skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Are you trying to say a lack of evidence is evidence of a lack? But there is plenty of evidence nonetheless:

Maybe the most clear case comes in this way:

Christians believe that human beings are chosen by God just as much as they choose God (both must be true to be saved). This is most clear in Romans 8:29-30.

> For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

So God does decide who to save, he "foreknows" them, whatever that means. Now there are several examples of people being called by God, many of which happen before they are born.

Jeremiah is called by God before his birth in Jeremiah 1:5:

> Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
and before you were born I consecrated you;
I appointed you a prophet to the nations.

Paul is called by God before his birth in Galatians 1:15:

> But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, ...

These are just some examples, there are more references to unborn in the Bible. The argument goes like this: if it's wrong to kill another being imbued with the image of God, fully capable of being foreknown by Him, called, predestined, justified and glorified, it is equally wrong to kill them before birth as opposed to after birth and the Bible makes no distinction between the two in terms of how this process works, evidenced by the above passages.
Also possibly illegal. 501c3, including churches, are prohibited from campaign activity. That includes advocating for any particular candidates.

"Biden, the sitting POTUS, is a jackass" is probably ok.

"Don't vote for Biden in 2024" is absolutely not ok.
> The problem with this legal OCD is that in the meantime, people suffer.

I am willing to empathize with the denial of service but thats it.

Congress was the more appropriate federal authority to be a legislature, and failed to do so. In the absence of a federal law passed by Congress, state ones are the only ones that matter.

The topic of how long the ruling lasted is a complete red herring, as this is not out of character for the court at all.

I don’t feel like the convenience of having the court being so hard to overrule is a good enough reason for it to act as a superlegislature when convenient.

I am the same way on this regarding all topics. On this specific topic, in the past I had tried to point out how odd Roe v Wade was with the court acting as a superlegislature but I quickly learned this was not a conversation people were willing to have as they couldnt separate the “camps” from the case(s) so I stopped bringing it up. I’m glad that this case forces the conversation.
Another day, another surprisingly large discussion around OCaml whenever it comes up on hn.
> Moderates generally lack any firm convictions or anchoring principles beyond maintaining equanimity

That's one way to put it. Here's another to think about: moderates lack rigid principles and avoid ideological convictions.

People on the extremes of both sides have a tendency to "paint." They paint the opposing view as monsters, and they paint people with independent views as "lacking convictions."

It is not accurate.
Clickable links also enabled people to lose control of their WhatsApp accounts. The message was legit but the request was not. If they had sent a code, the attacker would have to convince people to give it to them. With the link, a lot of users assumed they needed to click to keep using Whatsapp. Not sure what Facebook was thinking but it was a pretty bad move.
To be fair, some more expensive clothes have a much better fit.

I have been buying $150 jeans most of my adult life and recently read a comment on Reddit that expressed disbelief that someone would pay more than $30 for a pair of jeans.
I've provisioned several shortcodes. There's a 12-week approval process (every carrier has to independently review & approve) and if you get flagged/reported for spam they will come after you for it. IMO this makes it prohibitively difficult & time-consuming for a bad actor to use effectively.
Russia’s Stolen Planes Will Soon Become Worthless Thanks to Bootleg Parts
Don't you think it's better if morality issues are left to individuals?

Don't want an abortion? Don't get one.
Care about fetus rights? Start help centers for pregnant women, engage in education and activism, provide social nets for new mothers and children. It's not like we have mandatory abortions.

To me, the abortions is similar to the right to chose to end your own life, ultimately, you can't outlaw killing yourself.
It's interesting how conflated the federal government is with 'the people' while the state is assumed to be adversarial to the people.

This is what I was hinting at. The marketed solution to Americans is that local government is always bad and we need a single government entity to rule universally.
They might believe that they "believe" this, but their actions say otherwise.

Actually believing something and thinking you believe something are two wildly different things.
I don't even want a (smart)phone anymore. The lack of control you have over your user experience, especially on Apple devices, is horrendous. you can't even really jailbreak apple devices anymore. on your PC you can reprogram anything, navigate around or fully prevent most malicious time-wasting practices (infinite feeds, reels, adverts) that you're near enough at the mercy of on a phone. the way I see it, smartphones are made for idiots

Ideally I'd carry round a phone-sized PC running Linux with mobile capabilities, but as it is I settle for my laptop and a brick phone. I appreciate that android would be better - and is in fact a computer running linux the size of a phone, but it's not really the same.
That is a egregious misrepresentation of the law struck down in NYSRPA v. Bruen. In New York City, it was effectively impossible to get a permit to carry a concealed firearm in public unless one had connections and influence in the police department. Whether or not that is desirable from a policy perspective, it was far more than "marginally more effort" to obtain the permit.
Griswold (which articulated the right to marital privacy, which prevented laws banning contraception for married couples) was precedent for Roe, not vice versa.

Obergefell and Lawrence rested more strongly on Griswold directly (or through other non-Roe cases) than on any innovation from Roe, as I recall.

(Note that Thomas’ explicit attack on “all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents” strikes much more deeply, though, than just the Griswold line of privacy-related cases; the incorporation of the Bill of Rights as applicable against the States is substantive due process, and even the application of even the rational basis test requiring some connection to some legitimate public purpose for any legal distinction, are all part of the substantive due process precedent of the Court. I guess, if this Court wasn’t nakedly partisan and selective in its logic, this could be a hopeful sign for Dems on state gun control, since if there were a serious reconsideration of that precedent the incorporation of the second Amendment – the only Amendment with a purpose clause explicitly stating that it is for the benefit of the states – against the States would be on the weakest ground of any of it.)
Doubly funny as people market Bitcoin as a store of value, but in reality it's far too volatile (and too young) for that.
Agreed! The basic white tees get washed away within a few months. I think they used to be higher quality. That or they’re in cahoots with my maid.
TikTok turns on the money-making machine
His argument was negating a true claim by playing a game of definitions. Regardless of how you cut it, pro-life is a minority view. Attempting to use shades of pro-choice to diminish that is not arguing in good faith. It's the argument equivalent of going "I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!" while holding your finger in front of someone's face.

Ultimately though, what matters is how many approve of Roe being overturned, which is a binary, and those who oppose Roe V. Wade are in a very clear cut minority.
Pretty much what Galileo and those that came first probably thought too.
Yep I did. Thanks for catching. I added it.
Neither of these
Well I think 404 is only the first problem you have to solve and people don't even do that very well, then declare success and move on. I've seen so many developers try to reinvent things that are in the HTTP 1.0 specification.

I've definitely had to deal with problems of people returning 200 not found and those leaking up into higher layers of the system, and I agree with the people who don't like that solution. 204 is probably better, but I've seen too much code that looks for 200<=status<300 so you're still dealing with the same problem, but at least that's a client bug not a roll your own thing issue.

On one project, I put the kibosh on someone trying to negotiate clock skew detection between the client and server. I don't recall what they were going to do about it but I pointed out that information is already in the request headers, and has been from the start. So if your timing decisions are tied to an HTTP request, you don't need to do anything out of band to negotiate a common notion of time.

I don't recall when I stopped seeing timestamps of January 2, 1970, but I know I saw enough of them that it stopped being a novelty and I stopped looking for them. In 1995 when they were still working on the spec, nobody used NTP yet, and many, many people had a dead or dying CR2032 battery on their motherboard and either hadn't noticed or didn't know where to buy a replacement. The dying ones were the worst because sometimes they would hold the time but not increment it properly, so the clock skew was proportional to how many hours a day they turned the machine off. "Expires on March 1" didn't mean anything, unless you knew that the server thought it was February 28th. I suspect Tim was thinking of time zones between scientists in Switzerland, France, England and Germany, but it worked really well for crap hardware too.
Why don't you just contact Google customer service?

I'll be here all week.
Hence my grandparent comment. Our attitudes and laws about what a person is are wildly different depending on whether we're talking about abortion, or human experimentation, or human cloning. We're allowed to make and kill fetuses but only when it doesn't serve a useful purpose?
Yes, the argument is bad, but he's right.

The 9th amendment says some rights aren't mentioned. But abortion couldn't be one of those rights because abortion was banned in some states.
Why do you think that we need to agree on framing the issue when a significant minority will only agree to framing it at conception?

You can't find a middle ground with religious extremism.
The Mars Express spacecraft is getting a Windows 98 upgrade
During the interview he talks about his experience teaching. I got the impression that a lot of the job of a teacher is having to babysit kids (take away their phones) and that many kids just don't care about the subject being taught.
All of what you said is fine and makes sense and, regardless of the vast generalizations, I agree with most of it given what I know about anti-abortion people. It's shrouded in hypocracy.

That said what I said holds: this is not a clear-cut case of rights, because the rights of two entities are in question and they are in conflict. Is a handful of cells with human DNA a person? Of course not, it's less biologically developed than an ant. Is a fetus that's developed for 8 months a person? Yeah, at that point it could exit the mother and be a (somewhat) functioning being. Where do we draw the line? At what point is a fetus a person? And from there, we can determine where its rights to not die at the hand of another person begin. And yes, we have to factor in the health of the mother, the health of the fetus, etc into these decisions.

This is, and always has been, a nuanced issue.
I'm not as old as you (born in the late 80's) but my family left the church (protestant) for this exact reason. There was more discussion of social/political issues than of scripture. To be fair, I think it's OK to some extent, but the elders had made it a priority to denigrate liberal ideas and beliefs.

Look up the Koch brothers. They're largely responsible for much of the chaos we see in our country today.
I'd keep Guest access for desktop usage enabled, mainly for asset recovery. A Guest user can be restricted to internet browsing which makes a poorly informed thief likely to connect the device to the internet, allowing for FMI to ping the (approximate) location and do a remote wipe. You can still leave guest access for other facilities off while keeping this on.

The question would become a matter of "is recovery part of security"?
Are you like....completely unaware of recent(last century) history? Like....at all??? Gay people were being arrested on charges of sodomy all the time, even if they were never caught in the act.
I would argue that the US is suffering from an inability to legislate due to the polarization. The two parties do not share the same idea of what problems we have, and they are not arguing over how to fix them. You have one side saying we should do something about global warming and the cost of education and gun deaths and the other side saying women should submit to their husbands and gays are causing social breakdown in the country and the Democrats are drinking the blood of children to live longer.

The Senate allows a minority to stop the majority from tweaking the laws in an iterative process, and holds the society back from doing things that require laws, like carbon tax or cap n trade, or even fixing clear bugs in ACA. We don’t have much internet relevant laws passed in the last twenty years, yet the internet and its conflicts have changed quite a lot since Napster. We can’t change the law to let people rebuild flood destroyed buildings on higher ground. All we do is tweak the budget numbers and appoint judges. It makes prospective solutions extremely tilted compared to even a good compromise of a law.
Sad sad day
The main (and probably naive) idea of bitcoin is that you don't have to purchase it. Did you purchase the fiat money that you have on your bank account? No, you did something useful for someone and they paid you. Same for bitcoin – do something, or sell something for bitcoin, or do something useful for the network itself (mine your 6 coins per block), and boom you have coins.
That's an awfully contrived example, and that is clearly not what has driven Bitcoin or cryptocurrency adoption to date.
With the current Supreme Court the literal text of the constitution doesn’t matter. For example, the text of the second amendment is pretty clear that the right to bear arms is in the pursuit of a well regulated militia. Our
militia has since been regulated into the national guard. The second amendment is nothing more than a constitutional right to enlist in the national guard, but it’s used to promote/codify extreme ideologies.
I wonder how Zig stacks up against Vala as a GTK programming language. Both seem to try to be "better C", but the approaches are completely different.
Welcome back to the dark ages America.
> The Supreme Court's job is to interpret the Constitution, not to invent rights.

This.

All this controversy could end right now by simple having congress... pass a law.

That's what they are supposed (and paid) to do. Maybe if they spent less time trading stocks...
That's not 100% true... the one alternative is to first enable U2F hardware-based 2FA (which can be emulated on a PC using softu2f), then you can enable regular app-based TOTP codes.
Presumably the Five Eyes alliance could also mean that servers in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the UK may also be unusable since they share intelligence information with the US.
Absolutely. Though sometimes quantity becomes quality. I had to take over a large project with countless moving pieces, none of which are particularly hard, but the vast surface area of the project makes it hard to hold all of it in my head at once.
There are trade offs. I am acutely aware of them. In other conversations I will freely explain.

I also know history, probably better than most on this board. This conversation is about trying to find the crux of your disbelief.

The thing is, you and Bruce are not being original in your arguments. Some of the things you have said are absolutely undeniable the truth. I am saying it doesn’t matter. Nothing you have proposed is existential for an internet protocol, you are throwing gotchas that we mostly disregarded years ago. Sometimes, In practise, worse is better.
Is this line of thinking materially different from being pro-death penalty?
The issue is the trend is accelerating. It used be rare. It is no longer rare.
Your rights end where my rights begin. It's only a knot if your brain doesn't care for other people.
Neural consequences of chronic sleep disruption
It also only applies to a fetus created as the result of rape. A fetus created by consensual sex is like if you walked into the hospital, sat down in the room, and plugged the needle into your arm yourself.
So much of our constitution is designed to protect us from the abuse of the majority. The idea that the majority should be able to dictate everything is NOT what democracy means. Mob rule is scary, and the framers knew that a government that is solely dictated by the will of the majority is ripe for abuse of the minority. So we have all sorts of restrictions on what the majority is allowed to do.

I feel like people have this view today that whatever the majority says is how things should be. That is not justice.
You do not have a right to life saving medical procedures. You do not have a right to an abortion. There is no law or constitutional amendment that grants this. This is the flaw in your reasoning.

That being said, I believe women SHOULD have a right to get an abortion enshrined in law. It is up to our re-elected representatives to achieve this, not for the courts to invent rights thereof.
You might want to read the document you're talking about. It's quite explicit that the rights it mentions are not are comprehensive list, but rather a floor. Penumbra and all that.
>House representation was supposed to be approximately equal limited by granularity and it remains approximately equal limited by granularity.

But the "limited by granularity" part is growing more and more limited. The size of the House originally grew as the size of the population grew. Once we capped the size of the House, we lost relative granularity allowing this problem worsen as the gap between the smallest and largest congressional districts increased.
Getting rid of the electoral college is not the same as killing federalism. It's not even close.

What planet are you living on? Seems not to be earth...
I'm definitely using the American frame of reference here. I'd totally agree most of my colleagues who self-describe as liberal would be conservatives through much of Europe.
In theory, a smart compiler could make heavy use of the DP register (6809 feature) and then local variables within a compiled function could access these "fast" global variables instead. This was a common pattern when coding in assembly, and it's much faster than accessing variables off the stack. The function wouldn't be reentrant, but a compiler pragma could be used to enable/disable the DP mode. Declaring the local variables as static should be sufficient, however.
A web design opinion that has increasingly solidified in my thinking is that box-shadow should never be relied on to distinguish an edge.

Not only is it (obviously) less distinct than a border or an edge where color changes, it breaks outside the visual box model of the page due to spreading outside the element's grid placement, which makes everything look less distinctly part of a grid. box-shadow, when relied on to distinguish edges, is anathema to the human visual system in an unconsciously subtle way. It's fit for light touches that add onto an already clear and accessible design but never for relying on to achieve clarity or accessibility.

We realized this during the flat design era but then proceeded to overshoot things pretty far until exterminating shadows became a hot trend. Now there's a backlash, of which 'neumorphism' is the apex, which swings things too far back in the other direction. Just keep shadows light and use them sparingly, it's not too hard.
Did you even try it? It still requires Java, Gradle and Kotlin compiler to work. Also, good luck making it work without using Intellij.
First get a job offer an interview. If you are senior enough, a recruiting agency can get you connected in no time.

Heads-up: salary for very senior software developers in Europe are between half and one-third of what they are in USA.
Tips to maximize growth during a market downturn – from a Founder
Android supports "verified SMS" wherein the sender proves their identity to Google, tells Google the hashes of messages they send, and Google can tell recipients if the message hash is legit or not: https://developers.google.com/business-communications/verifi...
As a West-coast American, I have only ever heard 'hover' as "huvver."
> What right do you have to kill someone just because you are inconvenienced?

Bodily autonomy and integrity is not merely an inconvenience. It's a major principle in human rights.
Otherwise you could demand I give you my healthy kidney to save your life, and if I don't I'd be "killing you".

> You aren't required to save their life, but you also can't kill them.

You're not killing the violinist, you merely withdraw life support you're not obligated to give it in any way, they die on their own.
Eeeeh? I think not. A toy implies that is has no, or cannot have, practical uses and is a property of the object or idea. Not practical is an engineering problem, it is contingent on external factors. A fidget spinner is a toy, a space elevator is not practical.

They are both ways to dismiss an idea though.
This isn't true, and it is also unconstitutional. You cannot be held liable for an action you perform in one state, where it is legal, for a crime in another state.

Just make stuff up why don't you.
A third category is easy work.

As someone in devops/sre/ops/etc., I think we do alot of easy work and most of our more ambitious work, i.e. automating tasks within our control or refactoring infrastructure as code is turning easy work into hard work. Often times in this world though we're dealing with someone else's code/software. A problem I've seen in many companies is keeping things up to date. Terraform Modules, Kuberenetes components, etc. There's a lot of hard work involved in this, and I do dream of trying to turn that hard work into hard problems of making it 10x easier to keep everything up to date; but I don't know that I've spent a lot of time trying to. I spend much more time automating, i.e. turning "easy work" into "hard work".

Sometimes avoiding the hard work is more trouble than it is worth, but turning hard work into hard problems can be difficult given the ambiguity and lack of control.
Bob Stanley’s pre-history of pop breathes life into a lost musical era
> Pence just asked for federal legislation banning all abortions. So I think you are wrong to say the Republicans are trying to return it to the states, thy are trying to ban it.

It’s worth mentioning that the constitutionality of such a law seems highly questionable based on the current leanings of SCOTUS. States’ rights work both ways, and (not a lawyer) I would assume an incredibly broad interpretation of interstate commerce would be needed to hold up a federal ban on abortions.
>no ways to back up

not true. that QR code you scanned to add the key to your app? well, that was your key. you could have saved it somewhere else secure that does allow exporting.