skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> ...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.

If we wait until the next pandemic hits, we will be months or years behind the curve, trying to understand it and develop treatments. Millions more people will die because we'll have been caught on our back foot.

Lucky for the human race, viruses are statistically more likely to mutate, over time, in particular ways. So it's possible to make pretty good guesses about where future would mutations might occur. So if we deliberately create those mutants in a laboratory, we can study which strains look particularly virulent and/or dangerous.

Yes, there ARE risks to this strategy, in terms of lab leaks. But the vast majority of virologists and epidemiologists have known for decades that deadly worldwide pandemics of novel Coronaviruses are an inevitably in the 21st century... It's just a matter of time. We will definitely see several more pandemics, at least as damaging as COVID-19, befor the century is out.

So even without a lab leak, we would only save ourselves a couple more years before nature did the job, itself... And it will keep happening, over and over with new Coronaviruses, for the foreseeable future. The human race can do very little to slow it, let alone stop it.
> The Texas law forbids people from getting abortions in other states, where people have no representation in the Texas legislature by giving Texas citizens the right to sue them in Texas courts.

There is no way this can be upheld, right? How on earth can citizens of state 1 go after citizens of state 2 for something that's legal in state 2?

> More generally problematic, your view would let any state persecute a minority of voters in that state and bind the federal government from guaranteeing equal protection to all Americans.

Who decides when the will of a state's majority is "democracy at work" and when it's "persecution of the minority violating equal protection"?
Considering this literally happened before at the Wuhan lab (among a group of sample collectors), this is, I think, the most likely scenario.
Pretty much every state already has Safe Haven laws that allow women to legally abandon their babies at hospitals, fire stations etc. Where they will be looked after and likely adopted out.
Their source links to https://health-study.joinzoe.com/post/covid-incidence-uk

Which says:

> According to the latest COVID Symptom Study app figures, there are currently 1,472 daily new cases of COVID in the UK on average over the two weeks up to 04 July 2020 (excluding care homes) [*]. The data suggests no decline from last week (1,445 cases). The latest figures were based on the data from almost 3 million users, 11,639 swab tests done between 21 June to 04 July (a full regional breakdown can be found here).

The 241K number is total gibberish. The 7-day average of new cases in the UK topped out at about 214K at the beginning of January, at the top of their Omicron wave, and has been nowhere near that since. It's around 13K right now.
> We need to stop making that worse

I think it should be clear that we agree on that. My gripe is with the notion that we might be able to turn back the clock to some sort of pristine natural state - and keep it at that.

We can't and we won't. There is no such pristine natural climate "balance". We have enjoyed a few millennia of climate that has been exceptionally conducive to our present way of life (based on crops and livestock) - during which our species has prospered. This as been an anomaly in terms of geological ages, and instead of putting our efforts into calling names and casting blame for the current predicament we should concentrate on how to continue surviving under new and probably harsh conditions. That's all.
SCOTUS is tasked with determining if a right is constitutionally protected.

There is no right to abortion in the constitution, Roe argued a path to one but it was fairly weak (https://overcast.fm/+vpWZx2bsc).

It was overturned because it's not the court's job to legislate policy beyond that.

Part of the reason for that is it creates policy which cannot be reverted by democratic means (except by the kind of extremes we've seen recently) - that's why it's better on net if it's narrow in scope and tied to constitutional rights (imo).

IANAL so this is at the edge of my knowledge, but that's my understanding. There is a path to adding things to the constitution, but that power lies with congress.
Solid writeup. The infrastructure for system design practice is so crappy compared to traditional DSA questions.
I can only laugh at the absurdity of the situation. Cryptocurrency was invented specifically to liberate people from the allseeing eyes of governments.
For anyone struggling with how to meaningfully help, I decided to make a donation to the Yellowhammer fund. I have no association with them (see my comment history and profile, I am a robotics engineer in California) but I searched for abortion funds that serve the South where people will be hit hardest by this, and found them.

https://www.yellowhammerfund.org/

In their words:
"The Yellowhammer Fund is a 501(c)3 abortion fund and reproductive justice organization serving Alabama, Mississippi, and the Deep South. We envision a society in which reproductive decisions are made free from coercion, shame, or state interference, a society in which individuals and communities have autonomy in making healthy choices regarding their bodies and their futures. We commit ourselves to community education and empowerment, policy advocacy, and the development of systems of mutual aid to ensure that our friends, families, and neighbors never go without the things they need."
>I philosophically disagree with denying ourselves something because someone somewhere can do crime.

That's not why we should deny cryptocurrency. We should deny it because it is fundamentally bad, it serves no purpose besides scamming and fraud. The technology is broken and can't ever achieve its stated goals except by pure luck, at which point it is no better than any other solutions.

>they cannot read my data, access my devices, or take the money

Yes, they can. A dedicated aggressor (i.e. a nation state actor) will just torture and blackmail you until you give that up. Of course it gets harder for them if they kill you, then they would have to brute force your data. But then why would they need access to your devices, if you were the target they were trying to get rid of? If your private correspondence was with another party, they can also just blackmail the other party into giving up dirt on you. Cryptography can't actually do anything about these classic "meatspace" techniques.
And most things block Google Voice.
Just want to encourage anyone with kids...

I woke my son up this morning and we went outside and looked at these. We didn't stay outside very long (maybe 5 minutes). But walking him back inside he stopped and said "thanks for waking me up to see this. I really liked it". Then we both went back to sleep.

It may seem trivial but these are great moments to share with your kids/spouse/SO—there is so much in our lives that we can't see or touch nowadays and it is really meaningful to be able to point up in the sky (even without binocs/assistance) and "see" these planets we talk about but only usually see in pictures.

It can be a real spiritual experience.
That was my experience in Japan and Thailand.

The line for "acceptable robbery" was "no physical violence" + "someone consensually gives me their money."

Which is still possible (and easily doable if that mark is drunk), but is substantially different from American (and European?) style physical robbery.
Not the OP but as a fellow non-American who likes to dabble in American politics I try to always mention that detail when I’m commenting on a hot/intense socio-political subject (like this one), so that the other people involved in the same conversation (presumably most of them
Americans, both here and on Reddit) can judge for themselves how valid my opinion can be seeing that (most likely) I’m not directly involved or affected by the subject being discussed.
From the Tesla First Responders guide
...

USE WATER TO FIGHT A HIGH VOLTAGE BATTERY FIRE. If the battery catches
fire, is exposed to high heat, or is generating heat or gases, use large amounts of
water to cool the battery. It can take between approximately 3,000-8,000 gallons
(11,356-30,283 liters) of water, applied directly to the battery, to fully extinguish
and cool down a battery fire; always establish or request additional water supply
early. If water is not immediately available, use CO2, dry chemicals, or another
typical fire-extinguishing agent to fight the fire until water is available.
NOTE: Tesla does not recommend the use of foam on electric vehicles.
Apply water directly to the battery. If safety permits, lift or tilt the vehicle for more direct
access to the battery (see chapter 2). Water may be applied onto the pack from a safe distance
ONLY if a natural opening (such as a vent or opening from a collision) already exists. Do not
open the battery for the purpose of cooling it.
Tesla does not recommend placing the vehicle in a large tank of water. The use of a Thermal
Imagery Camera or Infrared (TIC or IR) is recommended to monitor battery temperatures during
the cooling process. Continue to use water until the battery has reached ambient temperatures
or below, indicated by the thermal imagery camera. When utilizing a thermal imaging camera,
allow enough time, once the application of water has stopped, to allow for heat within the bat￾tery to transfer to the battery enclosure.
> I'm playing devil's advocate

Maybe you saw another post?
There are 13 Circuit Courts in the United States. With that in mind they should have one judge from each serve on the Supreme Court. The current Supreme Court is full of partisans with questionable qualifications and backgrounds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_courts_of_appeal...
> …the entire time?

Umm ... well, maybe.

My views on this are definitely coloured by having three kids, but watching the process of creating new humans starting off with a discussion about "shall we try and start a family", the next bit <cough>, a result on a test kit, the highs and lows of pregnancy, feeling your unborn first child kicking along to music in my wife's almost comically round tummy while we sat in a concert hall a few weeks before the big day ..

.. through to revising algebra and geometry at the breakfast table with my eldest this morning prior to an end of term maths test.

> The fetus’ body is not the mother’s body

Indeed, although the fetus survives due to the cord that connects them.

I've personally been in the room for all our three kids' births, cut the cord for two of them. #1 needed the doctors in a hurry after his birth, I just sat out of the way, watching in awed and stunned silence.

Life is wonderful, and complicated, and at times messy and confusing. Sometimes just downright awful. Pregnancy is some or indeed all of those.

Like everything we do there are edge cases and I don't think we should design our societies to leave anyone feeling they are left with no choices. "Look after those who can't look after themselves" is something that goes beyond the technical discussion of when is a fetus viable, I've spent enough time feeding and changing babies to know that just because they can breathe unaided it doesn't mean they can survive unaided.

TL;DR: I would be just as uncomfortable with a complete ban on abortion as I would be with unlimited easy access to it without any time limits.
I think your joke is fine, I just don't understand it because you censored the punchline.

It literally illustrates my point? I don't like people making bad jokes about "people like" me, but in about 45 seconds I'll be over it.
14A gives protections to citizens and persons, not lives.
The 30 percent cap is eyed to be removed
> The constitution doesn’t enshrine the right to a gun. It enshrines the right to a gun for the sake of a well regulated militia.

IIRC, you need private gun ownership to have a militia (as the founders understood them). I believe the idea was regular citizens would organize when needed and bring their own guns.
Jon Stewart has a rare talent of imparting both logic and comedy simultaneously. Ridiculously awesome guy.
Neumorphism really helped sharpen my thinking on a dynamic color theming system heading into Material You.

Neumorphism had no grounding besides "what would trend on Dribbl that finally feels like a movement after years of iOS 7 aesthetic leading the way?"

That isn't a design problem.

"pure white background with overly dark blue", and neuomorphism was doubling on a very-not-skeuomorphic approach and attaching large shadows to it, simply because it created something "new" that felt "more realistic". No benefit to the user. No grounding in design principles.

With Material You, sure, it's flat, but it's skeuomorphic in that _it works how color works in the real world_. (cf. Round Rects are Everywhere https://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Round_Rects_Are_..., and replace with "Pure White and Black are Nowhere)

Source: I wrote this, and also this post is my opinion, I do not speak for Google or its design: https://material.io/blog/science-of-color-design
The 8bit Keyboard
Sometimes I'm traveling and don't want to pay exorbitant roaming fees. Or sometimes I'm in a building or basement without phone service.

I'm sure there are a few people without email on their phones but I don't think the number is dramatically different than those without SMS right now. If I have cell signal I have email, but I can have email without SMS access.
The AI-First Database Ecosystem
Actually, what I found more impressive is that they also got them to use emacs.
Very true, but that accounts for less than 0.5% of abortions. For a vast majority of abortions, they made the choice.
This majority is regressive enough to go full Handmaid's Tale I fear.
If you're referring to the reference to the law on accidental harm to pregnant mothers in Exodus it's irrelevant to the question of when life begins. I can think of many reasons why courts would be lenient about sentencing regarding harm of unborn compared to born human beings. For example, if you when driving accidentally bump a man on the road and he dies but he was a hemophiliac, is it not just for a court to take that into account when sentencing? You did kill the man, but extenuating circumstances give the chance of leniency, justly deserved.
1. There are certainly more and less extreme flavors of the pro-life movement. I reject your assertion that the more extreme side is negligible, as there are laws on the books, and now enforceable, that prohibit abortion in all cases, such as in Louisiana.

2. Fetuses are not babies. Babies are people, from a legal and ethical perspective; fetuses are not. If it were otherwise, we wouldn't even be having this conversation, as abortion would already be considered murder. So yes, fetuses are living, but that does not afford them any rights, any more than cows have rights by virtue of being alive, and it certainly doesn't afford them rights that supersede those of an actual person.

In other words: in our society, we give rights to people, not to mere "living things."
It was tightly coupled to that stuff by fact checkers and other opponents to silence any questions.
Nope, he and Ginny live in VA.
Oh, absolutely. Not "creatively interpreted by SCOTUS in lieu thereof."
You have vastly overestimated how much money that one sale will net me, but I will be donating twenty dollars of other origin to Planned Parenthood, as agreed upon.
Did you mean to link to a person named McKenzie Friend?
Could it be an evolutionary adaptation to fight or flight? After the exercise period, the body is still in 'active' mode, so it may seem that the period to use energy is still on (hunting & fleeing, not eating). However, after this ends the body switches back into 'inactive' mode to store energy for future 'active' modes.
Who should bear the responsibility (financial, effort, legal) of matchmaking?
The Constitution doesn't "only talk" about militias, and doesn't mention muskets (or any other specific type of arms) at all. Indeed, muskets weren't even "state of the art" when the Constitution was written, so a belief that the Founders were only referring to them would definitely seem to be mistaken.

To me (and six Supreme Court Justices) the Constitution says you have the right to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms (firearms) and because of this, laws that put an undue burden on this right are unconstitutional.
Make me tough guy!
> To me, the problem isn’t that internet can be made slightly less awful than it is today. The problem is that it doesn’t do anything its proponents claim it does. In some very important ways, the internet is not secure. It doesn’t replace the post office with ethernet cables; in fact, in many ways it is far less trustworthy than the postal service. It's not decentralized, and its inevitable centralization is harmful because it’s largely emergent and ill-defined. It still has trusted intermediaries, often with more power and less oversight than the post office. Internet still requires governance. It still requires regulation. (These things are what I wrote about here.) The problem with internet is that it’s not an improvement to any system—and often makes things worse.

> In our letter, we write: “By its very design, the internet is poorly suited for just about every purpose currently touted as a present or potential source of public benefit. From its inception, this technology has been a solution in search of a problem and has now latched onto concepts such as e-commerce and information-at-your-fingertips to justify its existence, despite far better solutions to these issues already in use. Despite more than thirteen years of development, it has severe limitations and design flaws that preclude almost all applications that deal with public customer data and regulated services and are not an improvement on the existing mailing system.”
Well, this is not a downside for me as I never travel, and my schedule is fluid (I basically work alone) so in the rare event I travel, I can just shift the day off to Monday. Or just take Monday off, keep my normal Tuesday off, and have a nice loooong weekend.
The irony of this ludicrous argument (who would abort a fetus one day before their due date, increasing the risk to their own life? Let alone choose to abort a fetus themselves and risk bleeding out rather than have a doctor do it safely) is that banning abortions increases the odds of this very scenario playing out because of the lack of accessibility to safe abortions.

The scenario you've described is approximately the same as a suicide. Consider that people still do that even though it's illegal. Heinous shit will happen, but if you're genuinely interested in minimizing human death and suffering, safe and legal abortion is a necessary component to that.
Are you replying to the right comment string?

Metascientific means a scientific investigation into the practice of science. There is no value judgement there, it's a description of how the investigation is being conducted.
So if a hacker gets access to your second factor, they have access to your second factor?
Depends on sex.
I've been wearing them for 25 years, and they changed the trajectory of my life. You know what else is overrated? Self loathing.

Being able to play sports and like the way you look are healthy. My eyesight seems to be doing ok, too.
There are a variety of natural phenomena and human activities that are liable to create new dangerous viruses and/or bring humans into contact with them. Gain of function research presumably belongs in this category; so do certain food and livestock handling practices, development at the wildland-urban interface, climate change, and a host of other things.

The question is how much incremental risk do these activities expose us to, what is the cost/benefit of curtailing them, and what can we feasibly curtail. The risks are what they are, and while we might be misjudging them, knowing the origin of a single event is not especially helpful in recalibrating.

Nature breeds extremely serious viruses all by herself; a depressing possibility here is that humans just don't have that much influence over the risk of another pandemic no matter what we do.
That’s not a justification. You’re just saying that some speech you approve of was tied to some speech you disapprove of, so both should be censored.

No speech should be censored.
There are inconviences behind everything you go to do. Simply saying "not everybody can afford something" is not an argument. It's a convenient escape hatch. If people spent half the effort to actually help any women in such a situation than they do at protesting, most such extreme situations could be solved.
Toyota recalls its first mainstream electric car because the wheels can fall off
In order to implement mass surveillance with dollar serial numbers, you would have to identify people during transactions and record them. Nobody taking cash does this outside of ATMs possibly. When I go to the store they don't ask for my ID to pay with cash, they don't record serial numbers, it would be a lot of technology and effort and there's no justification for why. When doing transactions with computers, there's usually a reason for attaching an identity to a transaction, a reason for keeping track of things, addresses, account information, login details, etc above and beyond just banks being required to keep this information.
The Bayes theorem suggests an overwhelming probability that the virus was leaked, just by it being located near such a big lab. Further evidence has actually bolstered the lab leak hypothesis. So it seems correct to say that it is common sense to believe in the hypothesis, unless you believe lab leaks are extremely rare.
Check out talknagish.com. They have a phone app that converts phone calls into text in real-time (better accuracy than teams) and they have an add on for zoom/teams/meet that allows Deaf/HH users to read captions in real time and type instead or in addition to using their voice
I immediately distrust the judgment of anyone in the occidental world wearing stuff like what you mentioned (Big gaudy logos right on the thing). It's immediately obvious that they have a spending problem and poor taste, probably a cocaine addiction, and whatever else comes with that territory.

Anywhere south of Texas or the Mediterranean and you just look like you buy a lot of bootleg stuff, though. You're likely to see your uncle come around one day in a fake supreme shirt and he's like 50 and there's barely any irony in it because he didn't just drop a couple of hundred dollars on it, it was probably on sale for 2$
I recently got interested in looking at the planets and constellations and I want to suggest these to anyone who is interested:

This book introduced me to how the earth moves and how to find any constellations in the sky: https://www.amazon.com/Stars-New-Way-See-Them/dp/0544763440/

My area has pretty bad light pollution and so having this binoculars really helps to see the hard to see stars (The wide angles helps you see several stars at once so I prefer it to the telescopes): https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B084R99W8Q/
Your comments have been breaking the site guidelines. We ban accounts that do that. Could you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here? That means no name-calling, no personal attacks, and generally avoiding the flamewar style.
We can sit here and ask different questions all day, but let's at least recognize that they're different questions.

Originally we were talking about many people forced to give up privacy in order to possibly prevent some potential future deaths.

You're talking about one person consenting to give up privacy in order to prevent multiple certain deaths.