skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I agree with you that presidents who lose the popular vote have questionable legitimacy. But Bush did actually win the popular vote in 2004 (a majority even) for his second term, which is when he appointed Roberts and Alito.
Whitewash much?
I am under no delusions about what I mentioned as panaceas.

But in terms of direct action that democrats could pass in the first week (the bills exist already), those are my picks.

Gerrymandering would take a constitutional amendment. Yes, it would help more, but that’s a moot point if the people we’re talking about can’t do it.
Yes, instead we live in a country where a few small rural states wield vastly outsized influence.

So much better!
Personally, I love this country. Best of luck to you.
I wonder if he will go down in American history as a more poisonous senator than McCarthy.
A political showdown over the nominee would very well be the decisive moment of this campaign and determine the presidency.

The Dems took a huge risk with Kavanaugh going after the way they did (allegations against an 18 year old at a party where technically nothing happened???) but were saved by a a deeply emotive testimony by a woman who pulled a lot of heartstrings and came off credibly.

That was an incredible risk because if that performance was not across the line ... it would have completely backfired.

Also - merely making a nomination makes Trump look strong.

Winning a competition against Dems - which I think he can because he has the votes - looks strong.

I don't see any way for the Dems to win with this unless Trump nominates a total fool.

Trump is flirting with the same poll numbers Hillary had las time and Biden is not a strong candidate ... this is not a good position for the Dems to be in.
That Democrats identified the Republican inability or unwillingness to either woo or eliminate the new voters only further argues in favor of their strategic acumen.
Yep a wish. Like magic. I mean to say that even she knows that our constitution isn’t written for wishes.

I say this as a completely dejected person knowing that the Republicans will fill that seat with another solidly conservative judge, not out of glee.
I am an immigrant who relied on the Supreme Court to stay in the US legally. I don't think it'll do you much good to have a 10k wager with me, lol.
It's not the catalyst, it's the accelerant - when you have 1000 points for your troll post you're sure as heck gonna do more of them.
I find this attitude towards front-end developers unamuzing. If you have a beef with subset of developers in your workplace that happen to to work on the front-end, you should not take your frustration or generalize their behavior over an entire industry.
There is an equivalent to tie

let Tuple { elt0, elt2, ..} = value.
Though it pains me a little to acknowledge that the Sociopath in Chief could be capable of anything that could possibly be construed as ‘good,’ gonna have to agree. Seconded.
Honest at least.
Yup, I don't trust Facebook either. But many regular users (not the people here on HN or reddit) don't even know that that means, let alone care. Facebook knows only a minority would make this an issue whatsoever, and they keep it. Not defending right or wrong, but I think this is just it.
That is not the precedent: https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/08/history-is-on-the-sid...

> History supports Republicans filling the seat. Doing so would not be in any way inconsistent with Senate Republicans’ holding open the seat vacated by Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016. The reason is simple, and was explained by Mitch McConnell at the time. Historically, throughout American history, when their party controls the Senate, presidents get to fill Supreme Court vacancies at any time — even in a presidential election year, even in a lame-duck session after the election, even after defeat. Historically, when the opposite party controls the Senate, the Senate gets to block Supreme Court nominees sent up in a presidential election year, and hold the seat open for the winner. Both of those precedents are settled by experience as old as the republic.

The linked article actually goes on to describe every situation where there was an election year Supreme Court vacancy. Please read.
More than Trump? McConnell is at least a professional politician and not a washed-up reality TV heir.
Something I learned with tabbed browsing is that its important to clear the working "memory". One of my most used shortcuts is "close other tabs", and "close tabs to the right". Keeping tabs open should be like allocating to the stack and frequently cleared when the task is done. I might open 5 tabs from one link but when I have what I need I'll move the only the ones I need to the left and close the ones to the right. I find clearing tabs very refreshing - when in doubt: nuke it.

The introduction of tabs was fantastic, and I'm very glad you brought it to us. It bundles windows together, I would rather pick up my firefox bucket and look for a web page there than to look through a dumpster of software windows. But it took me a very long time before I figured out how to not let it get out of hand.

If people are afraid of losing tabs, they just aren't trusting their own memory/curiosity enough. When something is important, your mind tends to remember it, and if it wasn't, then its okay to have lost it. If something was that crucial, you can just Google it again, and if you cant find it on Google you still have your browser history.
Is America Headed for a New Kind of Civil War? (2017)
> Honestly, many of rust’s safety promises don’t help the type of low level code I write, so I’m skeptical of the “embedded rust” push. But embedded is a huge field so some people will definitely benefit from what rust makes available.

Why exactly? Once you write an abstraction on top of the raw addresses for configuring the hardware (usually already provided by a library) you don't need to use unsafe at all. One of the first things you do in C is write macros for all the addresses you use, writing safe wrappers isn't that much more complex than that.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Supreme Court’s Feminist Icon, Is Dead at 87
To me this isn't just another reason, it's THE reason to not use the short form in scripts. Although unlikely, the worst case of this could be pretty nasty. It's possible for someone to remove a flag that was deemed useless and add another flag that matches the same prefix and has a very different effect.

I don't know how to feel about % and ?. The thought with not using them is that they are just aliases and could be changed. But that reasoning sort of breaks down since any command could be aliased to something dumb like `Set-Alias Get-Content Remove-Item`.
The NPR story has been voted up, but I think the NY Times has better coverage
Wow Hawley and Cotton have risen meteorically. I would have half-expected Hawley's crypto-unionist populism to have kept him off such a list, but he'd surely be better than the others mentioned. Somehow, he ran for MO Attorney General without promising to further brutalize minorities. Within two years he was in the Senate and now within two more years he would be on the Supreme Court? Wow.
I'd say that if you need 1000+ tabs, there is a problem. Not with you but with the browser.

I mean, how can you not get lost? Do you realize the thing you are looking for is on tab 248 before lookin it up again?

At that point these are not tabs anymore they are a directory or a history. I think using tabs for that is totally inadequate.

Unfortunately, browsers tend to be lacking in that department. They have a list of closed tabs to restore, but limited to a ridiculously small number like 10. They have a bookmark system but it doesn't save the state of the page like a tab. They have a history but it fills up with crap too quickly.

An unlimited, easily searchable tab close history could make keeping lots of tabs unnecessary. It is much easier closing a tab when you know it won't be lost.
He’s already said this year is different. He made that comment months ago.
I think the dot actually gives you issues on Mac? Or something like that. I remember encountering issues with it.
The whole electoral college is non-intentional gerrymandering. The candidate with fewer votes has been winning since 2000, and winning with a wider and wider vote margin. A major political goal should be getting the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact done.
Who is "we" in this comment? Democrats? Not Republicans? Progressives?

While your comment is both technically and strategically correct, this sort of binary "us vs them" mentality has caused america such harm and always strikes me as somewhat reductionist. I wish more focus would be on policies and individuals instead of D vs R (as if greens, libertarians, socialists, etc simply do not exist in america's 300M+). Perhaps i am just romanticizing an impossible future, though.
> Do you honestly think the Supreme Court would allow a President to win a 3rd term?

Do I think a Supreme Court starting with the current one, with Ginsberg’s empty seat and probably Justice Breyer’s replaced by the kind of people the current Republican Party would appoint and confirm (assuming Trump gets a second term and the Republicans hold the Senate) would allow Trump to serve beyond the end of his second term with a fig leaf of an excuse of emergency preventing normal process, even with the 22nd Amendment in place?

Probably not, but I don't see it as outside the realm of possibility.

> Care to bet $10k on there being a free and fair election in 2028? I get “Yes”, you can have “No”.

No one who has publicly expressed concern about an incipient authoritarian regime can expect to be able to collect and enjoy their winnings if the answer is no, so that's never going to be a bet they'll accept no matter how certain they are of the outcome.
I’m sure he realizes how outraged people were by that decision and to not make the same mistake this time.
I will never be able to get the image of her in a burqa practically kneeling before foreign men begging for their acceptance in the days following the Christchurch massacre.

That was utterly inappropriate and humiliating. For all their faults, in this respect, thank heavens Trump and Johnson aren't Ardern.
With Supreme Court supremacy Republicans don’t have to get re-elected by voters anymore, they just have to dispute the results, lose, and appeal up to the nearest friendly court.
Widespread conflict will get Trump elected, this is already proving the case as people see 'violence' instead of 'protesting' Trump is getting momentum. Don Lemon on CNN literally asking for people to calm down due to this fact.

Edit: Trump's support grew consistently as public support for BLM waned in face of the 'perception of violence' [1] - which Trump's team sees and is why he's pushing a 'law and order' message. The risk of BLM is that 'empathy' will easily be overwhelmed by 'concern' if pictures of violence play out on their TV screens every night. People will always chose public order over almost anything else.

[1] https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/02/trump-black-lives-m...
I find this “thems the laws” theme in this thread pretty outrageous. Congress used run on decorum, arcane rules, and norms. Those norms were thrown out the window when the Senate refused to even have a hearing on Merrick Garland. Arguably, they had a legal requirement to do at least that. But now we’re supposed to pretend that “rules are rules”, and this is all totally normal.
Don’t they already offer flights to Antarctica that don’t land for sightseeing? And those are 12 hour flights too.

It’s interesting that other airlines are adapting by introducing these ‘excursion’ flights for the pent up tourist market.
Here’s another one which exports sketches to DXF files in addition to the 3D models.

https://github.com/Jnesselr/fusion-360-total-exporter
I agree on Obama. Biden played a large part as well.

Remember that they got rid of a public option in negotiations to win Republicans over. And got zero Republican votes.

Obama was many things, but he was not good at congressional politics. He saw himself as about the fray, and it showed.
The point was that the two Amazon employees were citizens of India and took the bribes in India, so they were outside US jurisdiction.
And he just cited the position Joseph Biden asserted in 1992, no kidding: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/us/politics/joe-biden-arg...
I disagree entirely and in fact most of the rest of the world have laws against Supreme Court Justices serving well into old age like this. Her health problems were known during President Obama's term and it was nothing more than hubris on her part to continue serving.

It's fairly irresponsible to work until the day you die if a sudden death can have absolutely devastating and life changing consequences for a significant number of people.
Source?

(Not saying you're wrong. If I repeat something, I like to have direct sources)
Maybe people are now, more often than not, talking to Human nodes in a network, and the network outperforms you in presenting data that will match a confirmation bias.

So it would imply that you can reason with an individual who isn’t acting as node.
> He ideally should be able to, as long as the correct procedures are followed.

Part of that procedure is having your party in charge of the Senate at the time of said nomination. Obama did nominate someone, he simply could not get him confirmed. That's on Obama (and Democrats more generally).

Trump will also nominate someone, and because his party has a majority in the Senate, that nominee will likely be confirmed whether Trump wins the upcoming election or not.

I am 100% certain that if Obama had a Democratic Senate majority when he nominated Merrick Garland, his nominee also would have been confirmed. (As a registered Democrat myself, I would have demanded it.)

There is no other precedent here: you accomplish in office what you can (procedurally) accomplish. Trump lucked out here; Obama didn't.
A Republican USSC throwing out the constitution, and the principle of democratic fairness, to put a Republican in the White House is not without precedent.

Al Gore legitimately won the 2000 election. The USSC prevented him from taking office.
This is America there is literally nothing stopping anything from happening if you wield power.
https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/Pages/NewsDetail.aspx?...

"Venezuela: UN report urges accountability for crimes against humanity"

“The Mission found reasonable grounds to believe that Venezuelan authorities and security forces have since 2014 planned and executed serious human rights violations, some of which – including arbitrary killings and the systematic use of torture – amount to crimes against humanity,” said Marta Valiñas, chairperson of the Mission.

“Far from being isolated acts, these crimes were coordinated and committed pursuant to State policies, with the knowledge or direct support of commanding officers and senior government officials.”
FireSaaS is down, please try again later.
Trump wants to skate from state (NY) let alone federal charges after the election if he loses. The Democrats should use this leverage for all it’s worth. If he’s going to act like a mob boss let’s turn him like one.
A bit melodramatic. Unless 95% of the rest of the world is a hellscape of a country too.
Yep. This is what I fully expect to happen. It's despicable, but it makes way too much sense. You motivate moderate conservatives, and if you win you get to claim the moral high ground. If you lose, you push a lame duck justice through anyway. This is a gift from a campaign strategy point of view.

I feel terrible focusing on the political maelstrom and not RBG's legacy, but these are also important conversations to have.
There are so many unpacked assumptions and unevaluated arguments here it would take a book to work through them all.

To give a short version - if you oppose a filibuster, then don't use it to prevent Merrick Garland from being on the court.

Nothing about Schumer's position on the filibuster in 2002 can be used to argue that the trajectory of court appointments since then is a culmination of any logically consistent argument in response to it.
That depends entirely on the votes that happen this year. The point is, those republicans aren't going to risk losing almost all their guaranteed votes that come from republican voters.
>mass hysterectomies in ICE camps

It seems quite a bit over the top. Do you really think it's true?
Nah. I’ve lived in other countries, but none as long as America. It is truely the door through which satan enters the world.
Thorsten Ball’s “Writing an Interpreter in Go” has a very in-depth walkthrough of building a Pratt parser. It’s a very good read/tutorial.

Maybe it’s just me but it seems there’s a lot of language design coming out recently. E.g. Bob Nystrom has “Crafting Interpreters.” It really like that language design and parsing gets more attention, which is great because it’s fascinating stuff.
The Democrats wanted the nomination to go through, but the Republicans blocked it. There's no real precedent unless both parties are for it.
The point is that he could have called McConnell out and demanded the advice of the Senate (which would have required at least holding hearings).
> The vast majority of people are greedy, uneducated and selfish.

That's a naive view of human personality. The reality is that all people are "greedy" and "selfish" in that they consciously or subconsciously pursue their own interest. (Some people do suffer from various degrees of developmental trauma that affects their ability to do that easily, but the part of the brain that is responsible for that still exists. "psychologists" sometimes refer to this as inability to perceive borders, perception of self etc).

Now, the set of people that you are referring to by exclusion, i.e. those that are not "greedy, uneducated and selfish" simply find themselves in a priviledged position and signal virtue by painting themselves as climate conscious individuals. Of course, the brain hides most of the real motivation behind this reasoning.

Are there also people who want to see the world burn? Absolutely. Again trauma does that to people. But most mentally "healthy" people don't want the planet to become uninhabitable for human life.

This is all coming from someone who was at one point in life deeply affected by intense destruction of natural ecosystems around, intense logging, illegal deforestation. I was an avid cyclist and used to love nature and was seeing the destruction on my rides. But you learn to accept that, this is the way of life.

===============

Now, to answer to original question. What must happen for humanity to coordinate on solving this problem? I don't expect humanity to be able to do it. But I think what would need to happen as a stepping stone, is to end most of the conflict in the world right now. This is of course impossible to do in one generation. When you stop seeing the world in "us vs them" and the vast majority of people emphatize with everyone else and other life forms, i think coordination is possible. I doubt humanity will reach that point though.
The argument is usually that you can at least circumvent automated scanners with a WAF. Thst point is pretty moot with Cloudflare powering a double digit percentage of all website, though.
No but it shows a 3D plot. Want to see a photo?
Your slicing software should warn you if the model is non-manifold.

https://www.instructables.com/id/Non-manifolds-Your-Worst-3D...
Is it though? Most people are more politically center and the extremes of the political spectrum keep trying to pull politicians towards the extremes. When that failed to work, they started pulling out the "you're either with us or against us" card forcing people to pick sides or be ostracized if they risked being nuanced.
I’m a Jew raised by Holocaust survivors. Why do I have a feeling you’re not really acquainted with anyone from that demographic?
One of the mechanisms for beginning the amending of the USA constitution is via a 2/3 vote of both houses of Congress. The USA House of Representatives assigns political power approximately proportionally to population and it has never passed any proposed amendment to proportionally elect Senators or delegates of the Electoral College.

Source: Article V

Edit: Corrected 3/4 -> 2/3

Edit2: I stand corrected. The Bayh-Celler proposal was passed by the House and filibustered in the Senate in 1970.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_abolition_am...
Polls are notoriously unreliable and easy to manipulate. "Lies, damned lies, and statistics". I'm not even saying that you're wrong -- I'm saying that we have no way to know whether you're correct or not based on the numbers you threw out. We would need some good sources to even begin to evaluate the truth of these assertions.

The assertions themselves are so unbelievably vague that they could easily go either way with cherry-picked polling. Most people support abortion in cases of rape, so if you do a poll asking if people think some abortion should be legal, you will easily get a majority. If you ask about easy access to abortion in the 9th month, you get far lower levels of support. Saying "most support legal abortions" is practically meaningless without specifying what type of abortion they support.
The More-Stupid-Wars Party has ruled USA for at least a couple of decades by now.
I for one, hope to all hell, this doesn't happen. It would make the supreme court just an extension of any party in power of presidency and senate.

This is also, not to say I want freaking TRUMP to appoint the next justice. I just don't want to see it become a game of who's got the most votes.

I was very opposed to Obama losing his appointment.

I just don't want the precedent of 9 to change.
I think there's being more and more work being done to make cross platform easier, and I think the move to Silicon is going to be great for the community at large. I don't expect to play Triple A titles on my Mac, no. But I do expect "develop once, deploy everywhere" including iOS and MacOS as target OS's to get significantly more funding and investment. And I think indie titles are going to take advantage of that ability.
Can you explain what you mean? The nuclear option [1] is used by the majority party in the Senate to end a filibuster by the minority party. Democrats are the minority party in the Senate and hence have no such option available to them.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option
Wait you’re saying Jews aren’t a monolith?
Bush likely wouldn't have won 2004 without 2000 though.
The like button is my performative social stupidity amplified. My stupid is loud enough already.

In all those generations of horrendous behaviour there are predictable patterns. At our best we are wonderful curious intelligent and kind, but in the heat of the moment, most of us don't have a lot of emotional self control, so we need to plan ahead to make better behaviour effortless and stupid behaviour effortful.

The like button is a mini version of the gun control debate, of course guns don't kill people on their own (actually... says boston robotics in the corner). I have close friend, a well respected law graduate now working in another field who said this week he'd love to have a weapon to wave at people who cut him off in traffic. This is a man who has worked for years to build a life and career, and he lacks the judgement to not escalate a trivial tiff with a stranger to a life or career ending act of stupidity.