skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Moonjump is a server that redirects you to a random page harvested from Are.na, Hacker News, Marginalia Search, and Gossip Web.

This project aims to spark curiosity and provide a portal to the vast collection of interesting material hidden by the commercial web.

The source material is aggregated with care by users of these platforms. Since this accumulation is performed by hand, pages are saved because they had an effect on the users who saved them. The goal is to find something that has an effect on you.

For Are.na, the dictionary of channels that the app pulls from is weighted by the number of pages in the channel. Channels with the most pages are more likely to be selected.

This collection of curious content is a trove of handcrafted treasures. But as our habits have taught us in the contemporary era of web surfing, we are prone to doomscrolling (and even doom-bookmarking).

Moonjump makes a decision for you by selecting something random from a deep sea of unconventional content. Results may be peculiar, profound, or absolute nonsense. But you can always close the tab and jump again.

The search engine is powered by Marginalia, an amazing project which indexes non-commercial content and may surprise you with sites you perhaps weren't aware of. I have to admit that the existance of Marginalia is a huge inspiration for Moonjump. Search queries on Moonjump use the Marginalia API to redirect you to a random result.

The easiest way to jump is to click the large logo at the center of the homepage. You can also add https://moonjump.app/jump to your bookmarks bar.

If you are an OSX user and have hammerspoon installed, check the github repo for instructions on how to jump via a keyboard shortcut. (This is really fun! I have mine mappt to Cmd-Ctrl-J)

If anyone has any suggestions for improvements, please let me know! Also feel free to open a pull request. The codebase for the homepage is a little bit of a mess but the main functionality is in the Flask app.

Links:

https://moonjump.app
https://moonjump.app/jump
https://moonjump.app/hn
https://github.com/ya1sec/moonjump

--

https://www.are.na
https://search.marginalia.nu
https://gossipsweb.net
Firstly, the supreme court decides what the 2A means and they decided it does not mean that. The NYC law spit in the face of a previous supreme court decision. That can't be allowed.

You can argue that the previous decision was wrong all you want (I personally think it was), but you can't allow the states to just ignore the supreme court and do whatever they want or all constitutional protections are meaningless.
> at least we can all agree...

No, we can't all agree. On anything.

Given that the Chinese have shut down investigation, how would you expect anyone to tell you exactly how it happened?
> I don't think that's the argument the earlier post is making. They are arguing that you cannot be compelled to do something to save some else's life even if it won't harm you, and doubly so without due process.

Choosing not to kill a fetus != saving someone else's life

Using the two interchangeably is like building a house on top of sand
One of possible interpretations, which AFAIK was even on the books in some state for a time, was that second amendment meant compulsory obligation for each voter to buy, out of their own money, a military rifle and stand for militia training periodically - essentially, mandatory militia service.

Lots of ways to wring hands about a very badly written amendment.
Yeah ... I'm fortunate that neither I nor my immediate family are immediately affected by this decision, which affords me the luxury of thinking about the ethics in the abstract.

> 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?

While I'm totally willing to engage in this kind of Talmudic thought experiment, is there a way you could recast your question to be more biologically plausible?

For example, suppose you offer to donate a kidney to your child, who is suffering from a fatal, heritable condition for which you carry a recessive gene. You thought that you were incurring a 0.007% risk of mortality (the average). During the surgery, the surgeon performing the extraction discovers that you have unexpected extra risk factors and their process will not work; they stop. They tell you that they can try again, but the new procedure they need to use will incur a 10% chance of your death. There is no other donor, and your child will die.

1 - Should you be allowed to withdraw your consent for the surgery?

2 - Should your child's wealthy spouse be allowed to pay you money to continue with the surgery?
The university I'm attached to used 68HC11-family dev boards for their intro embedded course until the early/mid 2010s, with a smattering of other platforms like 8051 derivatives in advanced classes, and have switched to ARM (Small Cortex M ARMs, typically TI TM4C123 TivaC boards) for almost all our embedded content since. Plus a few little Arduino based activities with the freshmen, though the form of that has changed over the years.

The intro to embedded systems course used to be only taken by Computer Engineers around their Junior year, since ~2017 we do it a semester or so earlier and make the EEs take it too as part of a streamline; EEs no longer take the computer architecture course, and the new embedded course covers some basic architecture concepts.

We still do the beginning of the semester in Assembly (we really only show them ARM Thumb) and the later part in C.

Possibly the most revelatory thing about that course is that the low-level view means we find out and try to correct that most of our students (as second semester sophomores who have in theory passed at least two programming courses and a digital logic course) haven't the slightest idea what code actually means/does.

Example: Every semester I've been involved, when we transition from assembly to C, we give a simple assignment to sort some arrays of (well documented) structs by a specified field and order, given the address where first element starts and length in elements, in both C and assembly. They are handed a starter project with a lightly-obfuscated object file that sets up the arrays, calls two provided function headers for them to fill in, then tests if the sorts succeeded. Details get changed every semester because students cheat compulsively on programming assignments, but it's always set up to be easy, the structs they handle in ASM are always 16 or 32b in length, stored aligned, etc.

Many of them... struggle mightily for two weeks because they haven't actually retained anything about number representation, memory (size, layout, byte addressing), arguments, the difference between a value and a pointer, and so on. The course staff spend weeks doing patient remediation around that point in the semester. At least we get a chance to make another pass over that material and more of them get it after.
Well, at least Gislain Maxwell and her colleagues were getting paid appropriately
Aren’t you assuming that you’re being shown all the evidence?
Yeah I definitely cherry picked a convenient time period. But the point is that most people want a stable currency. Predictability is a good thing with money. Bitcoin has never been stable or predictable.

A deflationary currency (like long term bitcoin) is great personally, since why wouldn't I want my money to be worth more tomorrow than it is today. But in the macro sense, we really don't want that. If my personal money is worth more as each day goes by, my incentive isn't to go out and spend it on useful economic activity. The incentive is to hoard your money and spend as little as possible right now since things will get cheaper the longer you wait to spend. Deflation is a situation where the rich get richer by doing nothing.

So from a societal perspective a currency that deflates over time, like bitcoin, is a currency that discourages spending, discourages economic activity, and concentrates wealth into the hands of those who already have large reserves of capital and don't invest it into new ventures.

Bitcoin might make a good investment, as you pointed out it is up 1000x in 10 years. But that volatility is what makes it a poor currency. That rise was unpredictable, and for every huge deflationary period (price rise), has had an almost as big inflationary period.
No, she might be working as a director on a film that has yet to be made; she is not the writer on that film. And she is not an "executive producer," so the title of "producer" is meaningless (it doesn't actually entail any responsibilities and is generally an honorific).

And the point is that while she had a major blockbuster success, this will only be her second film since that success; in that time, the losers behind Morbius will have worked on 4 films.
Particularly interstate matters are handled by federal institutions set up by Congress. Which is why Texas police cannot prosecute you for crime done in California, but they can report you to the FBI.

As such, Texas is overstepping its jurisdiction. And sidestepping the law by making it civil cases... Which they can adjudicate.

So, states can get into their mess by staying civil cases, when do we see an escalation?
There are two sources that most people talk about:

1. The Wuhan Institute of Virology

2. A particular market in Wuhan.

However, all we really know is that Wuhan is the first city with a lot of cases.
It is entirely possible that the virus, or a virus precursor was active in a small population somewhere else.
Also, there are a lot of labs in Wuhan besides the WIV.
>If not, then are miscarriages now occasion for criminal investigations?

In several states, this is now true
"Other things the Supreme Court has blocked state law using the same logic as roe v Wade (due process of the 14th amendment[0]) on are blocking contraception bans (grisewald), overturning anti-sodomy laws (lawrence), and giving equal protection to gay marriage (obergafel)."

One odd thing about this is that there is another case with the same 14th amendment reasoning which no one seems to be discussing: Loving v. Virginia (https://www.oyez.org/cases/1966/395).

I wonder if that's because Clarence and Ginni Thomas have been committing miscegenation for years?
Wow, as a pinephone user, let me just say thanks!
Is it really true that the page originally took >10s to "start rendering", or is that an artifact of the way it's measured? Was the page literally blank for ten full seconds?
I say this as a lefty: the US defines the militia as essientially including every able bodied man. Since it was written before the 14th amendment, it probably would be interpreted now as every adult.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246

In fact the first weapon ban to hit SCOTUS, US v Miller, hinged on the fact that sawed off shotguns had no military application, which was legal basis allowing them to be banned. The court at the time considered bans of military weapons unconstitutional.
> 1. There are certainly more and less extreme flavors of the pro-life movement. I reject your assertion that the more extreme side is negligible, as there are laws on the books, and now enforceable, that prohibit abortion in all cases, such as in Louisiana.

It's not that that faction's negligible, it's that the argument isn't helpful for refuting "the mother does have some obligation to a life that was created and became dependent on her through her own actions" because someone who holds that position probably doesn't disagree with you that rape and incest are exceptions. It's a distraction not from the broader debate, but specifically from substantively addressing this particular position.

> 2. Fetuses are not babies. Babies are people, from a legal and ethical perspective; fetuses are not. If it were otherwise, we wouldn't even be having this conversation, as abortion would already be considered murder. So yes, fetuses are living, but that does not afford them any rights, any more than cows have rights by virtue of being alive, and it certainly doesn't afford them rights that supersede those of an actual person.

This is precisely the point of contention, and it is far from clear-cut even on the pro-choice side. That's why 3rd trimester abortion rights are far less popular than the rest—even to many pro-choicers, the is-/isn't-a-baby question is settled at some point before birth, but after the 1st trimester.
Airborne was always known; debate was droplet vs aerosol (particle size and thus dwell time/radius). Not really a binary distinction anyway; a matter of degree.
> - Who is going to pay for this

If we're reducing this to money, who will pay for the ongoing costs of unwanted children and the results of the risk factors they'll be exposed to?
You post this viewpoint all the time, I've seen you comment it before. Which report are you referring to exactly?
Tonight, or this morning? Too late?
AI is just the next step in their iteration towards being perfectly selfish psychopaths. AI safety isn't an effective idea because it is trying to warn a system of dangers that said system is already actively pursuing without aid of AI.
> That is like comparing apples to oranges.

That doesn't seem like helpful reply.

I was asking about the time/complexity/difficulty of setup. It can be somewhat painful to setup and train Little Snitch, but it's ok after that.
The whole story to run through DeepL:

https://www.tagesspiegel.de/berlin/berlins-buergermeisterin-...
> There is no way this can be upheld, right? How on earth can citizens of state 1 go after citizens of state 2 for something that's legal in state 2?

Yes, it’s insane. But I don’t have faith in our courts to not split this hair and allow it for abortion specifically because they are so clearly partisan on social issues here.

Even without the insanity of the Texas law though, it’s still a huge issue for poor women in red states.

> Who decides when the will of a state's majority is "democracy at work" and when it's "persecution of the minority violating equal protection"?

The federal government passes laws, or a constitutional convention passes amendments, and federal courts interpret them. The 14th amendment was interpreted to apply this protection before but now it is not.
China gives its critics plenty to work with. And, no, critics of China are not automatically or even likely racist and xenophobic.
I'm confused what you're arguing for. You seem to agree, in general abortion should be an option - which is what roe v wade did.

States could impose restrictions on how and when abortion is performed. I agree with you, that third trimester on-demand abortions are ludicrous btw.

I however do not have that rosy of a perspective that this was overturned due to technicality and that in fact women's rights are about to be stripped the fuck away.
LBJ frequently brought that up in negotiations. It was his prerogative so to speak.
Yeah, I think it'd be more obvious in cases of extreme physical harm, but harder to argue in cases of lesser physical harm or even in terms of emotional harm, regardless of how extreme.
Yeah, I certainly wasn't trying to say that they committed a crime or anything; I'm just saying I'm skeptical of the claim that there's no intent to overturn those other cases mentioned just because most of the justices who voted to overturn Roe v. Wade didn't explicitly state it at this time.
> The NYC law spit in the face of a previous supreme court decision. That can’t be allowed.

I mean it obviously can, as the law at issue in Dobbs did that, and it was allowed.
One is an intentional act by a group of people. The other is, at worst, an accident where the main actor is a molecule.
I really don't understand these arguments. "Blockchain" is a collection of technology but at its heart it's about byzantine-fault tolerant consensus and distributed protocols.

I explain this here (https://cryptologie.net/article/555/my-friends-always-ask-me...) but if you're looking at it from the outside, you should see blockchain as

1) a distributed database: it is here to emulate a centralized system, like a central bank! and

2) a distributed database that works even in the presence of malicious actors, so like an international central bank that wants to operate across borders

There's nothing more than that, if you want to understand the technology in a financial scenario.

If you want to understand how this kind of technology can be useful outside of a financial scenario, think about the web PKI (which I wrote about here https://cryptologie.net/article/561/the-web-pki-20/) or protocols like certificate transparency and binary transparency, and how they could provide resistance against attacks (instead of detection of attacks) if they used a BFT consensus protocol.
Brought what to the market? Themselves or animals from a lab?
I dig it because it's like a summary of half of the Marvel movies, where the protagonists spend the entire adventure solving a problem they caused themselves.

Like, without the Thanos thingy, iron man is not a bloody hero, he is a villain. He is responsible for so much death and destruction it's not even funny. Black Mamba, killer. Black panther ? Maintains in place a political system that clearly allows any psychopath to access absolute power. Hulk, a time bomb. Thor ? He let his genocidal brother of the hook as soon as he is nice for 2 minutes. Spiderman ? Give an deadly bot swarm to the first father figure that smiles at him. Dr Strange ? Accept the request to GHB the planet and almost destroys it because a kid ask for it for 30 seconds.

It's a well known trope in sups stories, but for some reasons a lot of viewers really believes they are heroes. Even as a kid I though Batman was stupid for spending times fighting one criminal at a time with all his money.

Now, we are seeing a lot of this in today's IRL world.

Progress is saving you by giving you drugs for all the diseases it increases: diabetes, cancer, obesity, hormonal dysfunctions, etc. It's giving you a car so that you can you can go work in a remote place you would never have to work to without progress. It gives you software to organize your day to fit all the thing you would not have to do without progress.

Ok, it's tongue in cheek. I love progress.

But still.
There is an option to get a "Job Seeker" visa for 6 months. Go to Germany and search for a job, switch to long term visa.

https://www.germany-visa.org/job-seeker-visa/
These are two different decisions.

As has been pointed out by others the NY law was arbitrary. The local law man decided if you were worthy of getting a concealed permit. This would be like if the local law man decided if area women were worthy to be allowed an abortion.

The US would be better with fewer guns, but this was a badly written law.
What software would you use if you wanted to model the world?
States rights? See the US split? Crazy, I feel like we've been down this road before...

Enjoy that nuanced 4chan discussion, though!
At least there is a discussion here.
That second "fact" is not a fact. Baby is the term we use to describe children soon after they are born. Did you mean fetus?

Fertilized eggs have the potential to become fetuses, and fetuses have the potential to become babies, but fertilized eggs are not fetuses, and fetuses are not babies.

I think the spirit of your argument is that we cannot decide when to call a fetus a human. Like I mentioned in another comment, this grey area does not preclude undisputed humans from their constitutional rights.
> There is no way this can be upheld, right? How on earth can citizens of state 1 go after citizens of state 2 for something that's legal in state 2?

I'd suggest reading about the run up to the civil war. "State's rights" in that context was the slave states demanding that the free states capture and return escaped slaves outside of the slave states. Put simply, they wanted to enforce their fugitive slave laws on states that were completely uninterested in enforcing those laws.

The idea that "state's rights" in US political discourse reflects some principled division, rather than just being another lever people in power used to fight other people in power, is fiction. This has and remains fundamentally about a minority asserting their views over the majority, including outside the borders of their state.
The Heathkit/Zenith ET-3400 trainers with 6800s, and the accompanying Heath/Zenith coursework, were fantastic in 1982. 50+ of us completed it that year, the class final was bit-banging the tune of "Anchors Away" as the instructor was a Navy officer and educator, retired to civilian teaching. I later learned machine language on broken superscalar mainframes as bit-chaser, but the 6800 were simply fantastic devices and prepared me well. Flat, shared memory, von Neumann architecture. Very nice op codes and indexing, as I recall. Ill have to go back to my coursework and reminisce...
They lied, and it's been documented - but that cuts both ways. They also lied about wild animals being sold at their market.

From Bloomberg:

When an international group of experts organized by the World Health Organization traveled to Wuhan, China, earlier this year to research the origins of the coronavirus that sparked the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, they visited the Baishazhou market, which is larger, but perhaps less well-known (internationally, at least) than the Huanan market, where many people initially believed the virus first jumped from wild animals to humans.

The research team was told only frozen foods, ingredients, and kitchenware were sold there. But a recently released study that had previously languished in publishing limbo showed, thanks to data meticulously collected over 30 months, that at least two vendors there regularly sold live wild animals, Bloomberg reports. Bloomberg also notes that one of the earliest recorded COVID-19 clusters in Wuhan [December 19th] involved a Huanan stall employee who traded goods back and forth between the two markets."

It seems likely to Goldstein that some authorities didn't want the presence of a thriving wildlife trade to become public knowledge. "It seems to me, at a minimum, that local or regional authorities kept that information quiet deliberately. It's incredible to me that people theorize about one type of cover-up," he said, likely referring to the hypothesis that the virus actually leaked from a nearby government-run lab, "but an obvious cover-up is staring them right in the face."

https://news.yahoo.com/virologist-suggests-coronavirus-origi...