skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Come on. Nobody that supported this ruling except the deluded give a damn about life or whatever they were preaching. The Republicans only care about getting the votes they need to maintain their stranglehold over red states, cut taxes and environmental protections for the benefit of their patrons. The fundamental Christians only care about seeing the rights of women being repelled, there are zero concerns about the life of children, otherwise they would be pushing for free childcare, support for mothers, parental leave, ....

It's all a matter of punishing women for their own desire to be emancipated, it's a punishment for those women who have sinned by thinking they could act like a man and have sex whenever they wanted. If they truly cared about the unborn, they would

1. care about the already born, first, and
2. push for the widespread availability of contraception.

Given that contraception is bad for them, too, it's clear this is not an ethical question, but a moral one: sex outside of marriage, or for pleasure really, should not be allowed, and it must always carry consequences, no matter if it vastly more impacts women than it does men. You know, a man can always run from their responsibilities, while a woman cannot run away from her womb.
It's depressing to watch the USA continually fail to keep up with the progress of other first world countries. Often times even taking steps backwards like this.

There are so many actual issues deserving of this attention. In what universe is removing rights a priority?
The next sentence in his post explains what he meant by support.
please go to Dubai and learn Arabic edit or Farsi or Mandarin, if they confide in you, report back on the universality of the US banks.. secondly, I send you a beaming picture of BRICS leaders this week to reinforce the "fish sees no water" nature of your statement. American here
Zendesk to be acquired by investor group for $10.2bn
So we think staff will work 100% for 4 days? Presumably the lost 20% is making tea, chatting to coworkers about sports, checking personal messages, pooping etc, seems unlikely that behaviour would change and productivity get to 100%. So 100:80:64 would be my guess as the outcome, a loss for tax payers.
Same holds true for Gold or Cash in some (most EU) countries. In my jurisdiction, commercial gold traders are required to KYC process above a certain amount (15.000€ here), in other countries this is limited to 1.000€ (IIRC Spain). In Italy, two completely private entities can not deal in Cash for any amounts over 1.000€ without comiting a felony (maybe misdemenour) - electronic transfers requirement with KYC.

Funny thing is, as a EU foreigner in Spain I can legally withdraw/buy up to 10.000€ per day in BTC anonymously, while a spanish citizen is limited to 1.000€ (I've used BTC ATMs on occasions in Spain, which is completely anonymous below that threshold).
The bullet point list seems to go to strange lengths to twist prohibition on abortion as increase in freedom.
This isn't logical though. People will still get abortions, all this will change is who can get abortions. So it's clearly about control.
Many things wrong with that:

- Cryptocurrency is not state-free money. Among other things, it requires functioning infrastructure, stable electricity and internet available at affordable prices. These things are provided by the government everywhere on earth.

- Cryptocurrency is not authority-free. Actually, you're trusting several authorities any time you interact with any blockchains.

- I'm not denying you got use out of cryptocurrency. I'm sure you did. At first glance it does appear to be some kind of functioning financial system, but it is not. A lot of other people have also lost significant amounts of money with it.
erlang/elixir programmers would disagree -- we match on ad-hoc dynamically typed tuples that serve broadly the same purpose as ADTs all the time, where the only exhaustiveness you get is the degenerate case ie `_ -> shit_the_bed()`

especially common are pattern-matching assignments (technically `=` is the “match operator”) that idiomatically behave much like matches on the left hand side of `<-` in haskell do notation, i.e. inline runtime assertions on structure

these communicate programmer intent really well! you could probably have them in static land in a non-`monadFail` context too, but you'd want dependent types or something lest you go the way of typescript and resign yourself to unsoundness

in fact it's so nice that i feel pain in any dynamic language without full-fat pattern matching, like when i have to write disgusting if-else chains in complex nix expressions
> Gay marriage, on the other hand, has near zero historical precedence outside of a few cases with Roman emperors and stuff like that.

Unsure if you're presenting that as the human history that exists "in Thomas's mind" or actual history
Actively supporting/helping vs not killing/preventing others from killing are pretty significantly different moral arguments. This always comes across as "If you're against abortion then why don't you support insert political position that involves drastically raising taxes and giving way more power to the state?"
Laws like that would only be possible in certain years where there’s a majority across all 3 branches (e.g. 2008) and neutered when the other branch is in power.

Arguably a supreme court decision is more stable.

A constitutional amendment would be most stable but we will never get to that level of state support
I think that it's more complicated than that. My take away was that NY gun laws allowed people to concealed carry with approval but were basically denying lawful approvals which ran afoul of the second amendment.
Tyranny of a religious minority it is then!

I’ve taken to defining nihilism as being so dedicated to an ephemera and philosophy, harm to real people is ignored.

This decision gives states to impact interstate business. It controls what doctors and patients can discuss. So it goes a good long way to squashing other rights in deference to pudding brains traditions. They chose not with logic but delusion.

Figurative identity preferences are being leveraged to directly control human agency.

I don’t owe coddling anyone else’s sensibilities. There is no greater good. And I hope this society collapses around us and reminds the majority how meaningless their personal self image is to others.
Oh not this nonsense again. If this were true than it would be easy for the current court to write an alternative opinion upholding the right as a liberty interest.

They didn’t because the argument you are repeating is wrong, as well as made in bad faith to undermine obviously correct legal analysis.

You are a victim of propaganda and it makes me sad.
Ahh, so any democratic process that results in a policy you don't like is 1930's Germany. While any democratic process that results in a policy you do like is... ?
> If the monthly amounts are so small as to make flat transaction costs significant, then the amounts are themselves insignificant.

That is the hole in your argument. Imagine the amount of business opportunities if the total cost of a transaction was a fraction of a cent.

> None of this requires a decentralized trustless ledger.

That is an implementation detail. If you find any other method to securely send value across the world for fractions of a cent (even if with intermediaries), I'm all for it.
"Simply a matter of law" is a meaningless statement. All rights, including Constitutional rights and the laws which support them, are legal fictions. Roe v. Wade held water simply because the Supreme Court decided it did, until today when the Supreme Court decided it didn't.
That may be true but it's a good example of the kind of negativity they face. I suppose it surprises me how much the front page of reddit relies on either wanna-be hall monitors with egos of steel or paid astroturfers who are officially disallowed and are smart enough to hide their motivations.

It seems fragile. If a few hundred people said f*it, would reddit collapse overnight?
> Do you think corporations should take a public stance in support of abortion rights?

Some companies have even gone so far as paying for abortions. That's disgusting. It reveals that The Man doesn't want women's productivity to go down and would rather work them to the bone instead. Out of the kitchen and into the office? That might be a bad deal.
What a disappointing showing from HN. 120 comments and so little substantive discussion or truth-searching. Everyone rushing to share their feelings and no one trying listen.

I have thoughts I'd like to discuss, but apparently this isn't the place to do it.
But suddenly upon birth these same children need no societal protection?

I think it is convenient to point to the importance of the lives of unborn children but until the same protection is applied to children post-birth it seems like a convenient cover for controlling women.
Bitcoin.

And no, Lightning is not Bitcoin. That's just marketing for suckers.
> When liberal justices are in charge, they unconstitutionally force their will onto the people.

Gay marriage, which I enjoy, is not being "forced" on anyone.

A ban will affect green cards, force deportations and family breakups, and ruin the happiness of millions of Americans.

My country, which I love, is kicking me in the gut because some people are "uncomfortable".
I'm enjoying the discussion of commutative diagrams, abstraction functions, and representation invariants in section 6.3. It is very well motivated and easy to understand.
Good morning Jamal. I've got to admit, I really respect that culture of taking ownership of their mistakes. Other companies could take a page out of their book and do a little good.
[citation needed]

Seems to me that the arc of the moral universe is actually more of a spaghetti. While some things improve, others regress.
Maybe for the long-tail, but the largest subreddits are far from pet projects. I am under the impression that being a mod on a sub with millions of subscribers is at least a part time job and it's hard to imagine what Reddit would be like without the largest, most popular subreddits. In those cases, I think the premise of the study seems fair.
Won't pro-lifers still vote for Republicans in order, to, you know, legislate pro-life laws? All this decision does is place the issue back in the hands of the legislative branch, where it should always have been. Now, it's up to you to vote for what you want.

Of the following two forces, the Christian right and the atheist Marxist left, I promise you the latter is far more shocking, dangerous, and self-destructive to America.
I can understand this argument, however in this specific case we are forcing children onto parents who are in bad positions to raise them (or most wouldn't consider abortion), and our state does a terrible job at providing support to kids throughout their lives (healthcare, education, welfare programs are all notorious in the US) in the case where parents aren't reliable.

As a pro-choice person, I could be convinced against abortion _if_ there was a guarantee that every child would have the full resources of the government to help them achieve a successful life. We all know that isn't going to happen.

So without the appropriate follow-through, this is actually less enlightened and hurting both parents and children more.
There are already bills introduced in four state legislatures to do that, and more are surely on the way.
Except for prisons
I don't really have any interest in crypto currencies, but they seem to have fond some use in remittances to countries with dysfunctional governments and hyper-inflation that don't allow conversion to USD. It is in some of those circumstances illegal to move in and out of the local currency, but is that a just or reasonable law? If ETH or BTC allow Venezuelans(as one example) in the US to help their relatives buy food, is that not a good thing?

There are numerous accounts of people fleeing war and persecution using crypto currencies to escape with their life savings. That seems like a good use case. Not everyone gets to live in a place with strong rule of law, and bad governments love to seize people's bank accounts and hard currency.
I may sound like a dinosaur, but

const id = reader.u32() ?? await A

awaiting a magical A that comes from an import and that was never touched before looks very weird.
No it practically has not, the republicans would immediately filibuster any attempt. And they will keep doing so by locking in enough states which means that the majority of the American people can vote what they want, it wouldn't change a thing.
> all moderators suck

Most moderators you notice suck. There are a lot of invisible moderators around quietly removing spam and keeping communities free of griefers.
Importing ink from another part of the world isn't gray market, it's a perfectly legitimate option that the vendor happens to not like.
Per our gentleman's agreement [1] will you be donating $20 of that to Planned Parenthood?

1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31504720

2. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf
OP is saying SCOTUS doesn't make abortion impossible (ruling that it is always tantamount to murder and thus never permissible). A ban would prohibit states from allowing abortion, and this isn't the case.

SCOTUS has said that states may decide how to regulate it. Individual states will either ban, or not, as their constituents wish.
The Senate is split 50/50 with two Dems blocking significant portions of the platform. Saying they have control is misrepresenting the current situation.
> Democratized access to money means that I can move my life savings as a refugee from a war torn country by just remembering 24 words

It also means if I know your 24 words I can take your life savings and you'll never be able to get it back. Which means I can coerce you as you cross the borders as a refugee and take everything.
No, the will of the people should be expressed as amendments to the constitution.

It is a serious flaw is the US system that issues that carry supper majority support in the public for decades have no chance of making it into the constitution.
One case where that works against people is sales. For example, we had a sales rep for some software we use that would always show up with gaudy gold rings on almost every finger, an obviously-5-figure watch, high end suit, etc.

It sent a pretty strong signal to us that their margins and commissions had a lot of room to negotiate down. I suspect we negotiated harder with this organization than we would have otherwise, looked for opportunities to reduce usage, and so on. Not solely because of the wealthy display, but I'm sure it played some part.
I occasionally wonder just how high the prevalence of closeted homosexuals is amongst conservatives, given how strongly they seem to believe that sexual preference is a choice. The only logical conclusion is that at some point they chose.
> You might be surprised to learn that the sky does not fall down.

I seem to have stepped on toes with my question, that really wasn't my intention. I'm currently self employed so can work as much or as little as I like, but that has pretty direct consequences for me!

> Business does come to a complete halt on Fridays every week [..] Sure, if a customer has a disastrous issue on a Friday, I'll typically get called to remote in and help fix it, but that happens maybe once a month?

So, does the business answer the phones and emails on Fridays for support calls? What about sales calls?
I don't want or not want that, it is simply a thing that could happen if there was enough reason for it to happen. If we're lucky it won't have to happen; cryptocurrency will simply collapse under its own weight because of the ridiculous amount of fraud and scams.

Satoshi left bitcoin in 2011. His "invention" was apparently not good enough for him to bother sticking around.
“Tyranny of the minority” is even worse and that’s what we are seeing now. This Court isn’t upholding minority rights against the State, it’s doing the reverse, taking away rights from minorities (poor women without easy access to travel to another state if necessary).

We have six jurists with an extremist legal view called “originalism” which is “let’s imagine I’m a white male in 1800, what would I think about X”. The first Supreme Court decision to mention originalism was in 1994, when Scalia dissented because he thought juveniles should be executed.
Sure, blame the biologists instead of the religious goofballs who think that something becomes human at the instant of gametic fusion.
Maybe the answer is that there shouldn’t be warrantless surveillance?
The Democrats don't have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

Any such legislation could be immediately undone if Republicans take things back.

SCOTUS could strike it down, too.
This is correct and illustrative of why the power centric version of Christianity in this country needs to be actively removed from all positions of influence.

All data shows that outlawing abortion does nothing to reduce abortion. It only makes it occur later in pregnancy and makes it more dangerous.

It’s time we just call religious fascism what it is because this month has shown the scorched earth approach it takes in this country to its demand of power.
What brand did you opt for over Uniqlo?
I think what people might be missing here is that there are $60 unbranded T-Shirts and $300 jeans.

If you have even a mild eye for clothing you would still be able to see that they are not just a hanes shirt with levis. Casual fashion is a thing too.
SCOTUS just ruled that no, laws that ban abortion aren't unconstitutional. There is already precedent and practice of the Federal government to regulate healthcare, the power to make specific crimes against children federal, or any number of various ways they could argue the Federal government has the power to ban abortion.

The members of the Court that claim to be pick and choose which material they're originalist or textualist regarding, particularly in this case. Others are just idealogues nominated and confirmed to be political tools of the Republican party. You should not have faith in them, their credibility is shot.
And in many states there are laws on the books that make abortion illegal effective today.
It's on my list of places to go. For now, all I have is PaoloFromTokyo, which is family friendly so there isn't much nightlife content. I had no idea there was this level of public good will.
Q&A: Neil Thompson on computing power and innovation
Money has been used for speech since the invention of money.

I’ll grant you automatic weapons though
"beautiful"

But then it has quirks like using ;; to end statements (EDIT: only in the REPL). And comments with that weird syntax

But worse of all are the optional parenthesis in function calls. Yes, I know Ruby has it. But it feel super weird and a needless flexibility (that causes more confusion than it solves).

I can't get over this stuff, sorry.
I never said it wasn't possible to show up overdressed. You just said that.

I simply stated what I had been told that if you're going to make a fashion faux pas it is better to be overdressed than under. What is confusing?
Are you at all concerned that now that this becomes a State level issue we move the wedge from a single federal level to 50 different wedges clogging up legislatures? We've been arguing about Roe for half a century, will this lead to resolution or is it a metastasization? Just an initial thought I had, even though I agree on all your points.
I suspect people exist who are both pro-life and also pro-social safety net. You're falling into the trap created by the two political party system: binary thinking.
The 1st amendment is so valuable against the state imposition of religious dogma...
This is an accurate viewpoint. The overwhelming majority of states permit abortion and are not going to backtrack. The federal government has not banned abortion, and their legal ability to do so would be Constitutionally sketchy at best. There is a clear democratic path to settling the abortion issue in the states.

The news here isn’t a Supreme Court overriding voters, but devolving the decision of abortion rights to voters in the states and their elected representatives.
> Sentience is where becoming "a person" begins, and anything with sentience deserves protections similar to those we provide to human beings.

Sentience is the ability to experience, and I think most would assume it's a fundamental requirement in order to be a person, but not all things that can experience (e.g. animals) are persons nor do we give them protections similar to human beings.
They'd still be making a lot of money if they were non-profit.

And wikipedia doesn't let you make whatever article space you want. If wikimedia started hosting user-controlled wikis I wouldn't say they have the same obligations to those subsites.
Maybe in California, but it's a lot less likely in the civilized world.
You are incorrect. The bible does not support fetal personhood. The bible clearly gives fetuses a lower moral valence than a living person and discusses that an accident that results in a stillbirth is not equivalent to "killing a person". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism_and_abortion
SCOTUS in 73 were not full of “activist judges”.
> Functional programming with immutable values is a wrong pattern for programming languages. Many algorithms, almost all actually, are naturally expressed in imperative style with mutable arrays or variables.

The optimal implementation might be imperative but that doesn't mean we need to define our code that way. SQL is a good example here.
I think that is an unreasonable bar to set for a technology. It doesn't have to be the only way to do something to be viable. It might be the best solution for a problem but there still could exist other solutions.
It's incredibly difficult to open a bank account in a "stable" country from a developing country, but anyone can open an account on Binance and then transfer the crypto to their own wallet.
>unanimously interpreted to cover abortion

Exodus 21:22-23 recounts a story of two men who are fighting and injure a pregnant woman, resulting in her subsequent miscarriage. The verse explains that if the only harm done is the miscarriage, then the perpetrator must pay a fine. However, if the pregnant person is gravely injured, the penalty shall be a life for a life as in homicides.

Jesus was Jewish and fetuses aren't considered persons under Jewish law.
They literally just overturned gun regulations that some states lawfully enacted. You’re cherry picking your views as much as the court is cherry picking their reading of the constitution.
And if they do legislate it? Since they are already trying?

What then?
> big hurdle

Without going much further, to me it's the syntax. I can write some Rust lines of code, and I appreciate the compiler output to correct my syntax. But it's really difficult to me to read code written by others. I can't open a random file of a Rust project and have a minimal clue of what's going on

After years of C and some C++, I have a parser implanted in my cerebellum, and it's hard to adapt it to Rust. To me, reading Rust feels like forcing an optical nerve to see something very small.

Case in point, the code in this article.
Outside of quantum effects, which I don’t think it important for sentience, the universe is also deterministic. You have no control over particle interactions, chemical reactions and electric fields, yet we feel.

People always ask if the brain is a computer, decide it is not, and come to the conclusion that sentience would not work on a computer. I think the universe is the computer / algorithm and the brain is the data being fed into it, which leads me to say consciousness can exist digitally.
Cybersecurity News of the Week
Hmm, the only Moen fixture I have (shower, $200) was worse than the basic one that came installed with the house (~$20).

It’s nice that they give lifetime warranty though.