skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Eh... why do they need them, though?

Think about it: ARM is basically a money printer. One company owns the patents and can license it to manufacturers for whatever the hell they want. The cherry on top? Now they don't even have to develop their own ISA extensions or standards, they just let Mediatek, Apple and Qualcomm fight over what they want in the next big version. Every dollar they spend on lawyers is worth 10 software engineers, frankly. They've transitioned to the kind of company where they behave like a dragon, guarding one big patent hoard until they die or someone purchases the mountain they live in. The writing is on the wall for proprietary RISC architectures, anyways: RISC-V beats the pants off ARMv8 in so many important benchmarks like SIMD calculations and performance-per-watt, once Chinese manufacturers catch word that they can make chips without paying tribute to Western think-tanks, we'll be mass-producing these on a scale that simply doesn't exist today. ARM's real business of putting a Cortex M53 in everything with a power cable will be donezo.
This diagram explains the gist of the paper [1]. This system supposedly enables growing "algae, yeast, mushroom-producing fungus, lettuce, rice, cowpea, green pea, canola, tomato, pepper, tobacco" in the dark with acetate.

[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-022-00530-x/figures/1
Voted up. Reading comments here I feel like I'm watching Robert McNamara describe the hundreds of thousands of casualties that were required to win the second world war as if they were just figures on paper. Lives are going to be destroyed by this and women will be going to prison for what many civilized countries consider a fundamental right.
Also, giving one person 11k is very different from giving everyone 11k.
> For the lab-leak theory to be true, a "pandemicable" zoonotic virus (a VERY rare thing) has to somehow make it into a lab undetected.

That's not a necessary condition and it's ridiculous to think that's the only hinge by which the hypothesis stands. Another far more plausible idea is that a mistake occurred somewhere and it was covered up. This has occurred before in authoritarian regimes before.

An input to a molecular clock is a mutation rate, which I imagine would be hard to quantify given the unknown source and the possibility of gain of function research.
>think they're referring to the hypocrisy of compelling vaccination on someone if you support the idea of bodily autonomy.

One of those things is not like the others.

That's a fallacious argument. No one threatened me with jail for not getting vaccinated and no one threatened the medical folks who gave me my vaccines with jail either.

There are millions of people who may go to prison for providing a private, personal medical procedure. That's wrong.

I'd note that Mississippi and Missouri have both charged women who had miscarriages with capital murder.
I'm aware you can own a tank, the issue was with the restrictions on its use. It was probably a poor analogy, but the concept is:

Legally, how is:

> You can purchase a tank but not operate it anywhere off your own property.

functionally different than:

> You can purchase a handgun but may not carry it concealed on your person off your own property.

Emphasis on Legally. In both cases these are allowed weapons for people to own, which, while not exact parallels (Tanks can cause infrastructure damage and such) at their core seem very similar from a legal perspective, especially because of the NFA requirement for tanks. That latter is important to consider because the NFA largely deals with guns of varying sorts in its rules.

Also context: I'm an ignorant Canuck who occasionally lives stateside.
Zendesk to Be Acquired by Investor Group for $10.2B
There's a spectrum... The zoonotic virus would need to have some rare "talent" to start with. Then there is the ominous "breeding" part, which many people describe as reckless or evil. In any case this isn't done in Humans but rather some kind of humanized model (and it's not clear that could work at all). Which is why it is quite a coincidence or accident that this process would end with a virus so well adapted to Humans that it is able to cause a pandemic. It's like winning a chess tournament after training for a Marathon.

It's only plausible if you know very little about biology. Very few people who know a lot about viruses believe that this is possible and even those usually say the zoonosis hypothesis is more likely.
Congress can make new laws or constitutional amendments, so SCOTUS is not all we're discussing here. Nor did SCOTUS take away the rights of states to allow abortion. There is no "one side" having their say on this matter.
The Next Luna Ponzi Scheme
Red/blue divides exist within states, but there's a lot more common ground. For example, half of Black people in Georgia oppose abortion. Folks in Atlanta might vote Democrat, but they don't see deeply religious people as aliens the way folks in San Francisco do. In another example, folks in San Francisco would have called Larry Hogan a fascist for sending in the Maryland national guard in response to the Freddie Gray riots. But his approval rating in majority Democrat Baltimore shot up to 70%. The bigger problem is having New York City/San Francisco in the same union with rural Georgia and Alabama. It's not workable.
I don't get it. Is it sarcasm?
Yes, the WIV does indeed study the bats that we're questioning. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make? The claim you're questioning is "There are horseshoe bats near Wuhan".

Do you think they just invented the bats? I mean... they're on video...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovnUyTRMERI&t=185s
If someone is a board member for few non-profits, is it hard to make the jump into for profit companies?

If a for profit compaby goes belly up, do the board members suffer any real consequences, apart from perhaps not being invited into other boards?
I love these arguments that still want to pretend that Well Regulated means lots of regulations instead of the actual "Well trained and in good working order". And Milita which is really just any able bodied adult that can fight for defense of self or state...

But ignores Heller 2008 and McDonald 2010 which both, for a long time, have ruled that this word argument is complete nonsense. That regardless of what you want to believe, 2A is an individual right.

Heller v DC - It's an individual right to own a firearm. You can't ban handguns or anything else just because you say so.

McDonald v Chicago - You can't just not issue permits to carry. 2A includes the right to carry outside the home.

NYPRA v Bruen - You can't say you MIGHT issue a permit, you will if they meet the legal requirements established by your state.

Please stop with the intellectually void argument that 2A is how you see it because you think the first few words invalidate "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

It's weak, and more importantly, it's over. It has been nail in the coffin settled for 12 years now.
I think I understand what your saying. In this context a penguin is implementing a quality it’s inherited from the gene it has as a bird. A Penguin may not be a bird in the same way we may thing a fly method should work , but it’s fly method derived from the fact that it’s genetically a bird.
I’ve never understood this take - other than rape (in which abortion should be allowed imo), why is it a loss of bodily autonomy? Women choose to have sex consensually, no?
Prohibiton is next to over.

> Articles like this which only focus on negatives of cannabis help perpetuate the even greater harms of cannabis prohibition.

Knee-jerking against articles like this is perpetuate harm by keeping people in the dark about the very real drawbacks of the drug. You can't make an informed decision about using it without actually know the pros and cons.
> What of the legal issues in unwinding a marriage of X years?

In the case of a binational couple, does the non-citizen (now-former?) spouse get to keep living in the US? Or is the situation going to go back to how it was previously, with no federal recognition, even if legally married in "gay marriage" state?

Married same-sex binational couples are minorities in a minority. They don't exist on the political radar unless a larger group takes up their cause. I fully expect them to get rolled here (again).
This sounds a bit like a "pump & dump rumour"

Believe what you will of it. And make sure you understand the "deep discounts" part
Imagine what they could do with an international team! Really like to see space demilitarized.
If anything controversial rights should have even more protection from political majorities, not less.
>If this polling is true, we'll see it in the November elections. If it the elections don't show this, either people really don't care, or the polls were wrong.

cf. Gerrymandering.
If it’s an attack on a specific gender why are 50% of that gender in favor (women who are pro-life).

Your extremist rhetoric will cause more harm than good in the end. Cry wolf enough and people stop listening to you.
These booms have happened before, complete with distributed finance boom and bust cycle, exploitative rugpull projects, and community mania. They just get a little bit bigger each time.
Maybe they understand fashion and have different goals than you.

Some people want their fashion to make them blend in. Some people want their fashion to make them stand out. That doesn't mean one misunderstands it and one doesn't.
> The European Court of Human Rights came to the exact opposite conclusion as Obergefell a year after that case, finding that the EU Convention on Human Right's marriage article did not apply to same-sex couples.

The European Court of Human Rights, and the Council of Europe under which it operates, are actually not EU institutions.
I think if you looked deeper, you'd find that the restrictions for where you could and could not drive tanks are more restrictions on the _roads_ than the _tanks_

The government owns the roads, ergo can sidestep a lot of the what might otherwise be mandated under strict scrutiny for their usage with rational basis tests. E.g., "the roads are rated for <x> class of vehicles, and a tank is <y> class."
That feels like a redefinition or at least like a huge asterisk is being added. If you need a term to mean “only the basics are covered” you could do better. Post scarcity naturally implies no limits even if your semantics differ.
Ok, but that means that you are the fetus's enemy, and society has an obligation to choose a side in that fight to the death you are proposing, to make sure that the correct side ultimately wins.
I read the Introduction and would love to try a compromise. I'd start writing things down more and revising them for clarity. I wouldn't go all-in.
You're trying to prove your point, but you haven't really understood what it is about. The transaction is treated differently from an accounting perspective, as a license and a sale at the same time (this is what the wave collapse joke is about), with the effect both of ripping off the artists and limiting buyer rights.

They get the rights management from licensing on the user side (no "giving away old albums to a friend" possible), while giving artists the lower cut as if it was a physical album sale with high distribution costs. It has nothing to do with digital vs physical sales, you could play the same trick with a CD sale.
If the other parent doesn't consent to an adoption it usually can't happen. Then you either have to raise the child directly through your labor (custody) or indirectly through your labor (child support).

There are lots of people raising children against their will with no mechanism to relieve them of that duty, even if they revoke consent to raise the child in any form.
This argument comes up a lot, but clearly there's some textual basis. To pretend there isn't is to just put your head in the sand.
I served on the non profit board of my local arts centre. Worst decision of my life. 7 years troubleshooting impossible HR problems. At one point I had to take a two weeks off work to carry out disciplinary proceedings against someone who had been a family friend. Constant childish complaints from employees who refused to communicate with each other and expected the unpaid board members to resolve thier stupid problems. The whole thing was a basic income program for dysfunctional people, it didn’t produce much in the way of art. I strongly urge anyone considering joining something like this to make sure they understand how badly it can go wrong.
Vision: How the future will look

Mission: What's compelling us to make that Vision real

Strategy (as a roadmap): The ways we think we could get closer to creating the future contained in the Vision

Backlog: How we've chosen to try and move forward on the Strategy
Scientists aren't going to prove lab leak one way or the other because the evidence isn't going to be in the virus itself.

The for or against lies with the lab and the staff working there and the PRC is not going to allow an open and honest investigation to either prove or discount it.

So unless it can be proven to have come from somewhere else, you are likely never going to settle whether it was lab leak.
I really appreciate your thoughtful clarification.

Both of the proposals you mention are valuable and would do a lot to improve politics, narrow as they are. It would be great if there were an identifiable group clearly advocating for those approaches, whether within or outside existing party lines.
English->SQL is very much a thing, and has a good amount of research going into it. It does have a few weaknesses though:

1. It is ML based, and the best results I have seen put it at about 90% accurate. This might be "good enough", but not perfect. Verification and error correction is needed.

2. Knowledge of the schema needs to be passed in as part of the feature, or have the model explicitly trained to the target schema.

3. Going to a different DB requires a retraining of the model, due to slight differences in SQL dialects.

4. ML takes either a lot of time (speed) or money (GPUs). This is more a general ML problem, but does affect English -> SQL.

I am no expert in English -> SQL, or in ML in general, so somebody correct me if I'm wrong on the above points. These are just what I've seen or experienced in my research.
I actually think this (changing hard work into difficult problems) can be a danger on the individual level: a dislike of "mere" hard work means that we often seek to transform it into an "interesting" difficult problem. The classic example here is spending a day automating a task that only takes a few minutes of boring low-level maintenance a week.
Honestly, if the Supreme Court had ruled unborn children as having rights beyond this I could take you seriously, but they literally have nothing beyond the right to a womb.

Do they count in the census? Can I say they're a dependent?

Heck, why don't we make periods and ejaculation illegal. After all, those eggs and sperm are viable! Men shouldn't be allowed to pull out, wear condoms, or masturbate. Won't someone think of the children?! Oh, I almost forgot to ban sodomy too! Good heavens!

And what about contraception? That's coming next. What is your argument then?

The thing is, we have evidence based ways to reduce the need for unnecessary abortions, but the "right" isn't concerned about that. We know, for a fact, that access to contraception and sex education dramatically reduce abortion levels.

We know for a fact that making it illegal does not, it merely causes dangerous abortions to increase.

How do you square that? The "facts don't care about your feelings" crowd somehow can't grasp, or refuse to grasp, the consequences of their actions.

I'm also interested in how you feel about the rights of rape victims. Perhaps you'd like to carry the baby for them?
If, as you said, an asset has some degree of:

> potential for decreasing injustice by allowing individuals to circumvent unjust laws

then I don’t think this claim can hold simultaneously:

> 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.

Setting aside utilitarian arguments for the moment, on an individual level, such and asset can clearly still be of some help to a person in an oppressive society.

> In some circumstances it could be marginally easier if you use a crypto-currency, but claiming that crypto-currencies solve "the problem" of purchasing illegal goods is far fetched to say the least.

Back to the utilitarian/counterbalancing argument, if it’s true that crypto only marginally facilitates crime, then perhaps we shouldn’t be too quick to dismiss it as an overall negative in our cost/benefit analysis.

> The evidence overwhelmingly shows they're high-volatility assets and therefore not much of a store of value, let alone a hedge against anything.

This is why I’ve used terms like “for a period of time” and “comparatively”. A stablecoin like DAI has mostly maintained its peg to the USD for the past five years, during which time the Turkish Lira’s value declined by 300% or thereabouts.

Note that I’m neither advertising that particular stablecoin, nor any other token or cryptocurrency. Yes, the vast majority of them are highly volatile, which makes them unsuitable as a longer-term store of value for the time being.

One argument states that with high enough adoption, the ratio of crypto held in wallets compared to the amounts being transacted will be so great that the volatility will diminish.

Of course, that is not the case with most cryptocurrencies at the moment, as adoption is still fairly low, as is transaction throughput. It’s questionable if the issues are ever going to be resolved. But I don’t think we should use that as an argument against the very concept
of using decentralized “digital tokens” as money.
> What happens when a deadbeat dad is the only match for a child with organ failure? Why shouldn’t they be compelled to give up an organ to keep their offspring alive?

If you can come up with a way to loan someone an organ for 9 months and then get it back when you're done with it, then this argument would be coherent. As is, I'd re-evaluate it if you have any intention of persuading someone on the opposite side of this issue.
Kubectl with Cloudflare Zero Trust
You're right, currently the volatility and deflationary aspect does incentivize its use more as an investment than a currency, but there are some unique aspects which make it more desirable as a currency. For example,

No foreign exchange required. It is decentralized so no need to exchange it with any 3rd party.

Flat transaction fees. You can transfer $1B of value to anyone in the world for a buck. How else would you do that?

Theft protection. It's as safe as you want to keep your private key, you can even use multisig to get other people involved.

Privacy. There are many methods to make it anonymous, untraceable so others don't know you own it, how much you own, or what you spend it on.
That's fun, but many states are putting the cross hairs on contraception in general.

https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/sta...
Ah. So because it's on a small portion (cite your sources) that we harm irreparably, then it's ok. Cool beans. What was I thinking. Harming the most vulnerable to protect the majority is stupid math. You're also make an assertion about the majority without providing any data, so it's not fact but feeling.

Re: the white boy problem

Because as a an adult white male, I am allowed to call out my own. The perpetrators of most school shootings have been young, white, men. My wife isn't allowed to say it because she'll be shouted down by "not all men" and minorities can't say it because we'll call them racist and point out the one or two times a minority did it. Not enough white men are pointing at the common denominator (aside from "gun") and it's our responsibility to do so.
Well, you have a point. I thought of it as "suing me" but maybe "suing the food bank" is the right formulation.

I hang out with one of the "gleaners" (the people who pick up the unused food from the supermarket), a former engineer, and he seems to be the business sense of this operation. They've been inspected by the big, successful food banks, so it's not some fly-by-night operation.
> This is a fair point, but you can say this about any other interesting model. Is that piece of text generated by GPT-NeoX-20B (which is a fully free and open model trained by essentially hobbyists) illegal to use because it might infringe on someone else's copyright?

Again, you misunderstand. Copyright violations don't occur just by using the system, and as I noted, it's not a problem to use ML models. The actual output content is what matters.

In your example, yes, absolutely, if you used some editor feature that spit that code out verbatim, sans license adherence, you will be violating copyright. The issue isn't specific to copilot beyond the fact that Github has created and offered this model trained on source code and begun selling it as a product.

TL;DR: Is it illegal to use it? Of course not. Is it going to get you sued for blindly taking its output, packaging it and selling it? Possibly. If I were trying to manage the risk to my business, I certainly wouldn't be allowing developers to use it.
The Indian Country Abortion Safe Harbor Fallacy
Yeah, I switched from magic wormhole to croc for simplicity/snappiness over magic wormhole. Static binaries!
Libertarians should be in the streets protesting the loss of bodily autonomy. And all of us should be afraid.

I agree, but I also tend to think this battle was lost when the SCOTUS refused to reject the "individual mandate". When you've reduced the notion of individual agency to the level that the State can dictate what items you must purchase, this is an entirely logical consequence.
Driving motored vehicles on public roads is a privilege retained by the states under the Tenth Amendment. You can drive a tank on private property, if you can legally acquire one (Commerce Clause).

Unclear on explosives.

As far as "arms," the line is drawn at being able to be operated by a single person. So it would appear unconstitutional to prohibit keeping and bearing cannons and tactical nukes, though Congress can prohibit sale and interstate transfer.
We can rule out empathy for most of pro-life folk, by what disturbingly little empathy they have for those same children post-birth.
It's not like being born is some great prize that is fundamentally worth acquiring. That's your evolutionary reflexes speaking.
The problem with the modern left is that they aggressively want to win every battle and don't even know what war they are fighting. As long as they can yell and scream and cancel and grieve, they don't seem to be too focused on having cohesive goals or policy.

And this is what that looks like.

The supreme court doesn't fit into their model because they can't cancel it on twitter. So they just moved on to other stuff they could cancel. Reap what you sow.
Texas v. White established that states cannot unilaterally leave.

Would the federal government carpet bomb a state that tried? No. But there are other means to exert force and stop secession. Besides, the U.S. Government has no reason to ever willingly let California (or Texas, or really any state) leave the union, so why would they ever sit down at the negotiating table?
I agree, that’s an issue. That being said that’s not related directly to this ruling.
>"The junk bond part ("staking", etc.) definitely was."

Might you or someone else explain what staking is? Is this an overloaded term in crypto? I know that there is proof of stake that is used for consensus but I'm guessing this is not the same thing? Is staking a Defi offering?