skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> We do kind of have an answer to this, when it's viable outside of the mother's body.

I never understood this argument. There is no baby that is "viable" (able to survive on their own) (well, to be honest, most adults aren't either), and parents are required to care for them (and criminally liable if they fail to do so).
Since US and Can have number portability, it’s managed by a Number Portability Administrator. That’s Neustar in Canada:

https://www.npac.com/canadian-number-portability/the-npac-ne...
If you didn't notice you're pushing the 2021 work by that same Wuhan institute. It is as trustworthy in that matter as that EcoHealth Aliance's owner/PI Daszak's conclusion that the coronavirus wasn't of their making.
> 39% is closer to 1/3 than 1/2.

37% is even more closer to 1/3; I wouldn’t count the 2% that don’t have a position with the pro-ban faction.
This is not quite right. You are forgetting Kentucky: a slave state that explicitly decided not to leave the union and fought alongside the non-slave states against the Confederacy.

Even Abraham Lincoln had declared himself as a non-abolitionist until the Gettysburg Address. He campaigned, and started his governing as a status-quo politician. The main thing that southern politicians railed against him was that he wanted to keep the compromise and have the "new territories" (areas that were not yet states) be kept non-slave territories.

There is nuance here, but basically the Confederacy pissed him off so much that he changed his mind and decided that he would push for the abolition of slavery, starting by ending it by force in the Confederacy. He moderated after the war somewhat, and his death (at the hands of a Southern conspiracy to re-start the war and bring back slavery) almost got us to full equality, but wound up in a compromise that got us the Jim Crow laws.
I don't know how true that is. It's hard to say which counties "would be" in that state since it will never exist, and some of the counties which its supporters say would be included have already affirmatively rejected the idea, such as Lake County. But as for the supposed California counties, the Trumpy ones like Shasta went 2:1 for Trump in 2020 while the large "blue" ones like Butte went 50/50. The ludicrously empty ones like Modoc were 3:1 Trump in 2020.

Jefferson will never ever happen because there's no mechanism for it to happen, and because it would be by far the poorest state with the absolute worst economy in the nation, so I'm not even sure why we should discuss it.

Oh and by the way the Jefferson plan specifically excludes the Emerald Triangle.
Just bought two pods. I'm going to try it this week. Depending on the result I might try something fancier next time.
Was that comment meant for me?
> I believe that individuals have rights over their own body

Did you have rights over your own body when you had sex and started the process of conception? Why do your choices only matter depending on the result of conception?
Aha thanks, I was not aware of this. I'm not in the US (nor have I ever visited).

But I saw some politicians in the news saying they wouldn't want to enforce it. So I assumed it was a law that all states had to obey. Sorry I was wrong.
That's been my pet hypothesis for a few years, but I wouldn't argue for it. I just base it on some of the disgusting, unethical things I saw while living in China.
This is patently false. Small, slave free States existed during the authorship of the Constitution. They were afraid of being steamrolled by their larger northern neighbors just as much as the antebellum South. It was the carrot to bring such states into the new Constitutional union.

Did the slave States like this compromise, yes. Is that the only reason for it? No.

"To the framers themselves, Madison explained that the Senate would be a "necessary fence" against the "fickleness and passion" that tended to influence the attitudes of the general public and members of the House of Representatives." - https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Senate_C...
I’m strongly in favor of abandoning FPTP everywhere, etc., but I’d caution against tying hopes to a single cause. IRV/STV/RCV/PV are used around the world, and their effects are not that revolutionary. (My softly preferred approval voting sees least real world use, either way I’m not letting my fantasy run wild.) Politicians, parties and voters adapt to the new ruleset, and in the end some form of median voter theorem still rules (Two coalitions dominate, fighting around the center.) The US system legal and geographical pecularities mean, in broad strokes, that it’s a median voter in a median district in a median state. On the party side, the system shifts much of the coalition-building to significantly before the elections, in comparison to other countries, where it’s done close to or after votes are cast. But then, I too believe we can and should do better.
They should at least be getting the money from the Gold/Silver/etc awards...
Twitter closed captions button now available to all in iOS and Android apps
This is exactly what I meant by an interpolation variation on a library sort with several more important details. I didn't know Marshall was into sorting since I know of him from his history of optimizing Dyalog APL.
I don't think the reasonable pro-lifers were in a protest that culminated in a bombing. Go to crazy places, meet crazy people.

Most pro-lifers in the upper echelons of intellectual and professional life are probably silent, fearing reprisal.
Dont you need a phone number for whatsapp though?
The only alternative to this experiment is China's currently policy. There isn't much of a middle ground because anything short of aggressive testing, lockdowns, and quarantine won't be enough to stop the spread.
Yes, people's imagination can run wild and hypothetical scenarios are limitless

It is the same argument used to justify any opinion without proof

[1] "Multiverse" vs. fine tuned universe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe

[2] "Choice" vs. responsibility: https://trendguardian.medium.com/free-will-a-rich-fairy-tale...

Our minds can justify anything

[3] "Interpreter" mind: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31737462
Good on you.

I distinctly remember my dad waking me up to look at lightning storms or other similar events.

This stuff is important.
My town has an elected position called the "board of library trustees" which has just a few powers, including notably the ability to hire a new library director.

There are usually vacancies and poorly-contested elections for the position, even this year when the director resigned and the town had to search for then hire a new one. The job has a fair amount of influence on a critically important part of civic infrastructure, but people don't seem to be stepping up to do it.

Every time there's a vacancy I took at the state handbook that describes what your job should be if you're one of these trustees and I decide I am not confident I could do those tasks as well as the job deserves: https://mblc.state.ma.us/for/2012-Handbook.pdf . It's a LOT!
I've been using CopyQ for years on Linux, macOS, and Windows, highly recommend it - https://hluk.github.io/CopyQ/
No. Absolutely not. I want to say precisely what I mean and have the database do precisely what I say, no more, no less.

But maybe you're asking the wrong question in your headline. If you could have other people in your organization able to talk to a database in plain English, would you?

This isn't something that most of the HN crowd would want for their own work. There might be a lot of people here who have, say, that upper-level manager who keeps asking for reports for which the HN person has to figure out how to get the data. Handing that manager a tool like this, and letting them run their own queries could get them out of our hair. (It could also be better for the manager, as they run the query, look at the results, and figure out that it wasn't actually the data they were looking for, and so they can iterate the query to get what they're really after.)

One caveat, though: I wouldn't want to hand anyone - even a professional - write access with this kind of a tool.
I left it out, as I didn't find it relevant to respond to that particular comment.

A simple drafting of a law is not the whole of "due process"; the very Roe v. Wade encapsulates that. (Of course, now overturned.)

But also, take the cases of forcing a women to have a child she did not have a say in (rape) or which will kill her (e.g., ectopic pregnancy). These seem pretty close to bill-of-attainder type situations, but also, due process.

I'd also argue you need to overcome the equal protection clause; bodily autonomy seems to me like a right that we generally honor — we do not force organ or blood donations upon people — yet, here, we strip that right from one sex in particular?
> It depends on how you define "this." Polls that ask "do you support Roe v. Wade are useless because it's a legal decision and the public doesn't necessarily understand its legal effect. More granular polls show that the public is on both sides of Roe.

None of this supports that the 14th amendment’s right to privacy under the due process clause doesn’t exist though?

> It's disingenuous beyond belief to try and make a false equivalency between an expressly enumerated right written into the Constitution 233 years ago, with one divined from "penumbras" and "emanations" of the Constitutional text in the mid-20th century.

Sure, we can ignore the well regulated militia clause as meaningless, everyone seems to. Then, to pick another example of capriciousness, my understanding is that this court ruled in Egbert v. Boule and that the explicit right against unreasonable search and seizure in the 4th amendment should actually be interpreted that there is no right to sue the government for redress of these violations, only the complaint processes that government agencies provide to decide the unreasonableness for themselves. There is another 233 year old amendment being so narrowly interpreted to slowly defang it while another “shall not be infringed”
It seems like you are using the US War on Terror as a good example? It didn’t stop the loss of life, it just changed the arena. Orders of magnitudes more people died as a result of that than from the attack that spawned it.
Assuming a fixed monitor display, and a separate faster than framerate game update loop, then the ideal way to render is to sleep until you just barely have enough time and then start rending, finishing just time for the card to read out the data. But obviously that is hard, since render time is not the same for every frame. [1] But if we could pull this off, it would obviously have latency that is as low as possible given the hardware in question, with the frame actually output always containing the latest possible data without screen tearing. (If you allow for screen tearing by swapping buffers mid scan-out, then you can get even less input latency for the lower parts of the screen with the render as fast as possible techniques.)

The continuously render new frames as fast as possible approach (with triple buffering) is somewhat of a crude approximation of this. It works, and is potentially better than vsync, but is not ideal. It can give impressive framerate numbers though.

Variable refresh rate (gsync, freesync) can avoid this, and are best, at least as long as you can't render frames faster than the maximum refresh rate of the monitor. If you can render frames faster, then all these considerations apply again.

Footnotes:
[1] I seem to recall was some technology that tried to simulate this (without the sleep) by making render calls for "frames" that are too early be no-ops, and only once we are close to when the frame needs to start being actually drawn do the draw calls do anything. This obviously yielded absurd framerate numbers.
> we cooked them up

When you say “we”, who do you mean exactly? How did they cook them?

Can you explain why you believe the pandemic is not over?
My friend's dad has stage 3 renal failure, not cancer. I genuinely have no idea what you're talking about and you're just rambling now. Enjoy your self-contained bubble of delusion where nobody can harm you (except yourself, but you'd need to be self-aware to realize that).

Cheers.
And it seems the nearest "Fedex Office Print & Ship" is 176 miles away and gets 2.7 stars. No thank you.
The game theory of this situation is bleak. If one side chooses hardliners, then the hardliners can pull the center closer to the hardline. In the past this worked out as most hardliners were hardlined on different topics. Now, the right has unified into a solid voting block that increasingly picks up all or nothing stances on most issues.

If democrats elect moderates into such an environment, the center is hopelessly pulled to the right. If Republicans vote in a moderate, they still get pulled into voting with the majority. If you are a democrat, increasingly your only option is to vote in your own set of hardliners who will take all or nothing stances - as getting nothing done is better than the alternative.

The anger in this decision is partially a sign of what's to come. The Supreme court is now vastly out of sync with the national population center - or their own precedent for the last ~70 years. Barring court reform, I'd expect that we're on the way to a constitutional crises where a state decides to overrule the supreme court's decision.
Okay, but a tool that enables individuals to bypass unjust laws, also enables them to bypass just laws. Therefore it's not clear how the potential for decreasing injustice by allowing individuals to circumvent unjust laws is not counterbalanced by an equal (or greater) potential for increasing injustice by enabling them to circumvent just laws.

The other objection is that, even if you believe that it's a good thing that individuals are able to circumvent laws with impunity, crypto-currencies are not great at that except perhaps when it comes to financial crimes. Because, for example, purchasing illegal goods remains equally difficult regardless of what you use to pay for them. In some circumstances it could be marginally easier if you use a crypto-currency, but claiming that crypto-currencies solve "the problem" of purchasing illegal goods is far fetched to say the least.

Finally, another problem that crypto-currencies also claim to solve, which is that of hyperinflation (or some times just inflation), has nothing to do with oppression or injustice in my opinion. At any rate, I think it's hard to say with a straight face that crypto-currencies are a good store of vale or a hedge against inflation. The evidence overwhelmingly shows they're high-volatility assets and therefore not much of a store of value, let alone a hedge against anything.
Lol if you're going to take the user's word for it, why even bother asking for proof :)
ML based image compression don't generally let the net make up data, they use a net as a prior to reduce the entropy of the data that's there.
It was definitely not ectopic, there is no way in which an ectopic pregnancy resulted in a birth.
> The morality on the pro-life side is pretty cut and dry; any attempt to kill an innocent, healthy, viable human child is wrong.

For anyone who honestly feels this way, it would seem that the most obvious next step is to enact very strong laws that prevent that now-born perfectly viable human child from being murdered at school. I can respect such a consistent position.

I've yet to meet anyone who takes this "pro-life" position a single moment beyond birth though. Why is that?
As of right now, the chat signing (which was only used for blocking certain players' chat from appearing to you) can be disabled by the server alone, or in conjunction with the authentication.

It is unclear whether that will remain the status quo.
I mean I guess we can define core business whichever way we want, but if unpaid labor vanished overnight the entire economy would collapse so it actually is fundamentally connected to Reddit whether we like it or not.
Did Mozilla bring this back? Last I heard, Firefox Send was shut down due to malware/etc moderation issues.

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/what-happened-firefox-s...

> Firefox Send has been discontinued as of September 17th, 2020. You will no longer be able to upload or receive files. We’d like to thank all of you who tried Firefox Send.

> We started Firefox Send as a way for you to share files safely and easily from any browser. Unfortunately, some abusive users were beginning to use Firefox Send to ship malware and conduct phishing attacks. When this problem was reported, we stopped the service. Please see the Mozilla Blog for more details on why this service was discontinued.
perhaps in the US, but wouldn't this equally have been the case historically?

the overall effect is almost certainly the result of the proprietors of playgrounds shielding themselves from lawsuits. I'd be willing to bet that around the time it started to change there was a big lawsuit, or a string of them that put the fear of god/bankruptcy into people running these things for the joy of others
Netflix lays off several hundred more employees
Source please? Everything I've read about latest Omicrons suggests that they are more transmissible, more likely to evade immunity, and substantially _less_ severe in terms of hospitalization and deaths. By and large, this is what you'd expect to happen at the end of a pandemic, regardless of our response.
> the wizards are about to be thrown out of the castle

You have completely misunderstood who the moat-building wizards are. That's proprietary software. Heard of it? I ask because a lot of young people nowadays don't seem to understand how dominant it used to be and the threat that it represented. (Plus a few older folks who never knew, forgot, or deny reality for other reasons.) We've been trying to throw the wizards out for decades, by making code available to everyone and making sure it stays that way via licensing. Code without a license is subject to re-enclosure as important enhancements - even necessary ones, such as security - are made behind locked doors. The open version becomes out of date, the proprietary one wins, we're back to wizards and moats. What Microsoft is doing is the same thing for code that was supposed to have legal protection so it could remain open and avoid that fate. It's taking magic back from the people and making it exclusive to the "capitalist class" (eye roll) again.
It puts them in charge of interpreting the constitution, I thought. What a stretch to make them seem like on a whim law makers or tyrannical.
Governments tends to become tyrannical especially as they scale and gain more power. That's what the fabulous constitution was drafted after for the most part: to protect people against the government(s). Not put by Trump or other conservative to exerce more control over people. Here quite the opposite.
I see in this overturn a move to re-establish distance and reduce the over reach of governance, federal legislation here, the supreme court attacking itself. The constitution still somehow works in the U.S, and supreme judges doing a great job at keeping it honored.
I just want to jump in and say that even though we don't agree on the issue at hand, I nonetheless appreciate you trying to clear up bad arguments and present only the strongest arguments.

It's often exhausting trying to get people to think with their brains rather than with the tips of their tongues, and all the bad arguments muddy waters.
> "Where you see delegating to the states, I see a minority (less than 30% of Americans agree with this) enforcing social views on the majority".

That's not true, only 26% of Americans support abortion in almost all cases. Most support some sort of restriction. This ruling forces the States to determine what those restrictions are.

This is an extremely complicated and nuanced cultural issue. The debate that's happening now is one that was cut short by Roe—one that the rest of the West has had. Few other countries allow abortion with "no restrictions". States should be allowed to decide, individually, where they want to draw the line.

I'll add that this is in no way an endorsement of an anti-choice position. But there's no way to view this as "a minority enforcing social views on the majority."

The primary civic problem in this country is the neutering of our State and Federal legislatures. The Courts should not be legislating. The Executive should not be legislating. Force our Representatives to do their damn jobs.
much like a startup, the key thing to understand about non-profit boards is that the board members' primary job is to fundraise (directly or indirectly) and secondarily to make productive introductions (donors, partners, 'customers', funding organizations, etc.).

a distant (but not insignificant) third is strategic direction, which is often what we imagine board members do, but that's a relatively minor part of the role. some board members might have some operational input, but that's usually not expected for any but the smallest non-profits.
> In fact isn’t viability one if the leading pro-choice indicators of morality in abortion?

No. That's a tactical argument. The leading, fundamental argument from morality is the value of human life. That's probably why many laws don't make exceptions on health. And as a pro-choicer, I kind of agree. I think there's an argument to be made that viability shouldn't even be a factor.
I often imagine what it must have been like to be born in the 1920s. By 1945, you would have lived through a Depression and the worst war the world had ever seen by a large margin. You would have entered a world where a few button presses could wipe out all life on Earth. You watched the rise of communism. The economy of your adulthood was worse than what you were born into. It must have seemed like the arrow of progress had permanently broken and humanity was doomed.

And yet, without knowing it, ahead of you was the Civil Rights Act, the women's liberation movement, the environmental movement and the Clean Air Act, increased support for interacial relationships, gay rights.

In the midst of that dark time, it would have been hard to believe any of those could be ahead of you. Who knows what could be ahead of us now?
Professional web developer here: I use safari almost exclusively and I have for years. I vastly prefer it to chrome/Firefox/brave/opera/etc.
No, we literally just need to mandate N95 masks in public settings and get the effective R value down near 1 again. Contact tracing and government support for paid sick leave, etc. would control it even further. At no point do harsh lockdowns have to happen.
> The real goal is socially repressive puritanism and a desire to punish women for choosing to have sex.

Is the intent behind child support laws "a desire to punish men for choosing to have sex"? If a man has a one-night-stand with a woman and a child is born, he could be on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars over the course of 18 years.

> By your logic, if a person drives a car and has a crash, the doctor should refuse to treat their injuries, because after all, it was their choice to drive.

If a person refuses to take a COVID-19 vaccine, and does not have COVID, should doctors / hospitals be allowed to give that person lower quality-of-service and/or refuse elective treatments? After all, the person made a choice not to get a COVID vaccine which is proven safe and effective.
open source finance = ded rite?

check back in 20 yrs. doubt it.
What I'm saying is I'm not sure how much ML can imagine just by changing coefficient precision.
> 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.

I could argue that ability of an organism to survive on its own is not a requirement nor a sufficient criteria for neither personhood (a legal construct) or anything in lines of sentience, self-awareness and sapience (philosophical constructs commonly associated with a person, although it's not a clear cut - e.g. a person may become incapacitated and is still considered a person).