skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It's definitely NOT human. For the first day or two, all cellular processes (basic cell metabolism, protein synthesis, that sort of thing) are controlled by extranuclear DNA that comes only from the egg. So instead of having a chromosome number of 2N=46 like all the somatic cells in your body, the embryo is functionally haploid.

While that's going on in the cytoplasm, the nucleus is a real mess. Sometimes it's 1N, sometimes 2N, sometimes even 4N! If we accept that humans are a species because of our DNA, then there's just no way you could ever call that embryo human in the first 36ish hours post-fertilization. I don't know quite what you'd call it, but it's definitely not that.
Not that great. UK is facing a cost of living crisis caused by too much government spending and in particular governments paying people to not work.

There's a second issue because it's Glasgow. For Scotland to become viably independent it needs to wean itself off English subsidies. This sort of thing is the opposite and reinforces the general impression that the Scots aren't serious about independence. They can't afford even their current levels of spending on their own. Really is not affordable even with the rest of the UK involved, but especially not alone.
True, but of the three topics you mention, one clearly dominates the others: when does human life begin. Bodily autonomy and privacy will always be secondary matters that cannot decide the legality of abortion.

It's curious that the definition of human life is different in every state. The circumstances around brain death, euthanasia, and suicide are decided locally, not federally. In fact, I think before ROe v Wade, the Supremes never before tried to define what is "human" and what is not. Even the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th amendment (which decided the citizenship and equal protection under law of black people) was not decided by the Supremes but by the states.

Probably, now, it would be better if the states wrote legislation that clearly defines human life, thereby taking such an important issue out of the hands of unelected politicians like the Supremes.
This is the conversation we need to have, on an international level.
Or it's a consequence of the Supreme Court changing its precedent after 50 years of leaving it alone, and its members explicitly misrepresenting their position.
It was definitely reported on before it was found.
This is apples to oranges to kiwis...

Hoplites were mostly a citizen army, phalanx were professional soldiers and Roman legions (in classic era) were professional army with many specialists troops especially engineering.

You need different numbers of officers not for the battle but for other tasks.. War for 99% isn't battle but engineering, logistsics etc..

Just as an example Jululis Cesar in Gaul had build a bridge over Rhine twice and it took them just a few days.. Hoplites from Anabasis were just wandering around looking for an existing bridge.
Except for use of logos, it's interesting to look at this through the lens of upcoming Burning Man.

This line caught my eye...

> ...when a group that participants wanted to join stressed its desire for co-operative, prosocial people — the participants tended to become strategically modest...

In some camps and groups at least, cooperative and prosocial people are what you want. And in theory that's what the larger Burning Man experience is/can be. There are some pretty chill camps I've been in where very unassuming people are actually very fascinating individuals with very intriguing lives.

But at the same time, costumes and clothing are part of the fun. People wear some wild stuff. That said, there is clearly a boundary you can step over with clothing that will create a very negative reaction. Think feather headdress, sequins, etc. Think so called "influencers" trying to get their next photo shoot out to Instagram.
That strikes me as very much of a strawman argument, as late-term abortions are not just incredibly rare (this interview with a woman who had to have an abortion at 32-weeks for medical reasons gives insight into how awful the whole process is — and how expensive it was for something that was absolutely medically necessary in her case [1] as the fetus was incompatible with life and there were medical complications that would make a live birth a potential death sentence for the woman involved), but that there are very few doctors who will even perform them in cases when they are medically necessary. And very few states that even allow that to happen.

But if you’re asking directly if I think someone should be able to prioritize their own life in place of someone else’s, well yes, yes I do.

[1]: https://jezebel.com/interview-with-a-woman-who-recently-had-... anyone who wants to rail about late-term abortions without knowing the pain and suffering that is involved for the women that have to get them needs to read that interview. All of it. Then read it again. And then think about why the focus of this debate is on the extremely-rare scenarios that are not about people changing their minds and not wanting to bring a child into the world, but are terribly sad medical scenarios.
I have to trust that at least 51% of validators

Don't you mean 51% of hashrate? Pretty big difference because a single person with substantial resources could acquire 51% of hashrate.
A bottle of whiskey per week is excessive to the point that it might shave decades off your life, regardless of whether it comes with exercise.

I drink. Sometimes (rarely) maybe even the equivalent of a bottle per week. But let's not kid ourselves
The Proximal paper was used by Chinese disinformation bots to skelch any debate about a lab leak. I take that as a Streisand effect. Same when Fauci strongly and publically rebuked the Indian bioinformatics pre-print paper talking of the GP-120 HIV inserts. That is how I came to know about those inserts and their interesting history.

So strangely, the grossly unscientific propaganda effort that was the Proximal Origins paper may have had the reverse effects, at least, it had on me.

Anyone contributing to this virology conspiracy (why they were put in charge to lead the investigation and theory building, and not the way more qualified biosecurity experts?), including voluntarily, like Angie Rasmussen, has Chinese propaganda tainted blood on their hands.
As far as the UK is concerned, it is possible to get skilled work visas for tech jobs in the UK. The company needs to be willing to sponsor you, and some other criteria need to be met. You can get permanent residency after 5 years. Other routes are available depending on your background (if your grandparents were British for instance this is very easy), or if you’re young and interested in studying, degrees now lead to graduate visas.

You will likely be taking a pay cut, but you might have a higher standard of living depending on how much you currently make. You will also almost certainly get better holidays (5-6 weeks is fairly normal).

See https://www.gov.uk/skilled-worker-visa for more details
No, I don't agree at all. There is literally new science in this paper; the idea that random "security researchers" looking at benign-looking crypto code and monitoring all the connections their clients made (a thing nobody does) would ever have caught this is not plausible.
> First of all, as others have pointed out, laws that prohibit abortion even in cases of rape and incest overlook the "choosing to take action" part. In that case, a person is pregnant without ever having made a choice to engage in any action at all.

Yeah, obviously, but it barely matters for the overall argument. It's misdirection, not a substantive refutation. Is anyone on the pro-choice side happy with only allowing abortions in cases of rape and incest? I'm not. I'm pretty sure that falls under the pro-life umbrella, in fact. All this shows is that one part of the pro-life camp may have a better-reasoned position than another.

> Moreover, "living thing" is the key word here. A fetus IS a living thing. So is a cow, a cockroach, an intestinal parasite. We kill those, and we support industries that kill them, without thinking. And while there are extremists who support protecting a broader segment of "life," that is not what the pro-life movement is about. If I breed cows for a living, I have a legal and ethical right to kill those cows. And if I have a baby attached to my uterus, I should have the legal right to do what I want.

This still doesn't address the argument. In fact your keying in on "living thing" and trying to build on that as an argument is pure semantic mumbo-jumbo. Replace that phrase with "baby" (which I avoided so we wouldn't immediately have that other ridiculous, pointless discussion) and all that junk about cows is irrelevant, which it was anyway.

Again: I'm pro-choice, to be clear. I just find most arguments from "my side" totally fail to address the "other side"'s actual positions, which is frustrating if, like me, you hope for your position to gain support. Bad arguments just make us look like we're wrong.
Thanks for sharing the interview! Check back in on the end of the show, around 2 hours 10 minutes. I asked him if he intended to keep teaching, and he hedged a little bit but essentially said no.
The fact that "pro life" is the term for, "against abortion," but can also literally be interpreted to mean, "supports social programs for people who are alive" is childish word games. This isn't a real argument. It doesn't advance any point. It doesn't even logically make sense. It's just playing on the inherent ambiguity of natural language in service of a cheap non sequitur.
I hate to be so cynical, but the news tends to write stories along the theme of 'rich-get-richer' no matter which way the economy goes.

When the economy booms, it's 'stock market gains mostly went to the wealthy'. When it crashes, it's 'the poorest are hurt most by unemployment'.

Or to take the interest rate example: high rates = unaffordable mortgages, low rates = high asset prices. No matter what happens, one can always write an article about 'X increasing wealth disparity'.

In a sense they are correct, in that having money allows one to take advantage no matter which way the economy bends... But I am pretty sure there is an unwritten rule that articles must always have a bit of evil, plotting, Mr. Burns-esque element.
what value are you talking about? currency themselves have no inherent value and are only backed by the confidence that people have of the issuer.
"personhood" is not a scientific term so there is no scientific argument for or against.

It is a philosophical question.
> You totally have the legal obligation to provide for your children, if you have them, and that almost always involves using your body in some way

You are not legally obligated to donate your organs to your children, fwiw.

I think the discussion of ethical and legal obligation cannot possible be given broad swath of "no one is obligated to anyone" nor "you are entirely obligated to someone in every way". This isn't how reality works. Parents are considered obligated to their children, unless they choose not to parent their children and withdraw their parental responsibilities under existent legal frameworks. At the same time, parents are not entirely obligated to their children, as parents are not fined or jailed for not donating their blood or organs.
I think you and I are mostly in agreement.

I think the position that the zygote is where the rights start is bad. I concede it is where life starts, but life is just not a very good designation for that. If anything it should be about suffering or a nervous system - something beyond just replicating cells.

Since vast majority of abortions happen in the early stages anyway, often the late stage ones are particularly tragic situations where the mother wanted to carry the baby to term, but can't for health reasons. It's why I'm in favor of broad rights and think that despite the fact it is ending a life, we're better off on net for women to retain that capability (the state shouldn't be getting involved).

I can understand a reasonable person disagreeing and thinking at some point the fetus is developed enough and shouldn't be terminated without cause (basically the law in Denmark, France, etc.). I think that's why it's probably healthy to have this fought out democratically rather than legislated via the courts.

There isn't a constitutional right, there's a good-faith disagreement, and the finding of a constitutional right in Roe was always a bit tortured [0] and the blow back from this has been unhealthy for our democracy (imo).

This is a nuanced position that doesn't fit well into partisan politics, it's also a third rail topic - but it's where I've ultimately landed (for now).

[0]: https://overcast.fm/+vpWZx2bsc
That is all speculation right?
I can’t count how many times I’m typing something (and since I don’t touch type, I’m looking at the keyboard, not the screen) and when I look up half of my text has gone into another app. I actually wish I could enable this one everything, not just secure text fields.
This is a conflict between bodily autonomy and the right to life. Two rights, both important.

Wheresoever these rights meet, we have, as a society, chosen the right of bodily autonomy. No one may compel you to donate your blood or organs, even if they might die without them. Even if they are your children. Even if you will be dead when they are taken. We have made a strong cultural choice that the body is yielded only with specifically granted consent.

Abortion is a place where these two fundamental rights connect. The mother's right to control herself and the child's to exist. Under our culture's normal choice of bodily autonomy, it is an unfortunate consequence that the child will not live.

It might be entirely reasonable to frame laws encouraging that children deemed viable should rather be birthed so long as there is not risk to the mother. But this is not, of course, what they have done.

Instead we have re-opened a chapter once closed. Of horror stories with women being denied abortive procedures for ectopic pregnancies, or known failed pregnancies, forcing them instead to carry their dead child until it is naturally expelled. Horrors that would be easily taken care of by the woman simply having that natural choice over her own flesh.

Desperate women without resources to flee oppressive laws will resort to the same sorts of dangerous remedies they did in pre-Roe days. These frequently went wrong, and many that spoke in favor of Roe when it was passed cited such stories.

Women will die and families will suffer under the laws that have become active today, and those laws that will be soon certified into action or freshly written to take advantage of Roe's absence. The people insisting on these laws will take no measure of responsibility for the terrors they inflict, insisting instead it is the fault of the victims of these laws. Many seem to take some perverse glee in it.

That one of the justices has insisted in their concurrence that we review and vacate laws enshrining similarly protected rights for millions of Americans, it seems sure the current path will lead only to more misery, bigotry, violence and horror if those pushing this poisonous legislation have their way.
What may I ask is your specific grievance with the Democratic Party, which you have twice in this thread incorrectly called the "democrat" party? You've clearly got some beef, so state it plainly.
The advice I give my students is this:

- Pick a SECTOR or INDUSTRY to work within - something that interests you (healthcare, law, manufacturing, education...)

- Pick a TECHNOLOGY AREA that interests you (front-end app development, computer science, data, networking...)

- Combine the SECTOR/INDUSTRY and the TECHNOLOGY AREA and brainstorm some ideas (e.g. create an app for accessing a patient record; design a new generalisable database for tracking the manufacture of goods; design a proof-of-concept P2P network for off-grid emergency services...)

- For each idea, use Google Scholar, search on the keywords and read about what others have done (abstract & conclusions). Note down any further research questions/future work/areas for improvement).

- From this, you can derive unanswered research questions. Write one or two research questions for each of your ideas.

- Rank your ideas based on how desirable you find them (this is important) and how achievable you think they are (both the problem itself and considering your current skill set), scale of 1-10.

- Your top-ranking idea (add the ranked scores per idea) should emerge as your leading candidate for further investigation.
No, it's correct: https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2.html

>The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State) and its operative clause (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed).
RBG had her criticisms of Roe, but a quick reading of her critiques would clearly show she would be with the dissent today, not the majority.

Reproductive rights are essential to women's liberty and equality, which is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. The unborn child has a competing right to life that is also guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. Roe/Casey balanced these competing interests well, and today's decision blows that up and eliminates any notion of reproductive rights for women.

Rights are not supposed to be subject to the whims of political majorities.
I don't find any arguments around the furin cleavage site convincing. This kind of cleavage site is pretty small and the number of variations that have good efficiency is limited. The presence of a specific furin cleavage site is not clear evidence of genetic manipulation.
Unless they signed bizarrely horrible contracts at least some of the staff will be getting residuals. By way of imperfect comparison, Ringo Starr's annual income of $20m doesn't come from doing the Xmas Special of "Thomas the Tank Engine"
The provision (Second Amendment) explicitly says "well regulated", and talks about gun rights in connection with being for militias. This is how that right was read until 2008. This is all about conservatives on the Supreme Court picking and choosing what they want the Constitution to say.
> The 3 that my blog[0] uses are base64 URLs in my single 100k CSS file.

This is not an efficient approach. Base64 will make the fonts about 30% bigger, and webfonts are already too big. The fact that it's in CSS also means that it's now render blocking, and font-display can't be used.

You're likely delaying your render time versus standard font loading. Do a comparison in WebPageTest and examine the waterfall.
There are multiple threads on it from yesterday if you want to see what the HN community thinks. But you might as well know, most of them are just people complaining about things unrelated to this ruling, which is what usually happens when people discuss things like this.

In summary, this ruling doesn't change much: no one who wasn't allowed to have a gun before will be allowed to have one as a result of this ruling. The act of carrying a concealed gun in public will still be a crime by default, even if you are allowed to have a gun.
> Being against killing, at least for non criminals/enemies, is pretty common.

Ok then, the fetus is my enemy.
Too good to be truth. People will always blame others, even animals, never themselves.
yes china bad. Thank you for your contribution to the discussion.
It is a contrived example, but it has a reason for it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion
There's a big exception: the built-in Keychain is solid and very easy to use. In 2022, my advice would be to use the built-in password manager for everything _unless_ you have a strong cross-platform requirement, in which case consider things like 1Password.

Plus, that's setting you up for WebAuthn passkeys to become more pervasive and that's a transformative change relative to password logins.
If you've done it could you link to or provide instructions on how we may reproduce your findings rather than just saying "the truth is out there"?
I initially dismissed the lab leak hypothesis because surely nobody would be stupid enough to make new SARS virus strains on purpose. They’re worthless as biological weapons, and the risks are insane.

Then it turns out that that is precisely the type of research the Wuhan lab does regularly.

And then when our prime minister merely suggested an investigation, China put punitive tariffs on billions of dollars of our exports to them.

Because clearly, that’s how innocent governments with nothing to hide act.

Immediate, massive retaliation for merely suggesting that someone should look into things.

But everybody should believe the Chinese government! They told you: it came from a pangolin in the market. Why would they lie?

They lied about the reason for the punitive tariffs, sure, making up some insane story about centrally orchestrated “dumping”.

Okay, so they lied. But not about Wuhan! That would be unethical…
I agree with you. I felt disgusted writing it. For me, pregnancy inspires feelings of wonder and magic and awe. Yet for others, pregnancy may cause them to feel fear, pain, and hopelessness.

I don't want to characterize pregnancy this way, I also don't want to characterize almost any human interaction this way. I prefer to believe that we all have good intentions and sometimes accidentally hurt people and that most of us are trying our absolute best to minimize pain and maximize joy, especially to those around us. So what can hurt me is how so many mothers may feel pain whether they keep the baby or abort, and we often demonize them for making one of the hardest and most gut-wrenching decisions in their lives. That's not to say I don't feel pain for the unborn child, I also feel the pain of the lost life. But I also feel the pain for the child who is born and kills the mother, or who is born and is resented by the mother or abandoned.

I feel pain all around the situation and it hurts me that we can be so quick to demonize the unborn child or the mother.
What’s your scientific criticism of the paper?
Hackers swipe $100M in cryptocurrency from blockchain bridge Harmony
Will it not be a dancer dressed in a suit this time?
Doesn't matter if it's life saving, right? If you argue based on bodily autonomy, and then support vaccine mandates, you're not consistent regardless of what you think the vaccine does.
I haven’t been fixated on this by any means but I remember reading an article months back that looked at the timeline and locations of the early cases and compared them against the locations of the market and the research facility. I came away thinking that the animal market hypothesis seemed much more likely than the lab leak.
Well there is a ton of utility there
Two years and I have yet to read an explanation of what this hypothesis is. Were they careless with a natural virus? Did they modify viruses? Did they release a nature virus on purpose? Did they accidentally release a modified virus? What's modified even mean here, studying random mutation? Engineering things?

It's Schrodinger's Argument. It's all of them and none of them and it always shifts depending on who you're talking to. So I've concluded it's the largest, dumbest motte-and-bailey argument there is.

But at least we can all agree, whatever it is, there's no practical lessons to be taken from it.