skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> And for instance, Janestreet's idiom udes labelled arguments as often as possible.

So you have to give up to one of pillars of the functional programming paradigm and you get a less elegant but more practical programming language. Otherwise I agree that using labeled arguments is mostly fine and doesn't completely spoil the language.

The more serious compromise to the functional programming paradigm is the fact that you need to use mutable variables and imperative style programming. Once you do this you lose most of the elegance and attractiveness of functional programming.

> Similarly, I am not sure what is the issue with using imperative OCaml for imperative algorithms when they are a better fit for the problem at hand?

What I mean is that for any moderately complex application you need to switch to imperative style so the appeal of OCaml is mostly lost. You better choose a programming language that is designed for imperative programming since the beginning.

The arguments I am giving explains why there are practically no real world applications done in OCaml. Some people insist using OCaml because they love the elegance of the language and I understand them but reality is it doesn't scale to complex applications.

For people in Janestreet I think this is a sort of niche where they get an added value from OCaml thanks to its superior typing system and compile-time detection of many errors. I guess they care really a lot about the business logic of their applications and OCaml shines to ensure it is correct so for them the advantages out-weights the inconveniences.
You can get all of them (monthly since 1973) here (they even have an API):

https://usda.library.cornell.edu/concern/publications/3t945q...
Me too. It's another financial incentives to make clean power generation more accessible.
Metal slides still are built for new playgrounds. Plastic is cheaper, but doesn't last as long. It is about the budget, more than anything.
Clarence Thomas said the quiet part out loud. He publicly challenged anyone to send them a case on gay marriage or birth control and they would happily oblige and overturn those rulings as well.
Computer History Museum Interview with David Cutler (2018) [video]
This is a supreme court in search of the limits of its power. I hope they find what they are looking for.
It's this way by design. In retrospect, we could have probably avoided the problem of the party in power trying to appoint 'their' judges by requiring a three-quarters majority in the Senate for appointments, but that didn't happen and never will.
This is explained in the article. The intent is to evaluate 100:80:100, which is 100% pay for 80% of the hours in return for a commitment to maintain 100% productivity.
If abortions are bad then providing birth control and sexual education to prevent unwanted pregnancies would be good, right? But those are going to be gutted next.

Hmmmm....
> So just to be clear, are you arguing for an massive expansion of intellectual property rights to all secrets?

No, I'm saying all property rights are constructed and enforced by the state and they're all figments of our collective imagination. There's no fundamental ontological difference and the lines we draw are arbitrary. I'd support rolling back some of the IP protections we currently have in place, and I'm also in support of higher taxes in some cases, and other restrictions on physical property rights, but there's not a magical difference between IP and physical property that means we should regard those things differently.
You will have to wait for JavaScript to add it first.

The whole point of Typescript and why it is so successful, is because they only add type system on top of JavaScript.

Pattern matching would introduce new language constructs beyond what is required for defining types.
Check out knife statistics in China. They don't have school shootings but mass school knifings.
I think it's a combination of it being too hard, and politicians "saving" issues, keeping them live, to motivate voters. Many times in the past 30 years the dems could have passed a federal law protecting abortion rights.
How does it compare to pdqsort?
So it's bad law for 3 reasons:

(1) Stare Decisis and Reliance: two legal standards that had restrained even right-wing courts for years. It's legal, but "bad", for the Court to overturn a long-standing law that people organize their lives around (as they did post sexual-revolution). So the standard isn't "is it wrong," it's "is it egregiously wrong." And the court has found multiple times that Roe is fine.

(2) The decision doesn't take aim at _just_ abortion. It takes aim at the right to privacy. This right is pretty strong, overall: the 9th Amendment says "just bc a right is not explicit, that doesn't mean it isn't real"; the 3rd, 4th and others say "the gov't can't just meddle in your affairs without real justification;" the 14th says "this right is universal." Implying this right is weak is iffy at best, and DEFINITELY doesn't meet the "egregiously wrong" standard.

(3) The new tests are, uh, speculative.

(3a)They rely on historical analysis that is contextually-driven at best. Are we talking abortion, reproductive healthcare, or women's rights? That's a matter of framing, not law, and will lead to dif conclusions, which makes it a bad test. [Note: more on this when Obergefell is inevitably challenged...]

(3b) The tests lead to dif conclusions than Alito reached. Abortion has been legal in the US for longer than it's been illegal; it wasn't banned nationwide until the 20th century, because it was explicitly legal under british common law. Even 19th century regulations were effectively just regulations of methods (poison control), not abortion itself. I'd argue "a cultural practice referenced in Shakespeare, explicitly addressed in 400 years of british common law, and that we kept for 100+ years in the US, including when the Constitution was written" is pretty deep. Besides, it's applied differently in different cases (how far back is "deeply rooted," anyway?). TLDR: arbitrary = bad test.

All this to say: I'm pissed bc it's bad policy, but I'm ALSO annoyed at the bad legal analysis. Like - there are better arguments! It feels like an F U.
We've been testing out both Mattermost and Zulip over the past few months at work, and we recently decided to go with Zulip.

Mattermost is nice in that communication and project management is all in one tool, but doing anything within Mattermost is very sluggish (even on a very overspecced server with only 1 Mattermost user online). Using their Focalboard plugin resulted in multiple seconds of wait time between various actions like modifying a task. On the other hand, Zulip has been consistently snappy even as we've onboarded users onto our instance. Seeing it in use at large organizations such as Rust's Zulip instance instilled confidence that it'll continue to perform well even well beyond our scale.

Also Zulip's threading model is really nice to use once you and your team gets the hang of topic separation. We've managed to completely eliminate 'talking over one another' as we would in Slack/Discord style text channels, and it's much easier to keep track of various conversations. While Zulip's UI and UX isn't as polished and certainly has areas for improvement, the threading model alone makes it worthwhile to use.

On top of that, Mattermost's pricing doesn't work well for small businesses, especially when you factor in that something 'simple' like Elasticsearch support, or, performance monitoring tools to figure out why your 1 user installation on a 88 thread server with hundreds of GBs of memory is sluggish, or even just creating a second admin user is locked behind their enterprise plan.

I get that money needs to be made, but blocking some features behind an enterprise plan (that asks you to contact them for pricing, no less - their $10/user for the Professional plan is not only steep, but still doesn't include these features) doesn't feel great. Zulip is completely free, and offers Zulip Cloud alongside a support plan, but does not block any features behind a paywall. There's no limitations on what Zulip will let you do either - no 10,000 message history limit, no file storage limit, user role restrictions, or anything of that nature.

Oh, and Zulip is 100% open source software. In my eyes, it's hard to compete with that when it comes to communication tools.
Having lived in Norway and Finland, I’d say it would be very likely that you would get your items back. And if there would be contact details, someone would have most likely tried to call you before the few hours would be up. Would more or less the same in actual public spaces as well.
"A native app would do just fine", why would we want to build a native app using proprietary tech, be forced to go through an app store, risk to be turn down by Apple and be taxed 30% of our revenue otherwise? All this when we can build web apps using open standards, working on all platforms and without being extorted by a giant abusive conglomerate?
Didn't the Supreme Court just fix it by giving back this matter to states and their elected bodies ?
I read another article that phased the commission's argument that water recycling would be cheaper to rate payers and less environmentally destructive.
And Sex Ed too ;-)
I have two phone numbers. One is for 2-way authentication, the other I give out freely on any website that requires a phone number (and to all my friends).

It's basically the same setup I use with emails.

Not entirely sure if it's safer that way. But so far I get SMS spam only on the "burner" number.
Nominations of the justice is done by people who have been elected though. According to you, does that make them less legitimate that if they were directly elected?
Clarence Thomas' concurrence explicitly calls for these cases to be re-examined "For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell."

For reference: Obergefell allowed equal-marriage, Lawrence decriminalised sodomy, and Griswold decriminalised buying contraceptives.
And? Even Russians don’t care about what their military believes in - see the hilariously low social status of soldiers within Russian society. Why would anyone else care? As a reminder, we are discussing whether EU is politically stable.
Maybe that rate of abortion, as it was in Soviet countries, is due to the lack of contraception and family planning in the US. That is tied to the structure of the health system.

Why is it that people that want to outlaw abortion, and are willing to pay for the policing and prosecution resources necessary to enforce that law aren't willing to invest the same amount into contraception that would have a similar effect.

Is it better to clean up after an oil spill, or ensure that the spill doesn't happen in the first place?
The amendment uses the word "arms" which includes every time of fire arm. It doesn't say "keep and bear muskets" just as much as it doesn't say "keep and bear semi-automatics".
Have you heard of the sun? It's sending quite a bit of free energy. In fact too much, many would argue, and there's nothing we can do to stop it.
It can be expanded or rotated without a constitutional amendment
Now redo the study, but IRL and with actual status clothes == high quality materials, perfect fit, nice flashy style (that means zero logos!).

I made this experiment: I have few really cheap suits (looking OK but that's it) and few very expensive suits. When I wear the cheap ones, people are normal with me. When I wear the expensive ones, people wearing normal clothes don't notice and people "in the know" (wearing expensive suits themselves) will start commenting on the quality of my materials, ask me about my tailor, etc - it's very obvious that it places me in their "friend" category immediately.

Having luxury brand logo on me would get me laughed out of that room - nobody has anything against cheap clothes but expensive clothes with logos are ridiculous to every actually rich person, it's like that meme with an adult trying to be cool among teenagers - and it makes total sense that other people don't like someone trying to level themselves above them by fakery, that's just like driving a fifth-hand Mercedes-Benz S-Klasse from 2010 and talking about the price it had when it was manufactured all the time (and complaining about gas prices in the same sentence).
If that is your position, you think that when the came down with Roe V Wade that WAS political independence and legitimacy and when overturn it its not? You can't have your cake and eat it too. It's not "illegitimate" when they don't "legislate" the way YOU want.

To be clear I am very moderate on abortion, I believe in the first trimester. But this is a states right issue and is a made up constitutional right.
> The Supreme Court is an unelected political entity. Can this be fixed?

Not really. The Senate and possibly House are expected to flip this fall. Our supreme court is taking a crack at reducing civil liberties and empowering conservative culture war positions. Precedent doesn't matter apparently. Only literal, conservative-justice interpretations of the constitution matter now. They're unqualified and unfit to run our nation's highest court. Radical and idealogical. Libertarians should be angry about this development of encroachment upon personal liberty and rights.
And this reasoning also applies to same sex marriage, and inter-racial marriage. And guess what? SCOTUS is now gunning for both. Congratulations America, welcome to the 1960s
The notion of having some kind of moral high ground based upon religious principle is absurd. The Bible is rife with Godly demands for the murder of all sorts of folk including children (1 Samuel 15:3).

Specifically, Numbers 5:20-27 prescribes ritualistic abortion if a woman has cheated on her husband. A thorough reading of the Bible gives one the understanding doesn't care about fetuses or children. He cares about the subjugation of women and everyone in their "proper" place in His hierarchy.
What is the advantage of crypto over dollars when using Coinbase? Why not just use a traditional bank and dollars to trade goods and services?
As someone who’s moving overseas shortly, changing/removing your number is a nightmare. It really is the primary UID. So many things use it for 2FA. In a lot of cases you HAVE to list a phone number. I ported my number to Google Voice as a decent alternative, but you kinda have to know what you’re doing ahead of time. My gf who moved first did not and deeply regrets it.
I do know some individual Catholics who reject the death penalty for the same reason that they would not themselves ever seek or endorse abortion, but I don't see the same phenomenon in national politics.
Even serious pro-choice scholars concede that a fetus is biologically a human life e.g., Peter Singer. If your argument is that a child is definitional not unborn then that is a semantic argument of no moral relevance.
Whichever you meant by "bigger and ethical problems in the future".
> Someone, please show me an application where blockchain is essential.

There seriously should be a requirement for anyone writing an article or a comment about how crypto is useless to install MetaMask and go play with Defi protocols for a few days: https://ethereum.org/en/dapps/ (You can use all of this if you have an internet connection, no arbitrary restrictions by governments or companies imposed can stop you - how on earth does it not blow your mind?!?! Not only that, countries that will have digital stablecoins (like USDC) will gain tremendous benefits; to the similar extent as Petrodollar has). I honestly can't get the short-sightedness of tech people in this area. This is a revolution. Obviously.
While I get your point, zkSNARKS preceded blockchain by two decades.
There’s not a large number tyrannical Hindus, Jews, Muslims, or Atheists gerrymandering their way into office to push their religious nonsense into laws that threaten my life in the United States. I think singling out Christians is perfectly fine in this case.
There does seem to have been a lot of Zig coverage recently on HN, and that's by no means a complaint. But I'm not sure that it quite goes for the same space as Rust.

I have only really kick the tyres, but it seems to me that Zig is to C what Rust is to C++, ie they both try to be the next-gen with better safety and features, but Rust's type modeling is more extensive than, and can contain complexity better than Zig, in the same way that C++ OOP is better than raw C.

Zig has a good future though, and the metaprogramming facilities are superior to most languages IMO.
I agree that extremism is a cancer. I just view Roe v. Wade as the genesis of much of that cancer.

We have a system that allows for changing laws - it's called a republic. We have a system that even allows for changing the constitution.

Upholding Mississippi's law but preserving Roe is intrinsically a political decision. Politics belong with legislatures, not judges.
> They're not saying that all religion is bad. However, religions have their place, and it is not in positions of power. Historically, the religiously-motivated have used their power to enforce their brand of religious belief above others. All religion should be banned from government, period.

Do you think that religious people should be denied the right to vote or hold office? Because if you want "all religion should be banned from government, period," that's what you'll need to do. Otherwise, only actions can be controlled, not motivations.
Isn't Bitcoin worse than cash for facilitating illegal transactions? Sure, it works over distances without physical contact, which is a huge logistical advantage. But on the other hand, the blockchain is literally a public ledger, so anonymity is tricky. I know there are solutions, but they require significant savvy. Overall I'm not sure that Bitcoin really solves this very well because your average criminal will probably have better intuition about how to hide and cover up cash transactions than Bitcoin, especially as volumes increase and law enforcement develops their expertise, it will only increase the risk for unsophisticated individuals.
Your comment trivializes how difficult it is to pass a constitutional amendment.

An amendment on an issue this polarizing would never get the requisite support from enough states, no to mention that it doesn’t even matter if you control three branches of government to pass an amendment, only Congress is involved in the process.
There's a flood of stories on this. A sampling mostly gleaned from HN's New queue:

Obviously a flood of articles and takes coming. I'm just catching what I can here....

SCOTUS ruling: <https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf> (PDF)

EFF Statement on Dobbs ruling: <https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/06/effs-statement-dobbs-a...>

We’re Not Going Back to the Time Before Roe. We’re Going Somewhere Worse <https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/07/04/we-are-not-goi...>

Supreme Court overturns Roe vs. Wade, ending 50 years of federal abortion rights <https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/24/roe-v-wade-overturned-by-sup...>

Overturning Roe vs. Wade could affect IVF <https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/how-overturning-roe-v-wa...>

Obama Statement on the Draft Supreme Court Decision to Overturn Roe vs. Wade <https://barackobama.medium.com/my-statement-with-michelle-on...>

Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade Abortion-Rights Ruling <https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-24/supreme-c...> (Use https://archive.today/ for paywall.)

Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, ending right to abortion upheld for decades <https://www.npr.org/2022/06/24/1102305878/supreme-court-abor...>

Supreme Court overturns Roe vs. Wade; states can ban abortion <https://apnews.com/article/abortion-supreme-court-decision-8...>

Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade <https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-overturns-...>

Roe vs. Wade Overturned <https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2022-06-24/supreme-co...>
But I can be prohibited from doing all sorts of things in my own home.
> How Dismantling Roe Puts Interracial Marriage at Risk...

Wouldn't the right of people to marry someone of any race be assured under the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause
This argument would be more convincing if the rest of the law treated the unborn as people, but largely it does not. You can't even deduct an unborn child as a dependent on your taxes.
Source? Japanese original is fine.
Exactly. They don't have hourly workers. Neither do Amazon nor Uber. So they can grant all sorts of holidays to "all employees", which really just means the managers.

A 4-day week applicable only to office-working executives and managers is no victory for labor. Imho it is more a failure.
There is a filibuster at the Federal level that prevents a majority of elected officials from passing laws. The electoral college can prevent the candidate with the most votes from being elected. These are both tools that allow a minority to block what a majority of voters want. Three of the SC justices were appointed during a president's term who did not win the popular vote.

At the state level there is no filibuster meaning that a dissenting minority has no way to protect themselves. Re-districting (gerrymandering) also neuters the voting power of minority groups.

There is a bias for majority rule at the state level, and minority rule at the federal level. So yes, it's minority views. This is why issues like Slavery and segregation were argued as "states rights". The way conservatives prefer our government to be set up is with a weak federal government and strong state governments so that a localized majority can enforce moral legislation on a disenfranchised minority without Federal intervention. It has always been about power and any arguments about "returning the decision to the people" is no different that someone in 1964 saying it should be up to the states whether or not minorities can use the same bathroom as white people.
The Constitution also says,

> [The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Which is the go-to argument for federal control over things. If you pay for it, and buy it from another state, then the feds can regulate it.

It seems perfectly legal to make a federal law that states don't have the power to block access to medications produced in elsewhere. Nor do they have the power to prosecute people for buying such medications, regardless of the effects, from businesses which have locations in multiple states.
Guns outpaced accidents for the first time as the leading cause of death for children in 2020. Now that abortion is illegal in half the country, will those same conservative abortion crusaders direct their attention to saving kids from guns? Somehow I don’t think so, but I guess we will see…
That's a possible view, though not my own. I personally think it is going to remain contentious until, technologically, we can remove the conflict of rights by allowing the child to come to term outside the mother's body. It would be hard to support a right to kill the child when it could mature with no additional inconvenience to the mother.