skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> why don’t animals have rights?

I believe it's self-evident that there is something in our brains that causes us to mentally separate things into in-group and out-group. In other words, we evolved to be social and generous, but only tribally so. Visual and behavioral differences such as skin color and culture can be the difference between in/out-group delineation. And so it is with animals. They are so similar to us and have so many of the traits that make us "human" that it's obvious they should have certain rights, if you think about it. In fact, some animals do enjoy rights to be protected against humans, as cruel treatment of animals is ostensibly taboo in Western cultures as long as you ignore current American factory farm practices, and in the case of some protected classes of animals such as dogs, enforced by law. But the differences between humans and other animals is enough to trigger the in/out group delineation, so almost no one bothers to recognize they should have rights, let alone fight for them. Those that do fight for those rights are typically relegated to the out-group themselves.

In short, it has nothing to do with logic, and everything to do with the primitive parts of our brains running the show.
The right you keep referring to is the right to be notified of your rights. You are blatantly incorrect in continually stating that there is any change at all in your right to remain silent, or remedies against state actors who violate it.

You can still sue a cop who continues questioning you after you have invoked your right to remain silent. Literally nothing about that has changed. The one specific thing that has changed is that you can't sue a cop simply for failing to read you your rights.

That does not impact your right to remain silent, or any remedies available in case of violation of it, in any way.
I think that it is better to not forget that expressiveness comes at the cost of a richer world of misbehaving code. If you are used to a world where functions have more than one argument and must be applied to exactly the right number of arguments and nearly never returns another function, starting a curried language suddenly throws you in a situation where many small mistakes like `plus 1` are not caught early anymore. Moreover, those delayed mistake are here to allow room for an expressiveness that you are not using yet. This is a genuinely frustrating situation. And I do hope to improve OCaml type error messages to better highlight type difference at some point in the future.
> How is pregnancy not a personal circumstance?

Pregnancy does not, in and of itself, prevent access to medical care. So while it is a personal circumstance, it is entirely inapplicable within the context of care being intentionally prevented.

> I suppose the most similar analogy I could think of is a doctor refusing to perform a surgery which has a high chance of outright killing a patient and a smaller chance of treating the issue.

Not analogous, at all. That's a medical professional making a single medical decision based on medical information. That surgeon is not preventing the patient from finding another surgeon who will perform the procedure. Whereas what you're suggesting, is that freedom of religion should give politicians the right to make a singular blanket medical decision on behalf of everyone in their state, present and future, without any situational knowledge or medical reasoning.

It's not a constitutional right to abortion. It's a constitutional right to not have personal liberties stripped by the states which are enumerated in the Constitution. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion and right to privacy are all enumerably applicable to preserving this liberty. The ability for anyone to impose their personal religious beliefs on a population violates all of those rights.
IIRC last time I tried it a couple of years ago it had memory issues and wasn't very scalable so I switched to clippy. Will give it another try
>Most of the "evidence" for lab leak is just weird insinuation -- it's increasingly hard to pin down what the advocates for that position are even arguing

No it's pretty easy to see that they're pointing towards GoF research performed at Wuhan Institute of Virology, a lab very proximal to the origin of the outbreak.

The intercept has done a great job FOIA'ing chains of emails showing real concerns with the veracity of a lab leak.

https://theintercept.com/2022/01/12/covid-origins-fauci-reda...
This is in line with my argument, but I actually mean something more direct than that. I mean you have the right to kill someone living inside of you, because you have property rights over your body and rights to the security of your person. Before viability, the only means of evicting a fetus, or in other words securing your person, is to kill the fetus. I think that is a fundamental right.

Just as you have the right to defend your home with lethal force, you also have the right to evict by lethal force a fetus.

I don't think it does us any good to shy aways from the uncomfortable aspects of t he free exercise of these rights.
you guys are doing gods work ! Thanks!
I didn't know about this! Thank you
There are multiple small parties, but the moderate bloc that likes to occupy the center of the US political system hasn't thrown in behind any of them because (it appears) swinging between the two large parties is more profitable. Like I said, if they really meant it they would stake out territory.

I think it’s a legitimate pragmatic decision to try to influence from within one of the two parties.

So, sit in the middle and say 'both parties are too extreme' while bargaining with both for concessions and refusing to organize outside that framework, even though moderates/swing voters consider themselves to be the largest political bloc. That seems like perpetuating the system you complain about for profit, which is exactly what I complained about in the first place - a lack of any identifiable principle. You mention 'principles that the extremes of the parties don't prioritize.' What are they? Where are your red lines?

Moderates also tend to run as independent candidates. Ross Perot is probably best known in the US.

Ross Perot ran 30 years ago, since when we have been through two major wars, a huge financial crisis (and multiple smaller recessions), a pandemic, and a constitutional crisis. No outside candidate has mounted a serious challenge since then. Plus he was only able to do that because he was independently very wealthy.

I have posted this article about polarization here many times since it was published and all I ever hear from moderates is how bad it is, so bad that nobody can do anything about it. Moderates' unwillingness to anchor themselves to anything is a major contributor to the problem of polarization.
https://www.vox.com/2015/4/23/8485443/polarization-congress-...
I found this part puzzling: "And the one place in my office I still use wires — my desktop — the existing cat5 ethernet cable was not fast enough for the new speeds of fiber optic."

What would fiber speeds be useful for in a home office? It seems like for most people, Ethernet would still be fine?
It could be that "Meta" the company is nothing about nothing?
I have been using Bitcoin for various online purchases for many years. For me it always works fluently. In fact I have had more cumbersome experiences with fiat payments.

Not that I have much problems with any payment methods. I just prefer to hold Bitcoin and use it as my primary currency. I'm willing to willing to spend some extra effort to pay with it, but if it gets too difficult I'll resort to fiat.
> This ruling does not prohibit anything

Missouri just banned abortion as a result of this being overturned, so yes, it does.

> other people's beliefs are entirely a sufficient condition in what the government will do

False. Other people's beliefs are a necessary condition. If I convince 51% of the populace geminis are evil and should be imprisoned, this is not a sufficient condition for the government to implement this policy. We would need to scientifically demonstrate that astrology is in fact true. This is the sufficient condition. The necessary condition is a majority believing it. Likewise, having an objective, unambiguous, scientific definition of what life is and when it begins is the sufficient condition for outlawing abortion and a majority believing that is the necessary condition. A characteristic of a free society is not one where the government creates laws based on the whims of particular religious groups.
A hypothesis is something that can be disproven. Lab leak was never a hypothesis. It was never more than a talking point. Even just looking at the inconclusive evidence, there was zero indication it was true (the genetic changes between covid 19 and it's natural cousins were random for instance, not targeted as they would be for a man made pathogen).
I was worried that using the word "regulated" would clash with the term "well-regulated", as I am aware of the interpretation you mention, but I still wanted to bring the second amendment to mind.

My point was that the Constitution might (or maybe just should) allow individual states to apply their own regulations to the militia within their jurisdiction, beyond the minimal Constitutional requirement/justification that the militia be readily functional.
With a little-to-lot less authoritarian and monopoly control.

This thing smacks of:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_o7qjN3KF8U
More on certificate verification and validation in non-browser software:

https://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~dstefan/cse227-spring22/papers/geor...
I would be fascinated to read the details about this kind of lifestyle. Buying groceries, plane tickets, concert tickets, etc... with Bitcoin.
Whose right is gun ownership? It's the people. The Constitution explicitly says that the Government will not have the right to infringe on that right. The inference is that they can infringe on all the other non-enumerated rights.

Edit: to pull context from another comment here.

"The 'militia' was the entire adult male citizenry, who were not simply allowed to keep their own arms, but affirmatively required to do so.… With slight variations, the different colonies imposed a duty to keep arms and to muster occasionally for drill upon virtually every able-bodied white man between the age of majority and a designated cut-off age. Moreover, the duty to keep arms applied to every household, not just to those containing persons subject to militia service. Thus the over-aged and seamen, who were exempt from militia service, were required to keep arms for law enforcement and for the defense of their homes."

This issue is that the States became lazy once the Feds got their standing military. All States should require citizens to muster for arms and disaster training at least twice a year.
Yes, it is a ludicrous scenario, but OP's entire worldview is equally as ludicrous, because it allows for such scenarios("If I refuse to allow it to be used to support another life, that is my choice."). In any case, no special rules or consideration are generally needed for normal scenarios, so you are often looking at less common or ludicrous seeming scenarios when probing the limits of someone's viewpoint.

I'm not positive that allowing no questions asked abortions 1 day before the due date will minimize human death and suffering. Instead, I think it would provide an avenue to take for people who have, basically, cold feet about being a parent.

In fact, I have to wonder if OP thinks they have the right to abandon their already-birthed baby in the wilderness. After all, what right does that individual have to force another person to take care of it? I'm an individual after all. If I refuse to allow my body to be used to support another life, that is my choice.
> Reconsider the risks of browser extensions

This is underrated. There are many, many browser extensions I would love to use, but I will never install. If it's from Google or Apple or a company I pay money to, I will install it. Or if it's uBlock Origin or Privacy Badger. Otherwise, I just don't trust that a future update after the sale of the extension won't turn evil.
Of course I do.

E.G: last week, my brother wanted to try one of my service account on his ipad (we set it up only on his computer). He tried to connect with my password, but any new device requires a 2FA. So he calls me, and I gave it to him.

Now, in this particular example, I was at home, so I had access to internet.

But I'm often traveling to places where I don't.

In fact, I lived in Mali for 2 year where this has been a big trouble for all administrative stuff. Nowadays, I would assume a lot of Malian people have a phone numbers, but no emails, anyway.

But without going that far, the French country sides have plenty of places where you get text but not internet. And being in a car or train is often enough for that.

I don't think SMS is a good 2FA. I have 3 yukikeys at home.

But I believe any geek should first spend a month working in a call center before making a comment about 2FA.

There is a looooong tail of things getting wrong, and there is a reason corporations chose SMS: they tried all the rest, and it was worse.

Now thing are getting better with in app 2FA notifications, but of course it assumes you have a smartphone.
And don't worry, Bret will remind you!
The car charges at a rate of 48 km/hr on a 32 amp garage circuit. So on an average day it recharges in less than an hour. However, it's programmed to charge at the cheap overnight rates, so it doesn't start charging until midnight.

Therefore we were out ~30km of range when the power went out. 370km rather than 400km is still "full" in my opinion, though.
You need to have server side code for sure. The frontend should just send the file to the backend URL to process. The backend should take care of the logic to upload to S3 (and validations etc as needed). Do not store AWS credentials anywhere on the front end.
>> it's a complicated moral issue
> I disagree. Murder of children is wrong; that's as cut and dry as it gets.

Consider a pregnant woman in prison. In a "pro-life" state it is easy for her to get an abortion. It a "pro-choice" state is harder for her to get an abortion.

Consider deeply why this is the case.
>Interstate travel is specifically protected federally and incorporated against the states. Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion specifically says this is an easy question to answer and it would be presumably unconstitutional to prevent people from having abortions in other states. Suggesting otherwise at this point is fear-mongering in very bad faith.

Sure, but if they throw someone seeking an abortion in jail or tie them up in the court system, it may be irrelevant whether is is legal because that person still can't travel. That of course assumes they have the money and resources to travel, and that the health care systems in those neighboring states is accessible.

I don't have the stats in front of me, but we already know there is going to be a flood of people from Idaho into WA seeking services and we have very few clinics east of the Cascades as it is.
The way you see it, unfortunately, does not make it so.

The constitution limits how the government can infringe on the rights of the people. If the courts say that a right to abortion is not in the constitution, then amend the constitution to add it.

Until that point, it is up to the representatives of the people (i.e. the legislature at the state or federal level) to make laws.
I'd say power of expression is more closely correlated to the ability to make the code complicated. Making a large language is onoy one way to get that power.

Zig's metaprogramming is not far off being as powerful as lisp. Of rust and zig, I'd expect zig code to be more capable of turning into a hot mess more quickly.

Hopefully its simplicity and the niche it is targetting will help the community keep it somewhat in check.
So form a third party with middle-of-the-road policies that large numbers of people could get behind, because your buffet politics approach is clearly not working.
Oh no not a defense. I would never defend it, it's disgusting behavior.

I'm just pointing that out because the parent said gerrymandering screws Democrats. It does. But it also screws Republicans, and well, all of us.

I understand it's now a tit-for-tat so I'm not blaming either side more than the other. I just want it gone.
Sounds like bullshit. Yes there have been criminals using Bitcoin since the early days. But there have been always a lot of people promoting it for normal merchants. There are lots of shops accepting Bitcoin these days, depending where you live though.
maybe better to just raise the issue generally for yourself about how well the meeting/communication style is working and get everyone's feedback on collaboration tools and process so that no one is put on the spot. not only does this avoid singling anyone out, but it will capture all the problems (and hopefully solve them) regardless of whatever challenges people may be facing.

check in with your manager and hrbp before doing so though. you don't want to step on any laws or toes. (and hr may already have a program in place to help)
Apparently it is unclear to some people, but that's a subordinate clause. It is explaining the following independent clause.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. "

"Because A, B". It is emphatically not, "B if A" or "B for the purposes of A".
In an ideal world, SCOTUS would point to the Ninth Amendment, say, "this seems like an un-enumerated constitutional right" and allow it.

But since we don't yet live in that world, we need every argument we can find, no matter how flimsy or contrived. Because, despite having a solid foundation sitting right there, we are forced to build on top of a patchwork of whatever else we see laying around.
Do you realize how ridiculous this sounds to someone who isn't partisan and doesn't watch mainstream media? Besides the blatant lies like saying Fauci didn't fund the wuhan lab you use political terms like labeling people right wingers because they don't agree with you. That's the same strategy as the mainstream media you are defending. Then you mock people for wanting an actual debate. You need to get out of your bubble. Stop mindlessly believing everything you see on CNN without question.
“Can do” doesn’t always (or even often) mean “can do well” or “can do well according to our needs” or “works for all our use cases” or “works for all our users” or…

If vanilla JS checks off all those boxes for you, that’s genuinely fantastic and I’m happy for you. And a lil envious tbh. But there are a myriad reasons I/we currently can’t justify ditching the build toolchain, and most of them relate to scaling in a way that fulfills our requirements. I can’t imagine I’m alone in that.
I think there's a connection here with the mythic 10x developer as well.

Some developers are just so much slower at the Difficult Problems, so that the developers that are good at them seem like 10x (or 100x or infinitely) more productive than their peers.

But I don't think they have the same leverage on the Hard Work problems.
It should take 10 milliseconds?
and conservatives control SCOTUS, which is the party we are discussing here.
> Apple is part of PRISM.

So are/were Microsoft, Yahoo!, Google, Facebook/Meta, YouTube, AOL and Skype. The Washington Post stated, after analysis 98% of PRISM production is/was based on Yahoo!, Google, and Microsoft. Not defending or apologising - merely stating fact. This is trotted out so often that it needs highlighting. Not trying to change your mind either - you do you. Just offering some balance to your opinion. I know that you are "holding a trillion dollar business accountable(tm)", but lets hold all these multi-billion dollar business accountable too.

> Apple put iCloud in Chinese government datacenters.

As does every company that has a market presence in China. iCloud is hosted in China and operated by GCBD. Effectively nothing to do with Apple and has little baring on iCloud. It's not private for local users, and that is bad. This does not mean that China legitimately has access to iCloud globally.
> It's a thought experiment, isn't the point that it is unencumbered by what is plausible? The reason for setting it up that way is to put responsibility for the sick person's life onto the healthy person through an action they took. I have no current alternative.

> …
> If we reimagine the sick neighbour's predicament so that her husband and child both need a new kidney and the healthy neighbour convinces her to give them up because the he has a special room in his house where she can convalesce and regrow her kidneys. Should the healthy neighbour now be allowed to withdraw the offer after the sick neighbour had donated both kidneys?

> That kind of situation seems to align with some of the factors at play a bit better.

I'll admit that my preference for ethical questions to be realistic is an irrational preference. I don't know why I feel this way but I think we get answers which are more likely to be meaningful if we start with scenarios that could plausibly happen.

Let me try revisiting the one you propose:

Suppose there is a healthy person whose husband and child both need kidneys. Donating her kidneys to them both would ordinarily kill her -- people need at least one kidney to live, and she only has two. But her neighbor says "if you donate your kidneys to your family, I'll let you live in a special room in my house where you can regrow your kidneys".

Let's say this process takes 40 weeks, and at about week 10 the neighbor says "I don't want you in my house any more -- please leave". Should the neighbor be allowed to say this, even if this means the formerly healthy person will require daily dialysis, and may indeed die?

I wonder whether the answer changes on why the neighbor is saying "get out":

* What if the neighbor themself has suddenly developed kidney failure, no transplants are available, and the only thing that will save them is an immediate 30-week stay in the special room?

* Does the answer to the above change if the room's special-ness is tied to the neighbor being alive (if they die, no one else can ever use it to regrow organs)?

* What if the neighbor's own infant child has suddenly developed kidney failure, no transplants are available, and the only thing that will save them is an immediate 30-week stay in the special room; should they be allowed to evict the recovering kidney donor? Does the answer change if the kidney donor has a 1% chance of surviving on dialysis until the room is available again? 10%? 99%?

* If the neighbor is just being selfish and wants their room to be empty because they've decided think it looks better when it's tidy, should that be forbidden?

* One way or another, if the room is empty at the end of the 40 weeks, should the state use eminent domain to seize the room and force the neighbor to take in gravely ill people from local hospitals, housing them until they are well, for as long as the room is working?

When I have interrogated these views personally I have found that some things may be wrong to do, but society should still be structured in such a way that people may sometimes do wrong things.
Agree about understanding the threat — but I really don’t think I am avoiding the threat model here.

I’ve been philosophizing on the nature of Bitcoin for a long time. You haven’t given me an attack that would defeat this system yet. If you have a valid attack, I would encourage you to circulate it where technical folks can deal with it.

All you are doing is throwing your opinion that it is useless, the state will defeat it, etc. I mean cool, but coiners will not agree with you. There are many others here that have told you their experiences, threat models and uses.