skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
TIS-100 brought back some of the same joy that I had when I began with programming many years ago. Since then programming has become boring for me, but the weird limitations of TIS-100 almost made it feel like I was starting fresh again. I loved learning tons of small tricks that I could apply to beat the harder levels.

Shenzhen I/O otoh felt like work.
Indeed, we are in the age of make your mind based on feelings then cherry pick your arguments afterthr fact.
I don't like defending opinions of straw-men, and particularly opinions I don't agree with, but I'm not sure your argument holds up. There is a important difference between a tragedy like a miscarriage versus a chosen act like having an abortion. That would be a bit like equating seeing someone being hit by a car with murder. Particularly if you come from a theological background there is a dramatic difference between a plague and a murder (not suggesting that's what abortion is, but that's the rationality).

I think fossuser got it exactly correct: there is a good-faith disagreement here. The disagreement is "when does a citizen come into existence?". This is what lawmakers are supposed to decide - we elect them to draw a line in the sand. Denmark's line seems extremely reasonable.
By this argument, a woman's life is not under threat by the pregnancy since she can simply choose to abort and risk going to jail for it.
huh you're right! sorry I haven't been sleeping well lately :)
However "learning" that the JTAG port was named after its standards body doesn't teach such a reader anything at all.
That's why I like them, they have more in common with the thought experiments you see in textbooks. TIS-100 teaches the principles of concurrency by presenting you with a computer architecture small enough to fit onto a single screen.

It helps that there are multiple solutions, and you can try to optimize in a certain area like speed or size.
It's been the religious right stated strategy for decades, I don't know how I could take any of your argument as credible without acknowledging that fact.
Rust is a different language with a different audience.

If a functional language is presented today that does not automatically curry calls, I have no interest.

Just because the tool does not work for you does not mean there's a defect in the design.
This is honestly the reason why the DNC chose to gamble on Roe rather than seizing one of the opportunities they had in the last 50 years to write a law.

It's a sleazy move, and I'm not sure why they think people don't see what they are doing.
> Try building an PWA with offline capabilities

I have, for one of the world's largest companies. You're missing the forest for the trees if you feel PWAs are this much of a linchpin to the broader conversation.
I'm disappointed with the decision, but it's an obvious reaction to what conservatives view as "the extreme left/progressives" pushing too far/hard. "...when the pendulum swings too far in one direction it will go back" (RBG)

I'm an independent and I share many views with both R's and D's. However I can say that at the extremes of each party - they're fucking it all up for all of us.
GPT4-Chan – Conditions for Availability
I rely on my tailor with styling.

The relationship is that actual status clothes won't make people less likely to cooperate with you, it's just these ridiculous wannabe ones that will and for other reasons than implied.
Rather than just saying "we found..." and expecting people to take it at that, provide sources. If I went and looked up everything anyone claimed, that's all I'd ever do.
Complexity and expressivity have a complicated (sorry) relationship. There are tradeoffs all around. On the one hand, a more complicated language allows you to express complicated ideas in a more compact fashion with more help from the compiler to check that what you’re doing is correct.

On the other hand, a complicated language also encourages you to use those complicated features to express yourself in more complicated ways. And this sort of thing, exercised without restraint, can lead to unreadable code. There is a lot to be said for a simple language that encourages you to write simple code and puts an emphasis on readability and maintainability over sheer power. Is Zig that language? I don’t know, but it seems like it’s aiming to be. Only time will tell whether its big statement, that we should prefer comptime code over fancy new language features or powerful macros that let us extend the language in a million ways the way we did with Lisp. I am interested to see how things develop!
The equal protection clause is different from the due process clause, and Thomas can easily split his decision over that. As an originalist too, he would likely ask if the 14th amendment was meant to protect the rights of black people to at the time, and it was clearly meant to protect the rights of recently freed slaves so it isn’t much of a stretch, you can basically trip into this interpretation.

So I think he would be wholly unbothered making that distinction, knowing that _his_ rights are protected under a different clause. I guess it does show some of the fragility of judicial precedent, you could imagine an even more conservative justice who was not Thomas restricting the interpretation of this clause to mean only the narrow rights the majority of people in 1868 would have liked and not include miscegenation through some horribly tortured logic. But Thomas can draw the line before that and after himself.
> the end because it is illogical to believe that a baby the moment prior to birth is a fundamentally different being than at the moment after. To believe that the moment is at either end is thoughtless dogmatism.
> Where should the line be? Pick a point

But in your own words, isn't it similarly illogical to believe that a baby the moment prior to that point is a fundamentally different being than at the moment after.
Phone numbers and email: the primary identifiers that were never meant to be used as such.

No idea what a good alternative is though. Preferably something federated though
Then you share my own interest. I would certainly enjoy a constitution that was consistently interpreted to acknowledge and protect negative rights from first principles. But anyone who's read case law will find the actual practice of law to be more disappointing.

> Well then we mostly agree.

What is it that you don't agree with?
tbf, that's only how it had been read from 1934 to 2008, and only by some -- it was not read that way prior to 1934, and 1934's decision in US v Miller likely wouldn't have arrived at that reading but for an extremely peculiar set of circumstances, including the fact that the defendant was dead, and the attorney didn't show up to correct false testimony from the government, which was extremely wrong in its assertion that the firearm used had no connection to military service
The great (unintentional?) irony of that argument is that before seatbelts, that was arguably how cars used to be manufactured. Back then, drivers were often killed in car crashes by being impaled on the steering wheel. Those in the passenger seat would die from being hurled through the window. Despite the elevated risk in those older cars, drivers weren't safer --- they were unsafe to such a degree that it formed the argument for mandating seat belts in the first place.
And yet, the Senate just passed firearm legislation with support of some Republicans. But you're right, why try?
There was no attempt in my comment do to that, simply straight forward truth: the religious right have decided life begins at conception and will kill to enforce their rules.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/11/29/us/30abortion...

There's no compromise available on the table.
You don't have a legal obligation to feed your children from your own flesh.
Before implying it's not correct, do the math yourself. Calculate the relative drift among natural sequences and see if the moderna sequence is an outlier. How many single point mutations would it take to get from a known sequence to the moderna one.
ffsend: A fully featured Firefox Send command line client
I distinctly recall a virologist on public television early in the pandemic saying the hands and surface disinfection rituals were for psychology. He was not recommending masks either because there weren't enough to go around for everyone.

The debates about masks in the west, even after production ramped up, were a consequence of the initial confusing messages from officials. I've never seen it debated in Asia where they had masks available from the start.
There was a case about it now, and Heller changed, in 2008.
>> the people advocating for outlawing abortion are also convinced it's a rights issue: the rights of the unborn child.

> This is a nice fiction but it doesn't hold up to any level of scrutiny most of the time. Largely the "pro-life" people also believe in things like self-defense laws and the castle doctrine, which require that you not believe anyone has a real right to life.

Huh? I know people are really tempted to construct straw-men to make their opponents look like hypocrites, but this one is especially weak.

> You don't need to give the benefit of the doubt here.

Eh, no. You do, otherwise you end up with nonsense like what you wrote next.

> Dig a little deeper and understand what they really believe: women with unwanted pregnancies deserve to have it carried out against their will because they think they've sinned.

You may be able to find an example of that, but I really doubt that's the motivating idea for the vast majority of the pro-life movement. I would bet money what most of them "really believe" is that a fetus is a baby and that baby should be protected from harm.
I appreciate the primacy of the mother's opinion over the father's or the courts' (since pregnancy affects only her body among those three parties), but I hate to dismiss the father as if he were just a bystander.

But surely there's another participant that deserves a voice. If it's a person (or even partly a person), then its most precious possession, it's life, is to be taken. Surely its voice cannot be dismissed outright. That's why I believe this issue is not as simple as letting only the mother (or the courts) decide. Historically, abortion has done a lot of harm, irrespective of Roe v Wade.

Personally, I think we need to try harder to minimize the injuries inherent in abortion. Let's not make a complex issue binary, as merely right or wrong. Technology and creativity are our friends. I believe it's possible to find 'cures' that do far less harm than is done now and to work toward even better ways until the rights of everyone involved are served.
There's all these tornado research facilities in the same place we keep getting tornados!
I get where you're coming from; people who make careers out of abortion ethics zero in on conception as the question. But as you and I are playing out in this thread, it's really unsatisfying to try and answer. We don't agree on what life is, and as a result we're forced to decide what the default is:

- people are forced to give birth against their will

- people are not

Saying this is a State issue or that it should be decided legislatively ignores that this is a fundamental human rights issue for people who can become pregnant. No legislative regime should be able to force someone to give birth against their will.

There's a "but what about the rights of the fetus" argument, but here again you're faced with two unsatisfying possibilities:

- you allow exceptions for rape, incest, and life of the pregnant person, thus subsuming the right of life of the fetus to the rights of the pregnant person to self-determination based on circumstance, which is wildly inconsistent

- you allow no exceptions, which is wildly extreme

So again, granting individual rights to a fetus is a radical position that our society largely won't accept. It moots the conception of "when does life begin", or, I would actually argue that society has pretty much decided this already:

- Society does not support killing children

- Society supports abortion in the case of rape, incest, or to save the life of the pregnant person

- Society agrees abortion does not kill a child

(again see here that deciding that a fetus is a child if it was not the result of rape/incest, or its carrier will survive the pregnancy is wholly irrational)
Yes, I self host a Tiny Tiny RSS instance.
Used it every day for years.
And if they get access to my phone number they get access to my texts and phone calls. That's why neither should ever be the only authentication factor (nor a single-factor recovery method for that matter).

That said, my phone number is significantly easier to take over than my email address and mailbox.
My view has always been that it does not even matter if the fetus has full rights.

People do not have the right to physically attach themselves to another person, and leach blood, oxygen, nurturant etc off the other person. Period. Fetuses would not be an exception.

I feel that a person who wakes up with another person surgically attached to them by some sort of mad-scientist doctor could have surgery to have the second person removed, even if this means certain death for the second person. I don't view abortion as any different.

I could support a ban on abortion methods that directly kill the fetus, but as long as the method is primarily about severing the connection to the mother and removing it from the body, I see nothing wrong with that, even if removal means certain death for the fetus.

If people feel fetuses have human rights, I could also support laws or medical ethics requiring doctors to attempt to save the fetus after it is expelled (if the condition was such that saving them might be possible) just like they would try to save any other person.
No, it's because Loving v. Virginia has a clear textual basis in the 14th amendment's Equal Protection Clause, while Roe and Griswold are divined from "penumbras" and "emanations" using the hook of the 14th amendment's Due Process Clause. Loving v. Virginia relied on both bases, but the Equal Protection rationale would have been adequate standing alone.
It's like you're accusing me of putting the DAW on a pedestal when I said calling this a DAW diminishes it. I must have misunderstood your comment.
If guns are banned or SB-8 style tactics are banned we win either way.
They don't trust government policy makers are telling the truth about the effectiveness of masks and vaccinations--the same reason many democratic block voters like African Americans have low mask and vaccination usage rates.

Part of that is caused by stupid conspiracy theories and scientific illiteracy, but partially because its pretty obvious the government does lie to use when they think its for our own good.

Though part of it is valuing individual liberty over a slight reduction in risk of death. They are more willing to value sending kids back to school even if it means some 80 years olds die a few years earlier.
Hycean Planets (2021)
Thanks for the response, yes I can understand the preference in security context and dont want to drop 'why cryptographic hash' bomb into discussion, I was just thinking maybe keeping sha256/512 as default but having switchable options through the configuration for alternatives like your implementation or proven implementations or using filesystem features. No matter what that is laziness from my side, just throwing question rather than spending time on source.
Just wait until HN adds the date, it usually doesn't take that long. That in itself also completely negates the reason for why he doesn't display the date in the first place.
Congratulations to Horizon on tipping the https://web3isgoinggreat.com Grift Counter over the $10 billion milestone
> And then, two years later, after we democratically figure those questions out, we can flip-flop on them, because we voted in a new legislature.

Don't worry, SCOTUS won't let that happen. There's a pretty good chance they'll intervene in the next presidential election (unless a republican house takes it out of their hands), but either way they'll simply overturn any new laws they don't like. They're not burdened by any need for internal consistency - they'll rule in favor of Texas's abortion-bounty laws and rule against California's anti gun bounty laws, for example. Doesn't matter the logic is the same either way, they're not bound to any internal consistency or past logic, it's all about the will-to-power.

This is actually a pretty noted characteristic of .... "alt-right" movements.

> “Never believe [they] are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. [They] have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”

You? You have to make logically consistent legal arguments and follow the process, because you believe in the system. They believe in power. And they have power.

Dangerous times indeed, but here we are overturning Roe v Wade. And criminalizing contraception, overturning gay marriage, and criminalizing homosexuality is up next - Thomas specifically calls out Griswold, Obergefell, and Lawrence as being on the chopping block.
See my comment elsewhere in this thread:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31866064
missing the most important one: use a non-administrator account as a daily driver
The downvotes are probably because intentional bias is still bias.
I don't usually see pun threads bubble up on HN.
Is it? For bicycle helmets I just know these variants:

1. Wearing a bicycle helmet is unpleasant, so people will cycle less and possibly use other modes of transportation such as cars. The risk of a traumatic head injury may decrease but this is offset either partially or fully by other health risks such as obesity.

2. Other road users in heavier vehicles (e.g. cars) perceive riders wearing bicycle helmets as less vulnerable, and so keep less distance when overtaking them, thus wearing a helmet increases the risk of collision.

I don't think I've ever heard someone say they won't wear a bicycle helmet because it would make them personally drive more dangerously.

I personally strongly oppose mandatory bike helmets. I think one of the reasons so many people own and ride bikes in my country (The Netherlands) is that we don't have mandatory helmets. Making helmets mandatory for people inside cars would also prevent or reduce head injuries (and indeed that is why they are worn by race car drivers) so if we ever introduce mandatory bicycle helmets here perhaps we can introduce mandatory car helmets at the same time, to ensure that people won't just take a car instead.
We just had a demonstration in the US of the desirability of a process that unambiguously reveals the winner of a presidential election. Well, having 50 smaller elections, then combining the results in an electoral college is one such process. In particular, if it werent for the federalized structure, i.e., if we had a purely popular vote, in 2000 we would've had to re-count not just the Florida ballots, but also the ballots in the other 49 states.
Basically I'm drawing a distinction about what I personally think is good policy and what is actually a right granted by the constitution.

I think broad access to abortion for women is important, but I think Roe finding that this protection exists as a constitutional right just isn't correct. If we want there to be a constitutional protection there needs to be an amendment. Short of that we need to pass legislation federally.

Otherwise it's up to states and constituents within those states to fight it out democratically.

I was happy with the outcome from Roe because it protected a lot of vulnerable women who will now unfairly suffer consequences, but I still intellectually think it was wrongly decided. Now we're suffering the consequences of that.

Had Roe not been decided this way maybe there wouldn't have been as extreme a push to get Trump in office at all costs? It would reduce the political nature of SCOTUS and allow for relief valves - people can fight out the issues democratically. Obviously this can't happen in cases where constitutional rights are legitimately infringed, but again the finding of a constitutional right to abortion was tenuous at best.

We need to get into law the things we care about - that's how the system is supposed to work.
Some time ago I learnt that such an event was called a _syzygy_. What a pleasant sound!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syzygy_(astronomy)
In that case, you might also be interested in Tokyo Lens, TAKASHii from Japan, That Japanese Man Yuta and Let's ask Shogo, all on YouTube. Dogen is also highly recommended.
It is magical. But the modern world, also:

I handed over my passport to the border guard.
my various devices happily slurped up the bits
My phone immediately latched on to a dozen satellites
I have an IP address, therefore I am.
An army of volunteers had already mapped the city
the next bus was snagged in traffic
I didn't fancy walking through an unfamiliar city.
useless to a thief - unless they force me to unlock it
pickpockets operated in that area
The conversation with the taxi driver was a little stilted.
noting which standard allergens were present in each dish
verified that I was vaccinated against you-know-what
knew to wake me at 07:30 local time. The next morning, as I entered the office where I'd be working

Though all of this basically existed in the past in other forms.
Ask HN: Do you move your EV?
Do you move your EV soon _after_ when fully charged outside?
There are already plenty of types of guns that you cannot buy (machine guns, grenade launchers, etc.), and that seems to be fine and legal. We're just talking about adding more to that list.
We need some sort of international protocol on how to do gain of function research. Something like putting these labs in remote places with strict quarantine protocols. This whole business of doing stuff like this in city centers is absolutely insane
not really any restrictions. the main source now are are.na channels, which are collections of links. the channels currently being used are in the `lib/arena.py` file. if you have some sites to add i recommend making a channel on are.na and linking me to it so i can add it to the list! channels with the most links have a heavier weight to reduce repeat results
Total nonsense. Chernobyl was covered up by the most brutal and inhumane regime ever. It's this exact cover up and lack of responsibility that disgusted a lot people and lead to the hatred and fear nuclear energy is drowning in.

There will always be cavemen that will fear what's beyond the cave exit, but they are powerless, albeit vocal, and are not responsible for the stagnation of nuclear research.
There are dissenters, but it's definitely unclear their claims are more factual.

My point is that it's really impossible to run a loosely organized large-scale conspiracy. There are too many ways for the conspiracy to fall apart.