skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> No, that's just something you must have hallucinated, because it's clearly not something I said. You're arguing with spooks. Turns out anarchists aren't really into states, let alone states forcing people to do anything. Maybe prejudice as a mode of inference isn't that valuable after all. Who knew.

I concede that I've likely taken your statement the wrong way.

> Don't you dare put "help" in scare quotes either. People are starving and they need help.

Which people are starving? Where? How did they get into that position? Whenever I hear the word "help", it's for some pet project that is at best a bandaid and ,at worst, a con under the guise of a charitable act.
It's interesting how the "individual responsibility" mechanism works by depriving people of agency.

Not gun owners of course, but the victims of gun violence.
That rural voters live different lives than urban voters? There isn't much commonality between them, other than almost everyone agrees they want the government to keep its nose out of their business.
> I’ve thought a lot about this, and it does make sense for it to be up to each individual state.

Many believe, myself included, that women should have the right to control their own bodies, and access to abortions is part of that right. You don't leave rights up to the states. Rights are supposed to be guaranteed at all levels of government.
If you're not going to read the reply or respond to the points, why should they?
Uh oh. I loved and lived in Austin from 2012 to 2015, and have recently been considering moving back. I think I’ve even played disc golf at Zilker Park while wearing tie die, though hardly as a teenie-bopper.

Over what period did the changes you reference happen? Am I longing for a City that no longer exists as I remember it?

Street View + Zillow show that a large two bedroom house I once rented for $1600/month in the heart of 78704 was demolished a few years ago. In its stead is a nice-looking but characterless house that just sold for $4 million. Fortunately, cost of living is not a significant concern at this point in my life, but I don’t want to move to 100 degree days, 100+ days a year, just to find that the city I left is no longer there.
How to Talk to Users
> I'll be the begrudging devils advocate

There are plenty of devils out there, they can advocate for themselves. This ruling can be as technically correct as anyone likes, but it is disastrous in every conceivable way. All this ultimately demonstrates is how feeble rights - real, natural rights - are under the American conception of federal constitutional rights.

Edit: there are a lot of people who are clearly very clever advocating for the devil. The devils have the best lawyers money can buy; all I can really suggest, as someone who is not American and not a woman, is that you advocate for human beings for a change.
Users can choose Chrome on their iOS devices. They can even set it as their default browser.

Geeks like us know that iOS Chrome is using WebKit to render instead of Blink. But that is not relevant to most users.
Just use the notion clipper instead. Used this before but didn't provide much improvement on other solutions.
I nearly always "know" how long I have been asleep, unless there's been excessive drinking involved (and that would be long ago). "Normal" drinking doesn't seem to affect this. And for shorter naps (less than two hours) it's pretty accurate.
According to Notch, Infiniminer was "the game I wanted to do".
https://minecraft.fandom.com/wiki/Infiniminer
You just got yourself a new subscriber, cause I’m trying to get back into music curation and DJing like I used to when I was in college, and this is right up my alley as far as genre and finding fresh tracks!
A “monitory of zero” clearly has no need to be protected by a legal system.

Just like we don’t legislate that you can’t kill plants for the sake of the plant, a fetus spends up to 18 weeks in a non-sentient state where it has no subjective experience. It doesn’t need protection since a non-sentient being can’t suffer.

Edit: it’s also worth mentioning that many abortions happen at the zygote or embryo stage, before there is even a fetus.
Hard to argue voting democrat is keeping government out of lives when some of the largest government overreaches have come from democrats. IE: ACA.

I do agree that they fail to utilize their advantage more often than not but to say that Democrats in control is going to keep government out of peoples lives is... an interesting approach given history.
Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn alignment peaks today
You can get aftermarket security film applied to windows that makes it very difficult to bust through. This saved my office from a burglary.
As far as I am aware there is no reasonable way for carriers to verify sender IDs or to communicate a verified status with an SMS message.
So you would end up labelling all messages as not verified, which might provide some clarity for a short time until it just becomes noise that gets ignored.
> The right to marry outside our race, the right to choose our sexual partner, the right to birth control are established in the due process clause.

The rights to choose your sexual partner and marry outside your race are also established in the Equal Protection clause, which gives them a stronger basis in the constitution than birth control and abortion which solely rely on substantive due process.
Do you really believe all miscarriages are random and that none are due to alcohol, drugs, malnutrition, or other reasons?

Now hopefully in the future the argument won’t strike you as odd.
> why should we as rational human beings assume life doesn't begin at conception?

'Life begins at conception' is just a nominally secularized reference to the doctrine of ensoulment, not a concept that is morally relevant to question of whether abortion should be legally permissible (or even interesting).

If we cared about the mere fact of life in the relevant way, we'd be interested in legal restrictions on pulling weeds. If the concern was with living tissue with human DNA, we'd be fretting over amputations. Even in the case of human life, not every end to human life is an equivalent of 'murder' to be categorically prohibited to the exclusion of all other considerations. And even if we grant that abortion is always morally wrong, it still does not automatically follow that categorical legal prohibition is a sound social response to the moral issue.

There's an expansive philosophical literature on the ethics of abortion that actually seeks to identify and address the moral core of the issue and its relation to law. The phrase 'life begins at conception' is just a political slogan for a religious dogma that very, very quickly falls apart when you try to use it ss an actual starting point for reasoning about abortion policy. Trotting it out pretty much represents a refusal to engage in good faith with secular thought on the issue.
No. That's a temporary status. They went out of their way to ensure that a nationwide abortion ban was still 'constitutional' but the nationwide right to one was not.
The company decided to focus on one market and hired many people. Due to that I stopped doing interesting research and development but more boring and easy source code pissing, with very little freedom and responsibilities.
Because it was roe v wade in question. Not the other case. I don’t believe the Supreme Court can issue judgment on any law they choose. It has to be relating to the court case in question
That may be so, but the alternative approach something like Google/KeePass/whatever Authenticator which has the issue of not being bound to your number (unlike SMSs) so if your phone gets destroyed you can't simply get a new phone and sim from the operator and continue as usual, you're completely fucked instead.
One thing I haven’t seen mentioned much here is this: make an active, ongoing effort to include them in your teams social life.

Most people just give up when trying to communicate with people that struggle with spoken English as a modality. That can be a profoundly isolating experience.
I didn't like Zachtronics games, because from reviews I read, I expected them to be like programming, but instead they were merely puzzle games with programming window dressing on them.
Property rights are a function of law because rights are a function of law. But property is a notion that arises naturally due to scarcity.

And scarcity is not a function of the digital realm.
Where do you advertise yourself so jobs search for you?
There's some really ugly things now opened up - now there are no more protections for states to force an abortion or sterilization. A lot of 'undesirables' were sterilized in the early 20th century America, to the point that even Hitler in his Mein Kamph wrote highly about the US program of mass sterilization. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/feb/06/race.usa . This reversal re-allows this possibility.

In fact, according to what ICE was/is doing, is already happening to non-citizens at our borders https://forward.com/culture/454663/ice-hysterectomies-eugeni...

But next up is attacking Obergefell... So, if that's deemed unconstitutional, what happens to the gay and lesbian people who are married to same-sex partners? Are their marriages nullified? What of the legal issues in unwinding a marriage of X years?

And people who are trans - will they then have to "marry in line with respect to their listed gender"? Can their gender be changed legally? Will this pathway be available for gay and lesbian same-sex partners so they can "legally become opposite of their gender" to then re-marry their partners?
Because that's a reactive punishment that does absolutely nothing to help out the woman who might be carrying a fetus post rape, not to mention the fact that rape is already illegal and a rapist isn't exactly going to be deterred by the fact that there's illegality involved. The issue of abortion also touches upon things like ectopic pregnancies where the woman can/will die if an abortion is not performed.
Hmmm... this is interesting!
Able-bodied seems like it should exclude those with disabilities. militia is certainly not an individualistic term either.

if able-bodied or militia is defined by the law does that mean they can include and exclude whoever they wish by redefining it?
I'm not sure what 'overturned federally' means, but the decision shifts the matter of legality back to the states. There are tons of blue states where this is still legal.
Unrelated: A journalist friend told me that their (very big) media firm started writing obituaries of the public figures as soon as they landed in hospital and were old.

There were many (tens) obituaries written for the people who went to live on for more years or are are still living.
> If there were 500,000 five-year-old kids being murdered every year, with the explicit approval of the government, there would be a civil war.

Precisely this -> It is a common technique that someone believes in Position A because of reason X, but reason X is unacceptable to the wider society and won't win debates. You make up reason Y to rationalise your Position A.

Peole will debate you on reason Y and be wondering why they can't convince you despite demonstrating that reason Y is wrong. They can;t convince you because you don't care about Reason Y, it's just a ruse. Often your followers also know that reason Y is a ruse, at least the ones who are not totally stupid.

In the Brexit debate, you would have people claiming that it's about national sovereignty and 'all them bloody EU laws', but they wouldn't be able to name a single EU law. They never knew and cared about EU law, they had a problem with immigration.

If at least the country was discussing immigration, maybe they could discuss if it's cheaper to give some extra money to people who are affected by immigration or suffer the collateral damage of Brexit.
Rape is illegal already. Rapists go to prison. The death penalty has never been an effective deterrent and is abhorrent.
>And yet, they made it the very first amendment, so any state with their own religion should have had it struck down quickly.

This is just incorrect. Before the 14th amendment the bill of rights did not apply to states.

>Also, the term "separation of church and state" did in fact start with the founders.

It started with a single founder not founders. Have you read Jefferson's letter? I would imagine you haven't if you think it meant a state couldn't have a state religion or that they couldn't push religious laws (not that abortion is strictly a religious thing).

>Who were mostly deists, not at all like today's Evangelical Christians.

Do you have a list? I am not sure that mostly is accurate. Episcopalianism (is that how you spell it?) was quite popular.
Check this out https://jobboardsearch.com/internships-positions
It's just as feasible that Democrats control all three, and it's happened before. The Democratic party had complete control over both Houses and the presidency from 1933 to 1947, 1949–1953, and 1961–1969; 26 years of full control of the legislative and executive branches thanks to the New Deal Coalition. By 1939, FDR had formed a more liberal court through his appointments, and that lasted a while through this Democratic control of the branches into the 1950s.

As the pendulum swings, so does policy. It would be more difficult IMHO if there were more than two parties.
Please open source this and then add features like Google Drive/Dropbox backup, etc. as enterprise.
Not US banks. Several countries have confiscated bank funds in the last 10y, in fact my place of birth changed the law that untouched bank accounts within 3y get confiscated by the State. This is a major western nation btw.

But since then, I don’t leave enough fiat with banks (including US) banks that they are in a place to rob me.

I trust in ECDSA and Schnorr signatures about 100x as much as I trust FDIC.
Unwanted by their parents does not mean they are unwanted by humanity.
This is a really good example of how devil's advocate strategies don't actually add to furthering or strengthening a discussion. Categorically they add friction to the conversation without providing a benefit. Arguments from DA-proponents only provides more evidence of this position.
> if the Republicans control all three branches of government, that they would not create a federal law that bans abortions everywhere?

If the voting public of the US shifts to where it adopts a view you disagree with then of course the democratic institution would continue to reflect the public.

But we have good reason to believe this will never happen. Polling shows that most individuals support a woman's right to abortion. And even if the Republican party gained control of all 3 branches, they aren't a monolithic and unified block when it comes to policy. "States rights" is a HUGE motivation for most Republicans, and a federal policy banning abortion would be a big stumbling block for getting the votes to pass such legislation even with a Republican majority.
Duplicate of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31859806
They would have to get rid of the filibuster, which seems unlikely.
I've started to feel this way about Factorio... I only can play it if I've felt I've been productive or that I've e.g.: a model training or code compiling in the background.

The reason being that I stop and think: "This is scratching an itch that something _actually_ productive would as well". So whenever I feel like playing Factorio, I pick up a side-project instead if one's been neglected.
The ability to rely on another person's body to keep you alive is clearly a positive right if it exists, which I think no one believes in general, some but people believe in the specific case of pregnancy, because it's "natural". Plenty of things we believe are violations of rights are also "natural" so I don't think this is a consistent position to take, of course people don't generally pick their ethics for consistency.
They get to pick which case they take cert on. There is absolutely gonna be _something_ out there that would allow them to work at the root of Wickard v Filburn. Framing it as "they have to work with this one case they got" is disingenuous.

They intentionally chose to go for the contradictory choice of singling out abortion while not attacking the root -- which suggests to me think this is more about judicial activism than upholding the constitution.
You’re assuming the rest of the country shares your views. A large portion of America views abortion as murder.

I do NOT share that viewpoint. But we are a republic. And the Supreme Court doesn’t issue law, that’s Congress’s responsibility.

What this represents is not a code refactor but a Change to a comment in the code base on what a function does.
You’re specifying your opinion (which is reasonable), but that’s orthogonal to the rights of the people that live in that state and vote according to the rights they wish to exercise.

If state A wants to ban abortion based on what their constituency wants, isn’t that exactly how democracy works?
The ACA was already getting a lot of challenges and multiple attempts to repeal it from day one. I imagine that throwing abortion protections into the mix was deemed to be a poor tactical choice at that moment because it would enflame many of the ACA’s political opponents further and perhaps bring new adversaries into the fold.
> The general point of "people will respond differently if you ask about abortion in general vs third (or second) trimester abortions in particular" remains.

I don't think I understand. Are you looking for a blanket statement on all abortions?

The former poll is not nuanced because it aims at providing demographic data. The latter does not - it de-aggregates sentiment based on trimesters, thus adding the circumstances should be considered.
Uniqlo means university toilet in German.
That's a very cool story, thank you for sharing it.
Yes, this.

If you have an "ASL-first" person on your team, it might be extremely useful to take a college course on ASL, if only to learn some fundamentals (sign space, facial expressions as grammatical constructs, etc), a description of deaf culture (like, it exists and varies from region to region), and the inevitable "hey class, let's debunk some myths about deaf people" talk.

(ASL is American Sign Language. Substitute your region's dominate sign language. I did hear that not every sign language is as linguistically rich as ASL?)
Reviewing commits for a security-critical project written in C or C++ can be incredibly tedious. I've spent an entire day trying to validate that the assumptions made by a 10-line change are memory-safe in the context of the larger program. These reviews are incredibly mentally draining, and even when I'm done I'm not 100% sure that I didn't miss something and let a vulnerability into the codebase.

Rust is a breath of fresh air in comparison. Worrying about memory safety isn't even a concern for the vast majority of commits that don't touch modules with unsafe code. All assumptions made about the lifetimes of references are made explicit in the code, and checked by the compiler. On rust projects I find I have much more mental energy to use against other aspects of the problem.
Liking it when good things happen and not liking it when bad things happen is not hypocritical. You can argue which decisions were good or bad, but you can't claim what's happening now is good while also acting like politics is an inconsequential team sport.

From a Christian conservative point of view the past 80 years were bad and the current polar opposite direction is good. Christian conservatives cheering for the current decisions after complaining about the previous decisions aren't hypocrtical either.

Not that "you're hypocritical" is even an argument. Even if it were hypocritical, so what?
They cant really come first if you dont have an institution which is geared towards enforcing them.

These "insurance" companies would have no particular reason to enforce these rules. Even if they started out with the best intentions theyd gradually turn into warlords fighting over territory.
> There are only two ways to get rid of a Supreme Court judge: they retire or they die.

They can be impeached by congress.
Even More Overengineered Japanese Mechanical Pencils [video]
Brown vs. Board of Education undid a ~60 year precedent. This case undoes a 50 year precedent.

The court has to be allowed to undo precedents once in a while. Otherwise we'd have to fight a civil war over every Dred Scott case.

I'm NOT saying this case, or yesterday's, was rightly decided. I'm only pointing out that the court has changed its mind a number of times in the past, and will again in the future.
There's a much better argument to legalizing abortion, that holds even if one considers fetuses as persons. In that just as one may not be forced to donate organs or even just blood to save someone else's life, by the same logic, one cannot be forced to bear a child.

Of course this is an ethical, not legal argument, so I don't know how it would translate to US law.
> As regulators squeeze harder and harder

I used to work for government regulators and this is a such a bizarre view of regulation.

Trust me, people on my team weren't up at night scheming how we might put the squeeze on a companies, and what nice new regulations we might implement to make things harder on businesses.

We barely had the resources to enforce important regulations that everyone would agree should exist.

Please read up on the history of any regulatory body in the US. Nearly every governing body we have and every regulation on the books was create after there was abuse. Regulations in the Federal government are almost never proactive, and as a general rule the regulators I knew had no interest in expanding their purview.

In fact, it's quite uncommon for regulations of any kind to be enforced until you basically force yourself to get caught. Most regulatory agencies are underfunded and understaffed by design. It's a reason so many startups perform regulatory arbitrage for years without consequences, even when their actions are quite harmful to the society overall.
Yep. I got up early and was able to see 4/5, due to some cloud cover. I really need to invest in a good camera and telescope.
SpaceChem is still my primary tool in testing kid's (and adults) general aptitude for coding before trying to teach them.
It's about power over women and always was.
The latest version is 4.14.0. Personally I write my Makefile myself and use them to build my projects. It works perfectly.
I can confidently state that nobody who chose not to attend the last one was punished or ostracized in any overt way. But nobody can help the fact that if some people meet up and feel more connected, then those who choose not to meet up will feel (relatively speaking) less connected.

This is one of those situations where there's no obvious perfect answer. If we didn't do regular meetups, then we'd lose out on the benefits for those who like them. If we do, we lose out on the talent that fears them.
It depends. There's a utility to accurate takes and bite-sized concepts.
I think that's the right lens. Suppose you had a rare blood type that can prevent the death of somebody else; could the state compel you to donate blood? Or suppose we are at war and badly in need of blood donors of all types; same question.
I used StandardML at university in the early 2000s, and I appreciate that OCaml is an older language that heavily influenced the design of Rust.

Given that history, it’s instructive to note the sorts of things (like auto-currying) that Rust did not inherit.
So you got to the most known job boards, you don't bother to search new ones at all?
The first president to go to into office already supporting gay marriage was a republican (his name was Donald Trump).

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2018/10/23/opinion/23bruni-n...
Don't shift the goalposts. The conversation is not about legality or illegality of certain actions, but about how this fictional "international organization" does not want any US company to have their personal data.

The point is that in such an unrealistic hypothetical, crypto is a very small concern.