skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Human rights are a binary thing: either you are a human and you have them, or you are not a human and you don't have them. IMO it all comes down to when we define the bag of cells to be a human being. Once the bag of cells is a human being murdering it is obviously a crime.

IMO any view point between the first cells are already a human being to it becoming a human at birth are valid. Why not settle this in a referendum once and for all? If the vote is close to 50-50 maybe a more regional referendum would make sense to maximise happines with the outcome.
> but all skin colors are equal

I'm sorry but that sentiment is anti-woke, and therefore by definition racist.
The viability standard of Roe v Wade is not about personhood but about physical dependency.

In other words, it’s not murder, and is ethical, to pull the plug on someone who’s hooked to your body to survive, if there is no other way to save them.

This is a very enlightened stance imo, and inductively implies abortion will one day be both illegal and in low demand.
1. This is why DevOps means working together, and not siloing different components of the same solution.

2. QA is still needed sometimes. The tedious tasks need to be automated, but that never gets prioritized.

3. Traditional Ops only cover non-functional and operational requirements. What is agreed and documented with Ops?

4. Ops are rarely invited in early, if ever.

The problem is the siloing, aka not doing DevOps.
> Interestingly survivorship/success is an unbiased estimator of merit imo

If that is the case, can you fail on purpose?
>Is a fetus a baby or not?

The question seems to be:

"When is a fetus considered a separate life?" or perhaps "When does a fetus become a baby?"

That's a lot harder to define than you might think. (At least that's the argument ...) Pro-life people tend to see a cut and dried answer to that, where Pro-Choice people tend see it as a bit more ambiguous.
Most companies will put up with whatever regressive social policies are put in place as long as the locales in which they're enacted are suitable for them to do business.
You can choose to use an iPhone. Most people will never be targeted. Hell you could use a phone with no security at all and odds are you’ll be safe. But if you have enemies or are a high profile target, apple has made you easy to destroy. iPhones themselves can be hacked with no click attacks and we know this because macron’s phone was one of many that was listed in the recent fiasco. Icloud can be hacked because legions of celebrities had their nudes published. If the device is not secure, even for the president of France, and iCloud is not secure for legions if celebrities, then people can and will be hit with this attack and have their lives permanently destroyed. Worse than having you sex photos leaked, worse than having all you calls and communications intercepted, you’ll become known as a pedo. You can’t undo that. To be sure, that probably won’t happen to most people, but political figures, those with enemies working in infosec, etc…. I want a secure phone, and iPhone no longer meets that need for me and many others. You can do you.
https://onlinepublichealth.gwu.edu/resources/equity-vs-equal...
That's really interesting, I had no idea systemd could do that. Have you written in more detail anywhere? I'd love to see a detailed comparison between approaches.
I killed part of myself by cutting my nails. They're cells too, I should be executed!
If you could be determined to be solely at fault, and if you're a match, and if there aren't other kidneys available, then I suppose that would make sense. The issue is that the mother (usually) made a choice to help create the fetus, or with the possibility of doing so (note that I am okay with abortions in case of rape for this reason).
They actually do discuss that on the pro-life side. They point out in that case, where's the line? Calling it "viability" is fuzzy because, are old people / disabled viable; and also because preemie babies are increasingly likely to survive earlier and earlier.

For example, just a few weeks ago, the world's most premature baby (with 0% chance of survival at the time, completely unviable) just had his 1st birthday.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2021/06/23/prematur...
No it wouldn't. Companies can choose who they wish to do business with except for certain protected classes, and being a politician or anti-abortion are not protected classes. Lots of companies refused to do business with Trump or Parker following the insurrection and that was all legal (and continues to this day).
Check out Purrington (2018), «The Heroic Age»
Much of the criticism of the Texas voting law is demagoguery:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/whats-really-in-the-texas-votin...
What’s Really in the Texas Voting Law
Progressives are crying ‘voter suppression,’ but here are the facts.
By The Editorial Board
Wall Street Journal
Sept. 1, 2021 6:38 pm ET

...

The Texas bill isn’t a blockade of the ballot box. The two most-cited provisions will ban 24-hour voting and drive-through voting, practices that weren’t even used until last year, when one county tried them in a pandemic. It isn’t crazy to think polling sites are likelier to attract trouble, or at least suspicion, at 3 a.m.

Early voting in Texas will be able to run from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., or Sundays from 9 a.m. to 10 p.m. In some places, mandatory hours will go up. The bill says six Sunday hours will be required in counties with 55,000 people. The current rule is five hours in counties over 100,000. The new ban on drive-through voting has an exception for people with physical difficulties.

Texans using mail ballots will ID themselves by writing a driver’s license number or the last four digits of a Social Security number. That’s far less subjective than asking election workers to eyeball signatures. If the ID number is correct, the signature will be “presumed” valid. If the ID is wrong or there’s another problem, the bill provides a process to fix it. Goofs will be correctable until “the sixth day after election day.”

The bill is 75 pages, but here are some other bits that won’t make headlines but will help voter integrity: Every two years the state will audit four random counties. Ballot harvesting “in exchange for compensation” will be banned. Counties with more than 100,000 people will have to live stream video from their central counting location. Mail votes will be reported separately on election returns.

Election administrators will be barred from sending unsolicited absentee forms, though candidates and parties can do so. Courts will “instruct” newly convicted felons on their changed voting rights. Official correspondence with voting-system vendors will be deemed generally “not confidential.”

Democrats object that the bill empowers poll watchers. It also requires watchers to take a state “training program” and an oath that they won’t “disrupt the voting process.” The bill will make it a crime if an official “knowingly refuses to accept a watcher” or “knowingly prevents a watcher from observing an activity or procedure the person knows the watcher is entitled to observe.” The key word: “knowingly.”
If only life was that simple. Sometimes the answer is a cold "it is a life; and you should end it."
What about vaccine passports?
Surprised they weren't more careful with this after Google had the same problem a few years ago.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/12/16882408/google-racist-go...
rot13("<undecoded:867567715>")
Well raising money early is likely appealing to the founders of the companies, which may help YC attract better talent, creating a virtuous cycle.
To end, it must first begin.
Well, nobody thinks they "murder a cow" to eat a steak even though we kill animals for food. Though this is the case that we kill animals, it doesn't really cross most people's minds. I've killed, dressed, broken down, cooked, and eaten animals plenty of times and am unbothered. Different rules for animals; I don't have a problem with killing them, though don't do so needlessly.
Developer returns to game after 4 decades, discovers and fixes typo so it works
I'd add to what you said that it's an apparent goal, because it's goal isn't concrete nor fixed. It's an impossible always changing imaginary that always needs more power and more obedience. Everything is about grabbing the power to produce behavioral control to keep them in power.
They use that argument (that it is murder) to appeal to the emotions of others so they can justify controlling the lives of nonreligious people who have premarital sex. Unless they also support social programs for that fetus when it actually becomes a baby, and eventually a child, it seems pretty disingenuous.
Strangely, all of those countries agree on important societal issues.
A look at one of the Soviet Union's first SLR cameras, the KMZ Start
There were tons of windows 95/98 computers with network shares exposed to the internet with no or weak passwords. It was really convenient to get their stored password list.
My body my choice!

Oh, wait.
Every time I hear from farmers locally it's the same thing, it is getting harder to get by.

This will blow up on us and relatively soon. Alea iacta est. Yet these changes in temperature and percipitation will continue to get worst faster and faster.

It's incredible really how fast things are changing. You can see it from space.
This is a straw man, nails are obviously dead. If you want to cut off your finger, however, that's your right. If you cut off your child's, you should be tossed in jail.
Just to clarify, TCS seems to only have 500,000 people employed, the whole DOD has roughly 2.86 million as of 2018, of them 100,000 are software developers. I don't think that the entirety of TCS is made up of software developers.
The underlying question is how big this "movement" is, or whether it's been blown out of proportion by the opposing political team, who benefits from the bogeyman.

So yes, your criticism of wokeism is valid. The question is how relevant it is. You mention "some naive people". Yes, in a highly connected world of 8 billion people, some people are doing literally anything. The question is whether there is enough of a new trend to make for an actual concern, or whether it's being blown out of proportion and context. This matters because opposition to wokeness seems to be its own strain of identity politics.
Very simple. There is no societal agreement and hence no logical conclusion on this issue. So argument is for Pro-life vs Anti-life or Pro-freedon vs Anti-freedom. But Anti-life people call themselves pro-choice and Anti-freedom people call themselves pro-life.
It's unlikely. Search for images of primate, and you'll see fairly dark, humanoid shapes. Poor training data then seems like a more probable reason for visual confusion.

> You only have a story worth reading when it’s against an underprivileged minority.

To some extent. But I think there would also be a story if some medicine would work badly on white people, or men. The problem here is that these labels would be there for everyone to see and comment on.

If facebook would live by their own rules, they would ban the AI team from using fb accounts.
Sure, but it gets the point across.
Video adaptation: https://youtube.com/watch?v=h6fcK_fRYaI
This is not a political discussion site. Please don't submit stories like this. They just provide yet another anonymous place for people to argue and talk past each other.
At this point I feel like it's beyond ridiculous to try to defend the Republicans restrictive voting rights restrictions, because in many areas Republicans themselves have basically admitted they just don't like democracy. In Arizona the head of the GOP was lamenting there wasn't a statewide "Electoral College" (i.e. a way for the majority vote winner to be declared the loser), and in Georgia some in the GOP only toned down some of their voting rights restrictions when they realized it would hurt rural white voters. They don't even try to hide their cynicism in the BS "voting integrity" language anymore, because many of the restrictions (reducing early voting hours for example) just make it harder to vote with no benefit to voting security.
As someone who is very supportive of the current pronouns-consciousness, I agree.
Unfortunately the lolbertarian approach overlooks the fact that you live in a civilization composed of others humans, and that the collective mental health of said humans can very quickly impact your day to day life.

So you, as an individual, have a vested interest in participating in social trends/resisting social normalization of beliefs that harm your way of life.

Say you enjoy the pub, it is in your interest to resist a social movement banning alcohol (or immigration from countries where these views are common).
"So offensive" to whom? The author? We should all interact through APIs instead of conversation. This way language is filtered, sanitized, and translated in accordance with an individual's sensitivities and predilections.
> America is a huge country and we've been discovering over the last decade that we are a lot more divided than we realized.

This is pretty much exclusively true of sheltered relatively affluent (“middle class” in popular use, but including the upper income end of the working class) people born around 1980 who reached social awareness in the brief local minimum of general social division (but an not of partisan political division, which was gearing up quite hard at the time) of the mid- to late-1990s.

Everyone else, pretty much, was already aware of the underlying divisions, even if they were enjoying the brief respite in the immediate palpability of them.
1) When did we start thinking that life doesn't begin at conception? Why is OK for a mother to end a life? By just about every definition that child growing inside of her is a unique life. Sure, it's dependent on mom for a while, but being dependent on a parent doesn't stop when the baby exits the birth canal. So why is it OK to kill the child in the birth canal but not outside of it?

2) What greater equalizer is there in a self-defense situation than a firearm? If you are an average woman being attacked by an average man, what out there is a greater equalizer and application of stopping force than a firearm? If you are a man being attacked by a stronger man what is a greater equalizer than a firearm? The US has in excess of 300 million firearms, an estimated 800,000 to 3,000,000 instances of defensive use of firearms a year. Each of those numbers is massive in comparison to the miniscule number of gun homicides (approx 14k) or even gun related suicides (30k) per year according to the last study the CDC did on guns. Maybe it's not the guns that are the problem. Maybe it's a very select set of people who use the guns that are the problem?

3) In the US, to do anything of larger consequence (buy/lease/rent a vehicle, purchase a house, rent an apartment, purchase alcohol, enter certain buildings, travel by plane, buy a firearm, in some cases file taxes) you need an ID. Why is so ludicrous to suggest that voting be something that unilaterally requires an ID? Over 3/4's of the nation's minorities support voter ID.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/194741/four-five-americans-supp...
It's starting to look like I will need a vax pass just to go to a restaurant. Why is this such an issue?

EDIT to try and make more readable
But will the array survive a rebuild? The calculators I've used gave me significant probability of uncorrectable read errors during this process. It only got worse as capacity increased.
> I don't see how it matters whether the fetus is alive or not. If it can't survive outside the mother then the mother has the right to kill it.

This is a valid position to hold, but hardly a non-controversial one. We have, as a society, agreed that the state’s role is to step in to defend the defenseless in cases of large power asymmetry, as would be the case here. Indeed this general principle is usually a leftist position.

> Either way you made a risky choice that you knew could cause someone's life to be dependent on you. That doesn't mean you're forced to save the person.

Actually it does (speaking generally, not to your specific example). Criminal or civil negligence is a thing.
This frame is an error, and is leading to a lot of unnecessary division imo.

Unborn people are unique because they are entirely dependent upon a mother to survive in a way that cannot be replaced.

The human right to life is not absolute, at least under current law: a person who literally requires your body’s metabolical processes to survive is not entitled to that, and so we have decided the provider has the choice to cease providing it at anytime, with the stipulation that at the time the decision is made, they cannot choose mechanisms to end it which unnecessarily harm the recipient.
> I don't see how it matters whether the fetus is alive or not. If it can't survive outside the mother then the mother has the right to kill it.

I shuddered a bit reading this. By this logic, at any point where I am dependent on someone else for my survival in passage (say an airplane) the principle in the relationship (the pilot or airline) has a right to kill me?

If that’s the logic, then we can squarely see that we have chosen to punish those who have any responsibility in that situation. Re: wrongful death
For voting, generally speaking these restrictions tend to make it harder for people who lean Democrat. There’s a good ACLU overview here: https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/block-the-vote-vot...

For abortion, it’s comes down to this: do you believe a fertilized egg is a baby, and it’s equivalent to murder? And if you do / don’t, at what point are you ok with it?

Lot of people here believe it’s a baby at moment of conception, so any abortion is murder. Lot of people also believe it’s the woman choice, it’s her body. These two opposite forces tug and pull and you end up with shit like after six weeks it’s illegal.
More importantly, is a fetus 6 weeks after conception, after the development of the umbilical cord, a baby or not ?

We can take the view that as long as the child is inside the mother, then the mother's choice trumps the right of the child to exist. After all, the mother's body is hosting the child.

Or we can take the view that rights of life immediately after conception is sacred and must be upheld.

Or we can take the view, that the fetus is considered a human being after some X amount of time in the mother's womb. Maybe until the umbilical cord is developed and nutrient-transfer, pseudo-breathing begins ? Or maybe only within the first trimester ?

I actually don't know what is the right decision. Though I am personally more in the line of "My Body, My Choice", but that includes vaccination. (even if I am fully vaccinated).

I wish humanity developed artificial wombs and full social support system from baby to adulthood so this question goes away.
Create a Skeleton Loading
Does this imply then that, let's say a mother was in a position where breastfeeding her child was the only way the child would survive (in the wilderness for some reason, for example), that she should be acquitted if she refused to do so and the child died? The baby needed to be hooked on her body to survive.
"The Boston Logan Airport Terminal Doppler Weather Radar (TDWR) operates on 5.610 GHz, which is wireless channel 120."
This is a fascinating comment to me as a window into the unexamined assumptions of a liberal mind. (Well, I don't know your politics but I think its safe to say this is typical of what American liberals think.)

> There is no unborn child. It's not even a thinking mass of cells. A fetus is not a life.

The fetus would grow into a life if it were not for the violent intervention of an abortion. Is the future relevant to a system of ethics? Take for example the debate over universal pre-k. What harm is there right now if a toddler in the ghetto doesn't learn their ABCs until a few years later. Or is it the proponents think it will lead to problems later on in life.

> What this shows is that conservatives do not give a single shit about harm

Maybe a single shit but harm/care is only one of several moral foundations. Read your Haidt. Or atleast this excerpt from the wikipedia page on moral foundations theory:

"Researchers have found that people's sensitivities to the five/six moral foundations correlate with their political ideologies. Using the Moral Foundations Questionnaire, Haidt and Graham found that libertarians are most sensitive to the proposed Liberty foundation, liberals are most sensitive to the Care and Fairness foundations, while conservatives are equally sensitive to all five/six foundations."

Incidently, another of Haidts' findings is that conservatives are much better at understanding why liberals are liberal than liberals are at understanding why conservatives are conservative.

> this is about their own little morals and ethic

Well duh! morals and ethics are by definition the principles that drive a person to act.

> allows them to justify a miserable existence for a woman and a child

From the childs point of view (what child is that btw? I thought a fetus wasn't one.) not existing at all seems to be as miserable as possible. But a better question might be is there no reason to oppose abortion except a desire to cause misery.

> because you, as a man who is never going to be in a situation where your only choices are either getting an abortion in secret or being sued for doing do

I'm never going to be a loser drug addict who got his neck stepped on by the police. Can I say nothing in support of George Floyd? In general, can one only express a moral opinion on subjects one has direct experience of?

> thought that you could control their bodies.

This is about a law. Law is an instrument by which human societies control the bodies of women and men. Law is also how those societies can discuss when to control and how much but control is what is going on. As I write this, there is this group of strangers called "doctors" who are attempting to control my body by covering my face and sticking me with needles. Can you think of a non-nefarious reason why they might be doing this?
A baby outside the womb can't survive without support either. Why is it OK to kill the child in the womb but not outside the womb based on that position?
Your safeguard is the choice to act or not act. That's a feature of a free individual. Not a bug. Choices don't become invalid or "wrong" because some people have been wildly successful with theirs while others haven't.

What exactly makes wealth such a sticking point in these arguments against libertarianism? It's not considered wrong to be "too" intelligent, or "too" handsome, or "too" strong. But for some reason using these qualities and abilities to obtain money, supposedly in excess of some "moral number" like $1B, results in being "too" wealthy and thus "wrong". Wealth and private property are a representation of value earned through choices made. I would think that one would want more value in his life not less. In a free market, value is generated by choosing to vote with one's dollar, gold bar, or bitcoin. Private property is NOT coercion. Coercion implies you own nothing and owe everything.
I am planning to. :) It's going slowly though.

Have a look at these in systemd.exec[1]: PrivateUsers,
DynamicUser, ProtectProc, RootDirectory.

There are more, but these are the main ones.

[1]: https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/systemd.exe...
cough Brexit cough
Context for point 5:

- MIT sued Gehry's firm: https://thetech.com/2007/11/09/lawsuit-v127-n53

- Eventual settlement: https://thetech.com/2010/03/19/statasuit-v130-n14
> Abortion is really a very simple issue, those who say it is about "regulating women" attack a straw man. Pro-lifers believe that abortion is murder of the baby.

Doubtful. So-called "pro-lifers" are also, generally, against other forms of birth-control, including pills and condoms.

Also, even if they did believe that an embryo is a baby, that doesn't make it so. What they "believe" (or say they believe) shouldn't matter; what matters is what is.