skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
You do remind me that, when people claim that the Civil War was fought over states' rights and not slavery, I like to ask them to name three such states' rights. The more interesting follow up is to name one states' right that wasn't prohibited for states to decide by the Confederate constitution--every answer I can give for the first question was also precluded by the Confederate constitution.

The primary motivation for states' rights seems to be not to actually let states decide, but to enact policies at the broadest possible level they can do so.
The book On Class is pretty old now, but it's one of my favorite books for its insights. I recommend reading it (and not just the review).
When I was a child in the Catholic Church (70s and 80s) there was NEVER any political discussion that entered into the service (“..render unto caesar what is caesar’s..” or ‘separation of church and state’. Or, more probable, perhaps it was felt that it simply was not the forum for present-day politics. I don’t know). Since lapsed, A few years ago I was encouraged by a priest, as he enjoyed his fourth old fashioned, to attend a Mass. He noted that I might find it more ‘enlightening’ than I had in the past so I agreed (albeit reluctantly). What I witnessed was no less than a 45 minute diatribe on the dangers of abortion, casting various aspersions (ad hominem) on any political leader not on board with new political agenda of the Catholic Church. Frankly very little else. I hypocritically thought to myself ‘would Jesus be proud of this? Perhaps. But I certainly wasn’t. The addtional twisted irony was that the person I was with actually had an abortion. She sat quietly listening to this without seemingly the slightest bit of concern. She said that’s how all services are now.

It occurred to me that all of this must have been carefully planned at the highest levels of both the church and political/financial benefactors that support it. A long and patient process put in motion years ago.
I realize This is somewhat anecdotal but speaks to perhaps the planning that culminated in todays decision. This is about power and control operating under the auspices of religion. SCOTUS are just run-of-the-mill sycophants playing along.
This is a funny thing for me to read. The reason I enjoy programming is because the act of programming feels to me much like playing a puzzle game.
Big discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31862258
you know some technically minded folk love being "technically correct" on a subject
> The problem is pro-life hardliners [...]

No. Most people agree that abortion is acceptable early on (e.g. < 12 weeks). It's hardliners on both sides who are doing the most fighting because they either think that it's okay to abort up to the point of birth or that terminating a bunch of cells is murder.

> They believe life begins at conception with no basis other than religion.

It's not religion, it's science. A new human life (complete how it looks, what gender it's assigned, etc) begins at conception. It's not a full human, but it's slowly becoming one. The question is when it's too human to terminate.
If you wouldn't mind, could you please cite both of those claims.
Ten years ago Sherry Terkel, in Alone Together, described various electronic companions being deployed, even for very young kids. Imagine a dossier/record of all your secret whispers to electronic "friends" recorded from the time you are three years old. As the comments above suggest, the risks go beyond merely violating informed consent.
> why did something that was in place for 50 years needs to be revisited?

Please answer the same question, but for slavery.
Intel Serpent Canyon NUC Wields Alder Lake CPU, Arc A770M GPU
Maybe some people believe women (and men) who are alive but haven’t been born yet have the right to control their bodies and not be killed, so they can exercise their autonomy one day. They would probably agree with you that “you don't leave rights up to the states. Rights are supposed to be guaranteed at all levels of government.”

Seems strange that most pro-abortion advocates would probably be in favor of tenants rights to protect them from being evicted from a rented house but are fine with a living human being lethally evicted from a womb as long as the “owner” says so.

In both cases there are two humans, both of which have rights and whose interests have to be balanced - I don’t think it’s helpful to pretend otherwise. One might also want to consider other situations where humans have decided other people are “not really” human in order to justify doing terrible things to them, including killing them. In every situation I can think of, that thinking was wrong - seems unlikely that abortion is an exception somehow.
I'm as mystified as you are. All I can come up with is a misplaced sense that there's crap in the pipes causing failures of lesser fixtures, and hence the pipes should be replaced. Of course, not only would that likely be wrong thinking, it's also just a SWAG on my part. I really hope OP comes back with an answer. :-)
The main issue with WhatsApp you're locked to a single provider and their service (unless SMS which works across different carriers), as well as their privacy practices. In a way this is similar to people moving away from email to proprietary messaging systems instead - while you gain security and functionality benefits, you lose in terms of choice and compatibility. Sadly alternatives haven't really gained traction.
I removed all mobile based 2fa from all my sites that rely on it and strictly use TOTP and u2f. Now I only subscribe to services that provide this kind of authentication. There are a few sites that I still use that rely on SMS 2factor but its a short list now. Most of my sites that have TOTP and U2f support have the option of using SMS auth but does not require it.
Users choose what is advertised to them.
Hopefully one day they find out who aimed the bullet.
* Numbers 3:39-40 is taking an account of those of circumcisable age (e. g. those who are inducted into the covenant between God and Israel). That says nothing about their humanity.

* The "ruah" of God is not the breath we take in with our lungs - and even if it were, that says how God created Adam, not how God created their children. Jeremiah 1:5 and Luke 1:44

* Numbers 5:27 - floor dust and burnt grain will not cause a woman to miscarry. Lying about the truth in front of the Truth Himself is grounds for punishment, but from God alone. Acts 5:1-10
I’m an American and I think the same thing:

Why is it so important?

It’s either so heavily interpreted that it means different things than what’s written (2nd Amendment), it’s needed complete adjustment to even pretend to meet its ideals (Slavery), the adjustment needed adjustments (Voting Rights Act), and every step of the way those adjustments get watered down, stripped, rendered meaningless…

It’s a document written by people from a different time. Why be beholden to the past, when it’s not even recognizable in its current form to when it was first drafted?
For me, cardio-type exercises leaves me wanting to eat stupid amounts of food afterwards, but strength exercises not so much. Perhaps the triggers are more nuanced than an overarching concept of exercise?
> The ability to rely on another person's body to keep you alive is clearly a positive right if it exists

That is one way to frame it. Usually, though, abortion requires someone to actively kill the fetus.

And there is another problem with this argument. The sacrifice it takes for the woman to carry the baby for 9 months may not be the real reson people have abortions. Rather, I imagine, the real reason is that they don't want what happens AFTER the child is born.

Let's consider a similar argument: A ship crew on an oil tanker going from Saudi Arabia to Huston discovers an uninvited "passenger" hiding in the ship. A 5 year old girl, let's say. Do they have an obligation to feed this girl until they reach LA, or can they throw her overboard?

Now, from a purely postive rights argument, one could say they're not allowed to throw her overboard, but they also are not required to feed her. But we all know that's not going to happen.
Pro choice frames the question differently. To put it in an overly reductionist way: it’s not a human, it’s a fetus.

This framing does create a problem of defining when exactly it becomes a human, which I haven’t heard a good answer to.
In Praise of the Gods – What the Rationalistic World Forgot
Those stats might hold regardless, but to be fair one would expect different voting patterns under the current system, versus a direct popular-vote election, so it's not accurate to say that anyone "won" the popular vote in any US Presidential election, since that wasn't the contest and the fact that it wasn't affected how voters and candidates behaved. It's like challenging someone to a foot race, losing, and then deciding afterward that you won on "style points" or something. That wasn't the contest, and the other participant might have done things differently under different rules.

The system as it stands makes voting pointless for people who are in districts that reliably go for the "other team". If they could at least influence the Presidential election, more of those voters might show up at the polls. GOTV and other campaign efforts take this into account, which magnifies the effect.
Here https://www.sankei.com/article/20220623-YMHUI532OZPTHOXVJHHK...
If you believe that life begins at conception you could say that abortion deprives that "unborn person" of their right to life, as long as carrying the fetus to term would not put the life of the mother at risk.
I do not think C++ "lags severely in the field of virtual methods". I use both OOP and template based polymorphism depending on particular needs and see no significant problems in either.
Your understanding of what happened yesterday is extremely poor.

The Supreme Court did not strike down New York‘s ability to regulate open carry at all.

They struck down the states ability to withhold concealed carry permits to anyone who does not provide a sufficient reason for application.

Turns out you don’t actually need to provide a reason for civil rights.

The NYPD since being sued over this has been found guilty in corruption cases of withholding permits to people who weren’t donors, connected, celebrities, elite.

No one reasonable should think you need to prove to the NYPD why you need your rights.

“May Issue” is now dead. “Shall Issue” is still fine, and open carry laws have not changed at all.

It should be noted, that New York had at least three opportunities in court to not appeal decisions they lost, and prevent it from going to the Supreme Court. Back when this case started the state of New York had assumed that Hillary would win and going all the way up to supreme court would be fine. When they lost the second circuit, they had offered the NYRPA concessions, they were reject, and had to appeal the decision making it go to supreme court. This was ALL the state of New York’s arrogance. And now NJ, MD, HI and others are surely pissed.

As to “needs” and “rights”. Hawaii since 2016 has issued approximately four concealed carry permits to citizens. They must be renewed every year. and you cannot leave your home county with the gun. This has been an obvious violation of rights and is soon to change.
He said he's going to teach high school computer science. As someone who made the same leap, it's cool to hear! He was really awesome about giving his games to teachers to use in their classrooms for free.
>Just because men can't get pregnant doesn't mean that the law doesn't apply to them.

Yes it does.
You could link to an off-site webpage before the ban, and then post details of how to connect to the new site after.

And it's not like users couldn't have had contacts between each other and the moderators and couldn't spread the word about the new community.

That's not to mention the ability to evade bans to spread the word on Reddit itself, if need be.

Spreading the word is actually the relatively easy part... it's migrating all the old content to the new site that isn't made easy by Reddit, because (afaik) it doesn't offer any kind of export feature.. but the site could be scraped.
You can add a dune-project file at the root of your project with just `(lang dune 3.2)` (or your dune version rather than 3.2). The file can also be generated by "dune init project project_name" for fresh projects.
Throwing Out the Privacy Policy Is a Bad Idea
Looks like he's already considering it

> I was hoping that I’d really like teaching and stay with that for a few years, but I learned that’s definitely not the case and I’m having a hard time imagining anything other than games in my future, in some shape or form.

They will likely be doing it forever, they just want to try something else than a small 5-member indie team maybe?
Security, who Cares?
GCP made a few adjustments to have something that is compatible with both US laws and the GDPR

https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/compliance/how-google...

From memory, gov entities also have deeper customizations, and data centers might be separate from customers and the standard Google operation altogether.
The government has had practically zero control over cash transactions, historically speaking. The only real power governments have over their money supplies are the power to create and destroy money with impunity, that is all.
> The most obvious example, Republicans have won the national popular vote once in the last 8 presidential elections.

Isn't that the other way around? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presiden... (i.e. Democrats have won the popular vote in the last 8 presidential elections, but have only won the office in 5 of those).

Also, I had forgotten this (and it was huge at the time, and I voted in those elections, so I should remember), but Bill Clinton didn't win the majority popular vote either. The democrats had a larger popular vote that the republicans, for sure, but not over 50% due to third party / independent candidates.

Contrast that with the last 6 elections where the democratic party has had more than 50% of the popular vote each time.

Ah... And W's second term the republicans had more than 50% of the popular vote...
The far right has been fighting a locality-by-locality state-by-state war of attrition for a long time. There's far too much focus on national elections when local and state elections can sometimes influence your life a lot more.
I'm anxious to see flat go. It made everything look the same: cheap and without individuality. The opposite of diversity of ideas and the true spirit of creativity.

And funny to see Neumorphism trend fading. Wonder if that actually will happen as I'm perfectly accepting of it.

Neumorphism feels like the low-calories version of Skeuomorphism (which I feel is a big win over flat).
I like how they recount the "secure, not private" mantra at the top of the page. MacOS has a funny threat model: it's obviously not a very private machine, but the security measures like filesystem sandboxing and SIP go a long way towards... well, making your Mac more like an iPhone. This is good for defending against smaller, petty actors (identity theft, phishers, stray keyloggers, etc.), but it does very little to defend against the actually scary stuff like government surveillance, first-party data collection or foreign threat actors.

So, a lot of you are probably rearing up to write me a 5000-word response essay about how unreasonable it is to expect MacOS to compete with Team Red from around the world. I know. No operating system will ever be perfect.

...but on the flip side, MacOS' security concessions really don't seem to protect the user, from where I'm standing. Apple has made it so that trusting their OS means trusting them, which frankly, I don't. Apple is part of PRISM. Apple put iCloud in Chinese government datacenters. Maybe that Chinese data is encrypted-on-disk (eg. secure), but the fact that the Chinese government has the decryption keys certainly doesn't make it very private. With any degree of likelihood, that's already happening in most first-world countries too.
At the stage where abortion is allowed it's hardly a child.
That is actually a great analogy
That's an overly dramatic take. My prediction is that Republicans will now begin losing seats in red State legislatures precisely because of this decision.
> “My original plan was to wrap things up at Zachtronics and then find a new job teaching high school computer science, but the timing was off,”

Please do, but don't just teach CS! I'll go back to high school. My kid will hit high school in about 7 years.
>>Now, the rural republican votes counting for more in the senate is a huge issue and threat to democracy that the US needs to figure out if it ever wants to represent the views of the people

The United States is a Republic not a democracy.
What does looking at people on the sidewalk have to do with your point? Especially in a major city where there's a massive amount of different jobs with all kinds of different hours and days worked.

If you want to stereotype you can make the exact argument about a rural trailer park.
Remember, founding fathers had a very dim view on Democracy, this is why they chose to have a Republic and then restrict the republic through a constitution.
If Democrats were losing out to big numbers, they would pro-republic and Republicans would be pro-democracy.

But, one of the best explanations for why founding fathers built the system the way they did is this[1], by late Justice Scalia.

The fundamental idea is that the American system is created to represent the will of the republic across time and space:

- Every bill needs to be passed by all three House, Senate and the President

- House recycles very fast (every 2 years)

- President recycles at a moderate speed (every 4 years)

- Senate recycles at a slow pace (every 6 years, and partially every 2 years)

- House represents the population

- Senate represents all states equally (or represents land)

- Presidency is elected through a hybrid system (electoral college, which is
distributed in proportion to the population).

- The fundamental idea is that any bill must be agreed upon by:

a. The will of the people not just in short term (house), but in mid-term (presidency) and long term (senate) also. When UK wanted out of EU, the remainers believed that they should have a revote because they didn't believe that people voted with full information. Of course, years later a second proxy vote through general elections made the intent clear, but in the US we will not go for a bill to be passed unless its not just what we voted for in the past 2 years, but also what we voted for in past 4 and 6 years.

b. The will of fifty states, and territories and not just by a few populous states. In contrast, EU's policy making is all a decision of France and Germany. EU is more 'democratic' than US, but also far more fragile.

American Democratic Republic system is a part of experiment of 'Union of Unions'. It's a balance between the different sides. If you make the union too weak, it will fail to hold itself up. Like Articles of Confederation was a failure because it was too weak, pre-Civil War US also turned out to be a union not strong enough. League of Nations wasn't strong enough.

But if you make it too strong, then individual states will start walking out because they don't find their interests represented (like UK voting for Brexit from EU).

1. https://youtu.be/Ggz_gd--UO0
For me it's pretty simple: what causes the least suffering. Don't act that an unwanted child will have a great life.

Most sane countries have sane rules related to abortions. But I guess some people still hang on to an imaginary superpower that will make them live forever, if they follow certain rules.

I also find it funny that most pro-life zealots are also pro death penalty. Completely bonkers.

With retarded shit like this I'm very happy to live in Europe, where we already figured these things out generation(s) ago.
I tend to believe that there is an issue of map/territory confusion in teaching ‘programming’ and in general thinking about programming. Programs are usually envisioned as being statements which are performed in a sequence one after the other. This is comparable to the nature intuition about what an algorithm is, i.e. a series of steps to achieve a result when given some input.

The problem then lies in the deeper explanation. It is said that the hardware is just taking instructions and executing them one after another, and that is then mapped to the execution of programming language statements. The issue of ‘imperative’ vs ‘non-imperative’ implementations is really a question of granularity. The map between machine instructions and language constructs is so large (for most every modern machine) that while the imperative algorithm seems more reflective of the underlying architecture it is just a layer of cover up to make programmers feel better.

I really think that the appearance of control over fine grained instructional behavior give people the feeling that their imperative code is truer/more-correct in relation to the machine. This feeling leads to the presumption that imperative is more efficient.

As a final caveat, the ability for a non-imperative algorithm to be equivalent to its imperative alternative tends to rely on the language’s compiler (and the restrictions inherent in the non-imperative language). This is the origin of the ‘with-a-smart-enough-compiler’ argument that people sometimes level against non-imperative programming, i.e. there is not a compiler smart enough to take your high level language and produce the same machine code I do in my low level language.

So I’m sum, I think it is both a teaching error (the continual re-enforcing of confusion between what a program says vs what a machine does) and a general human level confusion as to what an algorithm is at the level of silicon in 2022.
For hours? No way. I wouldn't do that, even if I sometimes leave stuff for a few minutes if I'm in a cafeteria I know well, plus etc. etc. But not for hours. At best your stuff would be taken care of by e.g. the cafeteria personnel, if not then with that much time the statistics won't be in your favour.
yes clearly, so it follows the right of pregnant person's to decide what happens to their body trumps anything else
Zendesk Goes Private in $10.2B Deal
It's important to remember gerrymandering cuts both ways. In my state, the D's just redistricted into a crazy looking map that will effectively give them a clean sweep.
You’ve missed the point in the quote you pulled. Assault is hardly an unknown circumstance.

To draw the parallel to a newborn, some pass away from SIDS, some from abuse, some from malnutrition. Investigations are performed in suspicious circumstances. Sometimes it truly happens to be random or unknown or unpreventable.

If one were to treat fetuses the same, wouldn’t one want to verify there was no abuse or neglect? I.E. the causes are unknown, it could be a random natural event, it could be due to someone’s actions, the only way to know is to investigate. To my knowledge, nobody currently gets investigated for a miscarriage of unknown cause. One can only hope it stays that way.
>I have to trust that at least 51% of validators are honest

Those 51% are third parties. Full stop. There is no difference. You don't control them, they are not you, they are not your friends. They're third parties. You can argue why you trust them more than "centralized institutions" but that doesn't make them not third parties. And this of course is assuming that the validators aren't centralized and will never become centralized, which there is no guarantee that it won't happen or has not already happened.

I am not making this up either, this is a design parameter of the system; the fallacious premise of blockchains appears to readily assume that miners/validators will become greedy and hostile but also seems to trust them not to centralize and attack the network, for some reason that has not held up in practice.