skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
You have problems eating thinking of "`races` mixing" ?
What about this: the entire humanity is, that is all specimen, including yourself, is the outcome of in and outbreeding between countless ethnies, groups of different skin colors, cultures and even religion/folklore followers.

If you have a digesting problem with this, we may just call it nature but your comment is what could put many not at ease. That being said, I would at least guess we agree on the ruling that it gets us closer to nature and some commonly accepted ethic with regards to human life and procreation.
And then we ended up calling those people (born in the 1920s) the greatest generation. Sure, maybe the greatest generation is always just the generation that's about to die. But maybe the combination of hardship and opportunity also had something to do with it. So maybe we've got another "greatest generation" in the making.
It's important to note that 4 of the 9 justices on the court, and 4 of the 6 who voted in favor of this decision were appointed by presidents that lost the popular vote.

Literally appointed by minority governments.
Agree it could be clearer, but I think people are too harsh on the author here.

> The unlock, I think, is realizing that you can confidently communicate a coherent strategy that also acknowledges uncertainty.

Figuring out how to do this well is the trick.
> Any state law that deprives someone of life and / or liberty is unconstitutional.

It's not. It's literally not. Stealing food is illegal, even if you were going to die of starvation without it. Breaking into someone's home is illegal, even if you were going to freeze to death outside. And now, in some states, abortion is illegal, even if you were going to die from giving birth.

States or congress should pass a law allowing abortions if that's the will of the people. The court should not invent a law out of nothing; this ruling is legally correct.
Perhaps one is an interesting novelty that while fun to tinker with, has little practical value. While the is potentially a tool.
That just shifts the trust to another company. There used to be a desktop app that did this with Twilio, which is more trustworty, but I don't remember what it was called or if it's still around.
The 'Six Californias'[0] proposal would be a net-positive for Democrats.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Californias
The answer is that the Sars-COV-2 cleavage site, while novel for a coronavirus, is not novel biologically. It's seen elsewhere and corresponds to the inverse of the human protein MSH3, which plays a role in certain cancers.

It is not, as some people here are alleging, related to SARS-Cov-1.
Anecdata: I used to get food cravings after going for a run until I started to take a bottle of water with me.
Thermodynamic Properties of Mosh Pits
The system was intentionally designed to reserve power to the people AND the states, just not the people. Aka Federalism

If you remove the power of the states, leaning only on "the will of the people" you are getting rid of federalism,
By creating `f` you're in essence trying to borrow something that's mutably borrowed already, which the borrow checker doesn't allow. I guess I could see some logic for this being possible, but in practice I've never encountered this in any Rust codebase I've gone through.

The trivial example fix is just to... ensure it can copy, and tweak the match line:

#[derive(Copy, Clone, Debug)]
struct Foo {
a: i32
}

fn thing(foo: &mut Foo) {
match *foo {
f @ Foo { a } if a > 5 => {
println!("{:?}", f)
}

_ => {}
}
}

fn main() {
let mut x = Foo { a: 1 };
thing(&mut x);
}

If the struct was bigger and/or had types that couldn't copy, I'd refrain from trying to shoehorn matching like that entirely.
Food aid is a thing. There are already organizations set up to distribute surplus food production. The problem is not that they developed world is greedy, it’s that the developing world is run mostly by criminals that are willing to steal the money and food that charities and governments try to give to people in need.

What are these legal monopolies on arable land? Do you mean the countries that contain the land or something else?
Ultimately, I don't feel this is really about reproductive rights.

It's part of a long term disenfranchisement of groups of individuals in a way which secures GOP electoral college votes. As you say, the power of rural Republican votes is significant and depopulating those areas of democratic votes is a significant part of the GOP strategy.
"that the board members' primary job is to fundraise ... and secondarily to make productive introductions...."

Although this is a common structure and plan, there are plenty of nonprofits structured differently than this--especially if the nonprofit is small and has only one or two employees, or maybe none at all.

In which case the board does work on the ground.
> The Supreme Court neither banned abortion nor prohibited the legislature from protecting the right to abortion. It merely decided that it is not currently protected by constitution, which to me seems completely correct.

The Supreme Court includes multiple justices put there in no small part due to lobbying by conservative faith groups, and as part of their lobbying plan, several states have trigger laws on the books that immediately make abortion legal in many states. The Supreme Court’s decision is the immediate cause of these “trigger laws” going into effect. It’s a part of a larger concerted effort, so this is a distinction with little difference for anyone living in these states or who may find themselves sued in Texas for providing abortions to a Texan who crossed into their state.
I don't know if you're the author of that medium post, but instead of privacy@ and support@, the author/you really need(s) to be emailing legal@. They're the ones who can 'softly nudge' the rest of the organization into compliance.
Goldman Sachs Raising Funds to Buy Celsius Assets: Sources
One annoying side effect of this route is dealing with poor customer service and mistakes resulting in additional time wasted. This has been my experience with services like Walmart and Staples.

There are personal printers that use "dye sublimation" cartridges. These don't dry up from what I gather and also allow amazing results at home on demand. Not as cheap as in store services but not that bad either. You are limited to one print size though which is unfortunate.
Do they need to hire lot of people? Or should they try to run it as lean profitable business? The big players are in multiple things, but I'm not entirely sure that really makes sense for everyone.

Will be actually see end of growing head counts for sake of growing them soon?
I had a great time the last time I went to the DMV, but I agree that is usually not the case.
Can you provide reading links for SS7 and co please. I really don’t understand why it’s so insecure.
There is no child in the picture, only an unborn fetus.
Handling rejection from VCs I guess
That sounds a lot like https://www.thesecret.tv/ and I've already discounted the idea. Everything ends eventually.
True but irrelevant. The fact is nature "subclasses" (in the OOP sense) animals all the time in evolution even if it is an unintelligent process ultimately due to chance modification.
I had to look up what K&R was but makes sense after some searching. That book is probably worthwhile for lots of other reasons, even if I program in Go for most tasks. Thanks for the pointer!
First of all, it's HIPAA.

Second, I think you have a very deep misunderstanding of how all of this works. HIPAA is not in any danger whatsoever, and really has nothing to do with Roe.
Just having an up-to-date profile on LinkedIn seems enough. Even with all the 'open to work' settings turned off, there's no end to the recruiters reaching out with opportunities. When I last enabled those options, I was up to 50 new conversations before the end of the week.
This brought me a desperately needed laugh today. Please put something in your HN profile so I can send coffee/beer money (buymeacoffee.com, etc).
> What a stretch to make them seem like on a whim law makers or tyrannical.

It's not a stretch. They are literally "on a whim law makers." They decide what issues they want to take up and change the way they interpret the constitution depending on how they want to rule on an issue. In theory, they could be held in check by congress, but in practice that is impossible. Especially since the justice's are political weapons of congress. There's a reason the supreme court nominations have been huge campaign points for the last few elections. They have basically unchecked power.

> The constitution still somehow works in the U.S, and supreme judges doing a great job at keeping it honored.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. They choose how they want to interpret it depending on how they want to rule. There's no consistency and it's frankly a disgrace. Has been for a while too, this isn't something new to this current court.
I was about to post a reply that engages with your claims, but now I'm thinking you're not serious (I don't want to use the T-word here, but that's what I'm thinking.)

If you're serious, could you explain your claims?
Coinbase is probably exposed about as much to retail as Robinhood is, and judging by Robinhood's monthly trading volumes [1] which are down anywhere from 60-95% depending on your reference point, Coinbase revenues have probably dropped off a cliff.

[1] https://s28.q4cdn.com/948876185/files/doc_downloads/2022/06/...
I am far far far from conservative so that is fail.

1990's democrat platform I was probally 60-70% aligned with, 2020's democrat platform I am 20% aligned with

Republicans I probably agree maybe 40% with, 50% on a good day.

In this context as an example, I do not agree with banning abortions, but I also think Roe was bad law and decided incorrectly so.....
Worth checking out Bookmark OS as well for a bookmark manager https://bookmarkos.com
My first thought when I read the news:

"Dang. Poor Dang".
What is unethical about not wanting to carry speech you don't agree with, is inflammatory, or outright misinformation?
Yeah, this is more or less my understanding of it as well. I assume you're pointing at A. I can't speak to the intent because I'm not a history/law guy.
Another important fact. China has everything to lose from cooperation and nothing to gain. An unfortunate reality in geopolitics is to give no control to other countries of your own fate. If they were to grant access and attempt to be completely forthcoming, how are they to know that some group wouldn't attempt to fabricate evidence or muddy the waters further.
Not yet specifically for this; It is an excellent point.

If I may, was there any particular phrases that you remember that were "too much"?

It would be great to talk more about your experience, if you are open. Just let me know and I can DM you.
That won't stop a number of them from trying to warm it up again every now and then.
The 14 amendment was also used as justification for granting "personhood" to corporations. Not likely that this court would consider reversing this.
By that measure then neither is socialism due to the massive harm it has caused throughout history. So I guess we have no tools.

I hate how people push centralized government and economies without a single shred of evidence that they have ever produced anything other than misery.
You're ignoring what I said, which is that a right established by the highest court, and ten times affirmed by the highest court, including as recently as 6 years ago, just obliterated that entire history in a ruling that is guaranteed to carry a toll in human health and human lives.

"The court does not invent rights, nor should it."

It has established many specific rights that are not articulated in the Constitution or codified in laws. Most still stand.

"Separate but equal was precedent for a long time as well, would you be arguing the same for that?"

I'm confused, how many vulnerable women died as a result of that?
always has been :/
I remember all the times I was called a poor sport for bringing up Brendan Eich's support of Prop 8 right here on HN, any time Brave came up.

"You won! Take the W and move on."

There is no win when the same people who supported Prop 8 were working hard to prevent marriage equality, and end it once it happened, and working hard to fight the very underpinnings for it and other rulings like Roe vs. Wade. This is why I refused to move on for so long, but eventually the downvotes and flags and screaming won over, and I gave up. And we lost.

For now.
Lab-leak was a sensational "whodunnit" and the entire purpose of promoting it (true or not) was to distract from the far more important "what should we do about the pandemic." The people pushing for this distraction A. wanted to do nothing (economy in an election year) and B. once they realized that doing nothing was unwise, needed to cover for having pushed A too hard, with too many "aged like milk" statements and actions. It was the public health policy equivalent of shouting "look, a squirrel!" Re-focusing the narrative away from the squirrel and back onto the pandemic wasn't only not sinister, it was a gigantic face-palm that it had to be done in the first place.

That's also why interest evaporated: the two real reasons to push the story both expired in 2020. Now all that remains is idle curiosity. As far as I'm concerned: indulge. Go nuts. Now that you aren't worsening a public health crisis by pushing an election agenda, it really is just a fun little detective story, and I'm as curious as the next guy.
Lack of transparency in China proves nothing. CYA is standard operating procedure there, regardless if there is any guilt or not. Up and down the chain they will cover for each other, if not for the simple reason they themselves don't know what shit their superiors or underlings are up to...

And it is entirely rational, even when they believe that there hasn't been a lab leak, to shut down any investigations into it, because all such work or information would just add fuel to the fire, regardless the "objective" outcome.
Thanks to GitHub for sponsoring me! Pretty awesome.
The IBM 360 had BCT back in 1964. Rumor had it that it was created for Fortran DO statements (“for-loops”), but IBM’s compiler never emitted it.

“The BCT instruction subtracts 1 from the value of the contents of the target register specified in the first argument. If the value in the target register after the subtraction is zero, no branch occurs. Otherwise the program branches to the specified address.”
Or we could subtract from the list as well.
I actually donate a nominal amount via github sponsors just to help support hosting costs since I find the utility useful -- specifically in my case for allowing people using my Binder notebooks to get their data out of the container without having to have a server of their own.
The point I was trying to make is that federalism is dumb because states are arbitrarily gerrymandered based on 1800s politics.
Be or have a co-founder with:

- an affiliation with an ivy league school

- a prior notable technology or business contribution, such as authoring a protocol (or more recently an open source project)

- some unusual circumstance such as family relationships that causes VC partners to care more about them than a random person

- be obviously independently wealthy already

- have been a founder or high level employee involved in a very successful vc-backed startup exit

One or a combination of these will ease getting an initial investor and closing a seed round.
The US Federal Constitution contains the 9th amendment which guarantees that the enumeration of specific rights in the Constitution cannot be construed to deny any other right not enumerated in there, but that doesn't matter for these courts.

They have become openly partisan and will pick and choose whatever suits their political leanings. Once they got a majority on the court they no longer need to play ball with the other side
The prior linked post is a gish-gallop of overconfident motivated reasoning.

"Two lineages" in rapid-succession is weird - but no better explained by two zoonoses (that left no hints in any animal population) than two lab-leaks.

Worobey et al's analysis is at the mercy of Chinese data sources, and even if all early cases were exclusively in the market, and even the live-animal section, that doesn't disprove lab origin.

It might slant things slightly against it - but when no other animals, anywhere from Laos to Wuhan, have revealed any of these supposed intermediate forms – that somehow zoonosed twice, only after reaching Wuhan, with a dangerous new viral feature Wuhan researchers had proposed splicing into bat viruses?!? – the slant remains very much in the other direction.

But you don't have to trust me; even the WHO now wants a better investigation of the prematurely-suppressed lab-origin possibility: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/06/09/who-sago-cov...

There's a field-wide omerta about gain-of-function risks – who wants to ruin their relationship with the NIH, & admit research that's pretty typical across many leaky labs worldwide, may have killed 20 million people (and counting)?
Cold emails probably work too, but meeting people irl is still a great way to build your network.
On top of that, one can use Guix from the comfort of Emacs:

guix install emacs-guix

The Emacs interface includes Magit-style popup menus, lets you install/remove/upgrade/browse packages, roll back, edit package definitions, navigate system services, and more.
Is each theory equal in terms of probability based on the evidence? That's much more important than stating that both could be true
Luckily 99% of abortions don't fall into that category.
People who are responsible for this are evil scumbags and a blight on a society. There is simply no other way to put this.
To say nothing of the M. Garland nomination defeated by shameless parliamentary tricks, simply refusing to bring it to a vote while rushing ACB’s nomination through in the last year of the Trump presidency.
You have some serious reading comprehension problems.
He asked if it was murder, not "if it was under legal threat". And I never said it was bad. It attempts to conceive children not kill children, that's why it's silly. Can you strawman any harder?
We all know Bay Area is a great place to live geographically ;) Try to find black zone around Chicago for example.
Even if we accept that a fetus is a person at stage X in its development (whether that is conception or later), that doesn't necessarily mean we will give it all the panoply of rights that we give to those residing outside the womb. In the US, citizens have certain rights (and sometimes, responsibilities) that non-citizens do not have. Are fetuses citizens? That's an easy one to answer: No, at least not by the standards of the 14th amendment, where it decrees: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
1930s Germany had no democratic tradition so it's unsurprising that a reactionary conservative movement resulted in a dictator. That is absolutely not the case here, our republic is an enormous part of our tradition so it's extremely unlikely that such a movement here would have the same result.

Also if you keep calling conservatives Nazis eventually they might start wondering why, they might start remembering and noticing things you'd rather they forget.
Yeah, being a dumbass is not a protected class.
Doesn't the article have a table of contents?

What happened to plain HTML documents with a table of contents at the top that enables to get an idea of the structure of the document and jump back and forth between the sections?
Unless your team is made up of serial entrepreneurs with one or more successful exits, then the only thing that really matters is customer metrics: usage, revenue, and rate of growth.
Do internment camps come before or after segregating people of colour in buses and toilets?
You absolutely can own a tank. With functioning cannon. Because of the NFA, you have to register the cannon as a destructive device, although at the 1776 ratification, cannons were explicitly legal. So there is your tank and cannon.

A multi rocket system, is not a gun. It's ordnance. So this argument is weak and I don't need to extend into that except for.... ALSO LEGAL. Again, you are going to need to follow the rules of the NFA, and ATF's explosives requirements. The larger issue will be to get Lockhead Martin to sell you one! Which they will not. But you come up with the cash for 1000 of them, and I bet they do.

Explosives are regulated because they have no defensive purpose. I mean, they do, but it's tough to use them defensively and accurately. If you cite Heller vs DC, they are dangerous AND unusual, key point to use "AND" there.

Arms do actually mean arms. Arms meant cannons too. But bombs were never really arms.

The line in this case is drawn rather inconsistently by the federal government agencies, and more fairly but even increasingly restrictive by congress.

Any other questions?
> I feel few people actually have legitimate scientific interest in discovering the truth. Either theory is perfectly viable given the evidence we currently have.

This has been extensively investigated by scientists - it’d be a career making move if you could prove something that juicy! - but the problem is that the conclusions aren’t completely certain but rather comparing probability & the limited evidence to conclude that the lab leak hypothesis is increasingly unlikely. That doesn’t make the news and it especially won’t convince conspiracy theorists when there’s a raging political battle.
> This is the wrong place to find lots of empathy toward disempowered groups of people.

That's unfairly dismissing the possibility that a pro-life position could be motivated by empathy for the unborn, who are completely powerless.

We can do better than demonizing people who disagree.
The assumption that boards aren't engaged seems really strange to me.

Of the two nonprofit boards I've been on (one very well functioning, one not so much), both have had highly engaged board members.

He also seems to be assuming mid-sized or larger nonprofits. For nonprofits with very few employees, or low budgets, board members often are brought in for their expertise, and their willingness to get in and do the work that would be done by employees in a larger nonprofit. If you can't pay them as employees, and they are volunteering their time and expertise and are highly engaged, it makes sense to put them on the board. Why wouldn't you?
If you come across a devil's advocate let me know. I've only seen the People's Democratic Republic of Devil's Advocation and the I Actually Believe This But I'm Too Afraid To Say It types.
9th amendment is in there too, but no the States have to have this one particular right because its not enumerated. They are using inconsistent logic
That won't fly due to practical limitations but it certainly makes you wonder why they would even want such ridiculously low limits to begin with. And agreed, that much 'protection' is ridiculous. But the current 40K limit is manageable for small businesses, who rarely transact such amounts in one go. I've had maybe 10 of those over the last five years and in each case the reporting requirement was easily dealt with.
But keep in mind that Spain does not allow dual citizenship, while Portugal does.
I love how black and white these counterarguments are. If a vaccine had side effects anywhere near as severe as the symptoms you see in a "normal" pregnancy it would not be considered safe and I don't think you'd see it mandated anywhere for something like COVID.

It's a also comparing a response to an acute global crisis to laws dealing with a routine medical issue (pregnancy) that ~50% of the population will experience in their lifetime.
There was 40 years for abortion to be codified in law. Blame the legislators, not the court.