skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> go to a state where it is legal.

Except there are laws that allow one state to prosecute abortions in another. And SCOTUS will absolutely uphold these laws. They've already upheld the right for private citizens to sue people that they believe have had one.
This was on HN the other day: https://github.com/hwayne/awesome-cold-showers#static-vs-dyn.... I would probably add a caveat to the listed caveats that testing might not be considered? Like if every dynamically typed code base implements an ad-hoc typechecker with a testing framework, it's a distinction without a difference.
Netflix confirms another round of layoffs, cutting around 300 roles
>Do you think corporations should take a public stance in support of abortion rights?

No. We already have enough corporate influence in the political sphere.
Ah yeah but I can't remember the exact details, could be that he stacked an extra day onto his weekend in those cases. Thinking about it though, even if he "lost" a public holiday that's still a really nice amount of free time all things considered :D
Heavens, no, I'm not arguing that. Trying to monetize our free time is what got us into this entire mess in the first place. Just that the dynamic is questionable, since it feels to me as though the company is abusing that willingness in order to make a profit.
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance.
>> It isn’t about religion. It’s about power and control.

The difference? Politics and religion are both about controlling the actions of people. It may be done for good or ill, but it is always about control.
In case you’re seriously asking for the citation, this was said by Martin Luther King Jr.: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/opinion-smith-obama-king_n_5a...
Actually no, you're way off here in multiple ways. My statement from the beginning was that political solutions are required for political problems. "Money for political solutions" is usually described as "lobbying" and most activists I've talked to would consider too much unrestricted lobbying to be bad. Maybe you can understand that sometimes money is actually bad for political change.
Yes, it is about power and control in the same way that society's prevention of the sexual abuse of children is about power and control. That's what laws are about: power and control.
Efficiently diff rows across two different databases
If you drink and drive and cause a car crash that requires you give a blood transfusion is it murder to refuse? I think hardly anyone would say that, because society has decided the right of bodily autonomy is paramount. I don't see abortion as any different from refusing to save someone you hurt in a car crash you caused.
> This is trivially falsifiable: blockchains are being used to facilitate illegal transactions.

There are other mechanisms for facilitating illegal transactions, e.g. the Hawala network. So the blockchain is at least not the single mechanism for this.

And if we're really precise, the blockchain itself doesn't solve this particular problem. It solves the trust problem, just like Hawala.
Except there isn't a explicit right to privacy either in the constitution or the bill of rights. Which is why RBG always argued that Roe v. Wade was poorly decided.
I'm not sure the political currents present in America today indicate that states won't eagerly trample the right's of their citizens. Especially considering the voting restrictions and minoritarian rule pet projects of the right.

America is also rife with examples of the federal government intervening to protect citizens from their states — Brown v Board, or most extremely the Civil War.

"People need to vote" is insufficient for regressions on issues that affect people's livelihoods. For example, Texas has a larger democrat-voting population than many blue states, "just voting" won't do anything to improve their livelyhood in the foreseeable future.
That's one aspect of it. The ergonomics are dogshit. I remember having to use explicit quantification all the time when writing polymorphic library code. Also, without typeclasses, polymorphism is super inconvenient, to the point where it's almost exclusively used in the most critical data structures like sets and maps. It's not "the same as in haskell" except maybe in the very vague sense that they have similar underlying type theories (although ocaml's is much weaker - e.g. I remember needing to use some hacks to approximate HKTs, while haskell handles them easily).
Using DataTransfer to set the value of a file input with JavaScript
Maybe it’s because I shop at Costco often but not a single piece of my athletic nor leisure clothing has a logo on it
Arbitrarily inventing a distinction for no other reason than to avoid a problem doesn't eliminate the problem, it just makes it so you can comfortably ignore its existence.
> ...exchanges already are heavily regulated.

They are not, compared to banks and brokers. They do all kinds of things that would be absolute no-nos in regular finance, like trading against their customers.
I would imagine the states that outlaw abortions will have significantly fewer. Is there any evidence that comes close to suggesting the rate of abortions is the same now as prior to RvW? America has an abortion rate in line with former Soviet countries and exceptionally higher than most of the western world. It has disproportionally harmed the population that it supposedly “helps”. The eugenicist roots of the founders of the largest supporter should be evidence enough for the goals of that movement.
Semi automatic
I really want to talk with someone who believes this because I want to know what's the core of it. Is it that unborn children are considered the purest form of humanity? Is it that they're afraid of population decline/collapse and want more children in the world? What fears or other emotions drive the desire on the deepest levels?
Most other first world nations have more restrictive laws on abortion. Yes, even Western Europe.
> it seems one by one the promises of crypto of the last several years are evaporating

Cryptocurrencies as originally envisioned was over the second these exchanges showed up. They're literally banks with all the associated government bureaucracy but none of the benefits.
If you're the kind of person who is willing to extort refugees, I'm willing to bet you'll leave them to die if they don't cough it up. Extortionists don't need proof.
By that logic - If I'm not willing to help someone else raise their children, I must (for consistency) allow them to murder their children if they wish to do so.
The Constitution is a little ambiguous as to whether or not a citizen must join a militia in order to keep a gun at home.

...however in the absence of militias in the US today, it makes sense that even if that requirement was initially envisioned (which is very debatable), it's no longer reasonable.

It's historically interesting to note that different versions of the amendment were ratified, both including and not including that last comma.
This is Hacker News. The norm is a deep, thoughtful understanding of the state of the art and a total inability to apply the imagination to the future.
No, it's explicitly covered under Jewish law and has been for millennia. Under that the fetus is an organ of the mother under her complete bodily autonomy.

It doesn't say "with child" in the original Hebrew, that's added in your translation.

The way it's translated into English these days directly from the Hebrew is

> If men strive, and wound a pregnant woman so that her fruit be expelled, but no harm befell [her], then shall he be fined as her husband shall assess, and the matter placed before the judges. But if harm befell [her], then shall you give life for life.
It has to be an agent, not just a language model. An agent with a goal, needing to learn about the environment and maximise its rewards, acting in real time. Such an AI would model the world and itself in order to learn how to act. It would form values about the situation and choices it has to make. It will have a personal history and will be social (deal with other agents).
It’s not a myth.
No, you don’t have to “trust the swarm”. You broadcast it at the swarm that can present the highest valid block that satisfies the difficulty equation. This is an expensive proof to fake. The trust we have is the trust in math and physics; eg: not trust.

The swarm isn’t going away. It’s grown a lot in the last 14y.

You don’t get it because you DONT WANT to understand this. You keep talking about censoring and governments and trust. You can’t accept it because it is.
Wildly inconsistent how? I'm asking in good faith and would like an example of an actual logical inconsistency, not a meme non sequitur about AR-15's or free healthcare.
And my criticism on RBG is she should've stepped down when Obama was in office instead of dying and giving Trump an appointee.
explain the concealed carry decision, then?
The relationship between cognitive abilites and sentience isn't clear at all. This is partially because sentience is about the ability to experience, and so far, we can only experience that from the inside, not be confident at measuring it from the outside.

I would say that most people think they're related to each other - that if a creature is stupid enough, it becomes hard to believe that they have an inner life, and it's hard to imagine an obviously cognitively powerful creature that we wouldn't assume has an inner life. But still, they may be entirely separate phenomenon, especially if we're talking about outlier cases like AI.
> Acceptance of gay marriage is being forced on everyone...

You could say this about almost every single civil right that hasn't been voted on in the past 60 years. Abolition of slavery, for instance.
I heavily recommend that you read the gun ruling for yourself. It's a very fun run through history. How often do you get to read about the 1328 Statute of Northampton, launcegays, and the Black Death in modern legal analysis?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf
It's also part of the 9th amendment. The point is that the courts ruled that people have an implicit right to privacy within their own home. That's literally why it exists, because it was to directly counter people who take the constitution at face value as being the ONLY rights it gives.
I find it hard to imagine anyone preferred Netscape 4.x to IE 5 and 5.5. I think even IE6 may have existed before Netscape 6, though I definitely made the switch to Phoenix as soon as I discovered it.
I wasn't referencing modern judaism, I was referencing the word of god itself, which clearly does not support any notion of fetal personhood.
The point is that borrowing money for your entire lifetime based on inflated stock prices to avoid capital gains taxes is bad. Not that mortgage interest is deductible.
> Almost no 'good' people are opposed to those things.

That is an interesting perspective. You just called something like 100M or more Americans not good people. I am not being hyperbolic. Talk to them. On the surface they are friendly, easygoing, etc, but switch the topic to LGBT rights and listen. The very fact that they believe there is such a thing as "gay rights" tells you a lot. Good luck trying to educate them on how "cannot discriminate based on sexual preference" is not the same thing as giving gay people special rights.
> People need to vote.

Ahmen to that. We wouldn't be in this situation if liberals took voting as seriously as conservatives.

I've seen 100's of comments over the last year about how "I'm done voting because the student loans were not forgiven" ... I don't think the next period in America is going to go very well.
It's not a difficult bug to fix, but it is a very difficult bug to detect, since miri won't think anything is wrong.
No one says we prevent sexual abuse of children because of Jesus.
Funny how these threads never mention the company by name or the bootcamp...

I would advise against bootcamps. We pretty much stopped recruiting from those because the signal to noise ratio was just too low.
exactly! our first "viral" moment was on HN too and we only got a few direct signups that day but we would never have made it to this point without being on the top of HN that time
If you have a small number of records what do you need an engine for? Just write a for loop.
when the price inevitably goes back up, the rhetoric will simply switch back to drug trade, child porn and climate change. the current state of the market contributes very little to the overall narrative.

https://www.google.com/search?q=bitcoin+blockchain+child+por...
Universities Were Corrupted
It isn’t wrong legally and if anything, had the constitution been followed correctly, this decision is how it should have played out in the first place. It is only controversial because some people think their personal opinions on controversial issues should override democratic mechanisms.
Passwords, thanks for being around for 60 years. It is time to retire
Someone who lives under an oppressive government is not going to be less oppressed just because they gain the ability to send digital tokens around without government interference.
You don’t support this ruling, but the only thing you have to say about it is in its defense. Fascinating
Quality clothing has no visible branding. Clothes with logos are marketing to people with money but no class.
I don't disagree with you in this case, but there are a lot of people who would say this is one such example.
Nope, nope, definitely nope, not critical in the slightest, nope, and sounds like a very niche case that a native app would do just fine with.
Ah yes, the ragpaper that has a unique serial number could never be tracked. /s
What's New in CoreML
The link says that the CDC compiles data on legal abortions only, so I don't know how much those numbers prove the point.
Pennyroyal is not hard to grow at home!
Weird because the courts striking down laws as unconstitutional is literally their job description.

Equal protection under the law would be my first pick for constitutional protection of abortion. There are very few life threatening things that the law compels men to do. Yet the law can compel a women to carry a fetus to term against her will?
I periodically send an envelope of cash to Mullvad. So far I haven’t had any issues.
The fact that there is no free healthcare for pregnant women demonstrates that noone actually cares about the child's life.

It demonstates that you are willing to force a woman to carry the child of a rapist against her will (so it's not her choice) and then have her give birth without medical assitance if she can't afford hospital stay, potentially resulting in the death of the child and the mother.

it shows what the game is really about - control over women
I agree 100% with your second paragraph. I also hope they introduce massive "percent of revenue" fines when Google "forgets" to ban illegal activity on their (near-monopoly) advertising platform. Massive fines has genuinely changed the behaviour of sales & trading at global investment banks. We can do the same for FAANG and friends.
No need to look that far back. Look at pictures/videos of random people on the streets in the 1930s.
Overturning isn’t some new thing. And sometimes it’s hugely beneficial. Overturning precedent is how we got rid of separate-but-equal!
Oh you sweet summer child!
Read that article and it does not give any founders opinion on the subject.
Strong disagree; I have thousands of hours with both and I would essentially never recommend ocaml over haskell unless your company already has an ocaml codebase/ocaml expert employees.

I'm very conscious of the existence of pareto tradeoffs; I am asserting that, in this case, there is essentially no tradeoff to be made. Haskell is equal or better (sometimes significantly so) in almost every relevant domain. For domains in which ocaml is a better choice, it is not the globally best choice (i.e. both ocaml and haskell are bad in those domains).
But that isn't answering the question. You're just saying blockchains are good "because slippery slope" without mentioning what they actually do.
Exactly this, a hundred times. Their actions betray them. If they actually thought there were half a million babies being murdered every year, tens of millions since Roe, they would have done something actively to stop it.

If there were 500,000 five-year-old kids being murdered every year, with the explicit approval of the government, there would be a civil war.

The fact that the overwhelming majority do not do anything is proof positive that they do not believe abortion is equivalent to murder.

You can't simply claim, oh, I believe in democracy, or I believe in the rule of law in the face of a government that actively murders hundreds of thousands of children. No one has such a deep attachment to the rule of law for its sake as to tolerate 500,000 explicitly-legal child murders.
It isn't hypocrisy, because there is an amendment that says you have a right to a gun, and there isn't one that says you have a right to an abortion.
I think the system is broken if the personal affiliations of supreme court judges plays such a big part in the outcome of cases.

It should be about the law, not about politics. They're supposed to put that stuff aside when they take a legal office. Trias politica and all.
The US has a common law system, which means supreme court precedent is binding. Once a case is decided courts aren't supposed to decide the same case in the other direction. The supreme court has decided many cases showing that Americans have the right to abortion until viability. Undoing that precedent is a largely unprecedented move.

The New York carry case seems like it was probably decided correctly, what's interesting to me is that the courts gun law doctrine relies on deciding whether the law is "consistent with the nations historical tradition of firearm control." The court decided this law was not, even though it is over a century old and 7 states have had similar laws for decades. At what point does it become part of our historical tradition?
A lot of fairly common prescription drugs are abortifaciants. Prostaglandin is the substance used in drugs designed for that specific purpose, but many drugs that influence muscle control, inflamation, or bloodflow can do the same thing.

It's going to be very difficult to regulate all of these drugs.
> spends so little time actually refuting the statement "if WebKit weren't mandated, Chromium would take over"

Does it have to? It's a rather strange claim to advance. I cannot read it as anything other than the recognition that in an open competition, even given the headstart of being the default browser, Safari/webkit would lose to Chrome/blink, which, again, I cannot read as anything other than the admission that Safari is an inferior browser. And if that is the case, if users are not free to choose the browser they prefer, then what good is the argument against the browser monoculture anyway?
I hope they land on Mondays off, rather than Fridays. For us 5 day rubes, getting stuff done on Friday IMO helps keep our weekends less worrisome, and jobs under city council purview would be (I imagine) rare but important interactions for the average citizen.
> This is trivially falsifiable

Only if you consider making it easier to break the law to be solving a problem rather than creating one. Personally, I hew towards the latter point of view. And if you think about it, the continuation of civilization literally depends on having a significant majority of people do the same.

> a transaction is morally just if and only if it is legal

But that is not the same thing at all. What you originally said was that (legal) crypto transactions solve a problem by making it easier to do other illegal things. The legality of the crypto transaction itself is a red herring. The point is that you are advancing the view that crypto's ability to facilitate breaking the law in general is a feature, not a bug, notwithstanding the legality of crypto per se.

Civilization cannot survive that attitude spreading too widely. A system can only sustain so many parasites before it dies.
Finished Candy House recently and found it fairly mediocre. She seems to prefer writing about people than thinking through the consequences of the technology she introduced, and as a result, the Sci-Fi aspects feel awkwardly bolted on to the story, rather than having any real consequences to the people in it.
Judicial activism is altering laws according to what the judge likes, usurping a legislative role. The supreme court striking down state laws is the typical form of such abuse because the typical supreme court case is deciding whether a certain new law has a problem.

Roe vs. Wade is practically almost the same as a law that allows abortion, the other threatened precedents cited in the other comments are similarly almost laws that allow various rights, and so there is very little "upholding" of existing laws in this demolition and threatened demolition of "liberal" norms.
This idea sounds fantastic to me, and I think it has a great future (until there exist proficient AI editors maybe)

But your current pricing seems very high. Curious to see if there will be enough users to support this.
Regardless of my opinion on whether states should be able to restrict abortions, I really didn't like Roe vs. Wade. This should be a law that congress votes for/against and be held responsible for by their voters.

I wonder how such a legal framework would work if the court could go to their respective law makers and say that the law is unclear in this case and require them to vote on it. Then, rather than Roe vs. Wade being passed in the first place, the supreme court would order congress to vote for/against a new law forbidding states from being able to restrict abortions.
Is finding this "terrifying" a young people thing? I'm mostly confused by this, because it's both very ordinary and rather nonsensical.

First, backpacking in the wilderness with a topographical map is a vastly, vastly different experience than staying a random town, where you have access to anything. Also, why use GPS and stare at a screen instead of you know, locating yourself using the trail markers, ridges, etc? Is eating a meal and reading a book something people don't do all the time? Also, what camera is this? A phone with airplane mode on? Are you not allowed to store the pictures online, is a physical media transfer required, what's going on? What role does cash play here? I'm really confused.
As someone who has been using OOP since C++ was Cfront and you fetched it from usenet ... I find these conversations fascinating.

It's like listening to a conversation about cars where someone says they hate cars because you have to figure out a manual choke and the many inner tube failures.

Do people still use these crazy inheritance trees? I haven't encountered it since the early 2000's.
Right, but my question is, why is it the correct value? There's some math theorem which makes it true?

m_2 = c^d_q mod q

= m^(e * d_q) mod q

= m because?
Cryptocurrencies have also resulted in the invention of an entirely new crime: stealing CPU time.
That's precisely what a black market is.
Expose 'greenwashing' but do not ignore nature-based solutions to climate change
A still from Jacques Tati's film "Playtime" (1967): http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_SS76YifzgN0/TBqlmteuTTI/AAAAAAAABY...
Venezuelan aircraft with links to Iranian terrorists being held in Argentina
In the interview, Zuckerman mentions two projects that his research group [1] is working on: Smalltown, "a social network designed for use in local government. It allows people to start a conversation about issues to be covered in town meetings, and it provides structure and moderation to keep that conversation focused on local civics" and Gobo, "which allows users to view all their social networks—including these new, small social networks—through a single tool. That tool allows the user to control the algorithms that sort her social media feed. She, not the social media companies, gets to decide what’s most important to her and what she gets to see first."

[1] https://publicinfrastructure.org/