in the constitution, and I’m pretty sure that historically it was a way to make give the minority senators more power at the expense of the people.
People were horrible to each other online long before modern social media, and indeed in print and in person long before that. While some people do indeed pursue likes for their own sake, it's not the root cause of social aggression.
A year ago, We picked up, tracked, and analyzed 130k pieces of litter in SF
A year later, that worked helped get a trash can on nearly every intersection of SoMa West.

Link to my post from Sept 18th, 2019. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21008760

Link to medium about the Big Belly's that got installed and how we maintain them.
https://medium.com/rubbish-love/rubbish-launches-touch-less-cleanup-platform-in-soma-west-d7d7af6c60df
Did you consider reporting the people who reached out to you? Is there even a method in which to doso? Not sure if that would internal or externally.
Tell that to Merrick Garland.
And they lost it by winning 2.5 million more votes than the Republicans.
There's an alternate take on this where Nvidia is the only reason why there's any 3D support on Linux worth a damn....
Gerrymandering is at the top of my list. Solve that problem and it is easier to attack the other problems.
Understanding how modern societies fail was my professional field.

The United States is following in the footsteps of many countries that transitioned from democracy to authoritarianism. The judiciary was the last remaining bulwark that had been slightly slowing the erosion of democratic rights. With the judicial balance of power now in the hands of a president who has both taken steps to conduct an unfair election and has repeatedly expressed desires for extra-constitutional powers, it is naive in the extreme to imagine that American democracy is not mortally wounded.

America is turning itself into a cross between apartheid-era South Africa and Putin's Russia. While Trump has accelerated this trend, it is a trend far larger than him and it will not be stopped even if Biden somehow becomes the next president. Even if there is a Biden victory and some solution in the Senate, there must be no doubt that a 6-3 GOP USSC will overturn any pro-democratic, or anti-authoritarian, reforms that might be approved by Congress.

I reiterate, the alarm bells are ringing for America as a free society and it is time for anyone who doesn't want to live in The Handmaid's Tale to get out because things aren't going to get any better.
The metal doesn't get vaporised in the explosion. There's still at least $50k of scrap aluminium there for someone to salvage
> The text I quoted says that monopoly power is required.

Which is in reference to significant market power.

So cool. It seems like you agree with me, that it is significant market power which is required.

And Apple's significant market power, of ~50% of the US smartphone market can fall within that realm.

The point that I am making is that 50% of a market is within the realm of what courts have deemed to be significant market power, where significant market power is defined according to section 2 of the Sherman anti trust act.

And it seems like you agree with me and the FTC that 50% of the market share can fall within this definition, and can be within the realm where section 2 of the Sherman anti trust act applies.

Here is another quote talking about this, from the FTC:

"A "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power.".

So significant and durable market power. That is the definition. Glad you agree with my definition that is simply a quote from the FTC.