skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Here is a thought: I'm a pro-choice New Englander. If those states like Kentucky are so strongly pro-life, then who am I to push my New England center/lib culture onto them?

It's liberating in a way- I don't need the whole country to subscribe to living like me or holding the same beliefs and that's okay.
> This is not a new discussion, the research community has long ago established a near-consensus about what are the appropriate ethical boundaries, permissible tradeoffs, and non-negotiable safeguards when studying human subjects, and this goes waaaaay beyond that.

Unfortunately, our definitions are extraordinarily broad and technically almost anything is human research by the letter of the definition. In practice, we don't call everything that interacts with data about people "human experimentation", but figuring out the exact line is very hard.

E.g. I am a teacher. I do things differently from year to year. I do my best to gather the best metrics on this time series data that I can in order to inform my choices on what I consider best practices. Do I need to get an IRB involved? My institution doesn't have an IRB.

I really wish there were high quality controlled experiments in education that I could rely upon. But the vast majority of the educational research is crap.

Think about, say, Khan Academy. I have a hard time imagining a world where interacting with millions of kids on a protocol is OK, but the second we take some basic metrics to try and figure out how well it works, it's bad. I'd arguably ethically one needs to perform a certain basic level of monitoring and optimization of any intervention.
> But suddenly upon birth these same children need no societal protection?

> ... until the same protection is applied to children post-birth ...

The same protection is applied to children post-birth. It's still illegal to kill those children after they're born.

---

Edit to respond to comments, because I'm "posting too fast":

Yes, the conservative position on social programs seems inconsistent with being pro-life to someone who believes that government benefit programs are not only helpful, but are the primary mechanism to help the needy.

But not to people who believe, like Reagan, that "the nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.'"

They don't look to the government for help for themselves and they don't see it as a mechanism for helping others. For that, they prefer family, church, charity, and community.

They also generally believe, contrary to some extreme positions that have been exaggerated by their opponents, that:

"we would not consider it immoral for a woman to accept treatment that is necessary to save her life, but which may end the life of her preborn child."

https://www.focusonthefamily.com/family-qa/abortion-and-heal...
Strictly speaking, there will always be scarcity, since some things are inherently scarce. Some examples: front row tickets to a show, beachfront property, Friday dinner reservations at a popular restaurant, original pieces of art from a famous artist, sessions with a renowned therapist.
You can also charge for different levels of support.
> the general problem of being able to transact freely across the globe with radically reduced risk of government interception is a legitimate problem for many individuals now and in the past, who live under governments with unjust laws

I'm far from convinced that blockchain solves this. For a transaction system to be used in a serious and widespread manner, there must be recourse in case money is lost to fraud, hacking etc... . Currently this is typically provided by some goverment/state body regulating the system and prosecuting criminal abuse of it. I haven't seen any good arguments that cryptocurrencies can provide this kind of security without government involvement.

Blockchain might provide a provisional workaround for people under unjust governments, but the long-term robust solution to me seems to be political and cultural progress, not technology.
Abortion rights have never been about liquidating future criminals. A correlation might exist, but the dissenting justices were not considering it.
I expect the answer is very little -- except they'd have to re-purchase Minecraft on the new account.
Legal trickery and wordplay like the kind used in Roe Vs. Wade is what enables it.
Yeah, I guess it depends on location to some degree. In Europe, the cheap mainstream would be H&M and Zara, neither of which puts logos on things.

Above that, you're wearing a dress shirt, which never ever has a logo. Adidas and the like is strictly worn only by people who have lost control of their lives.
In the US, if you pay him over $650 a year, you have to file a 1099 with the IRS.
Gustin [weargustin.com] is great for this in men's clothing.
> It isn’t about religion. It’s about power and control.

Power and control is what organized religions have always been about.
> I was just looking at a new printer

There's a discussion upthread about some epson models being mostly alright (with caveats; read the whole thread): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31860555
Agreed. I had a car I paid $8k for, and I ended up selling it for pretty close to what I bought it for. Maintenance was very minimal. A brand new car absolutely is not necessary.
"We have decided that rich people who can travel to a different state have different rights than poor people" is a very bad process.

That's the difference between rights and privileges -- As of this week I can't vote away your your right to carry concealed weapon in my city, but you can vote to take away my access to abortion, or even contraception in yours?
This assumes that businesses hold all the power and can dictate payment methods to consumers. That's not how it works in a market economy. If there is a demand for alternative payment methods, businesses ignoring it will get outcompeted by competitors who do satisfy that demand.
So doesn’t this simply create two Americas, those with regressive laws and those with progressive laws, and people can choose between them and the market will show which laws attract people that create economic value?

I see half of the US becoming economically fallow as a result of this decline into dystopia.
You are describing not a problem with caring, but a problem with bad leadership that destroys the benefits of caring and the people who care.

Stopping caring is a coping strategy to help you extract funds (if you aren't getting good funds, leave!) from a company that refuses to let you do good work.
The study you’re speaking of (abortion lowering crime rates by preventing unwanted children from terrorizing the streets) remains unproven at best, despite oft being cited as settled research[0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_e...
> I’m a little confused by this statement. I assume by “address” you mean indexing, and the size of an index is related to the number of entries, not the amount of data being indexed.

Thanks for the question!

What's in view here is an LSM-tree database storage engine. In general, these typically store keys between 8 and 32 bytes and values up to a few MiB.

In our case, the question is how much memory is required for the LSM-tree to be able to index 100 TiB worth of key/value storage, where:

* keys are between 8 and 32 bytes,
* values are between 8 and 128 bytes,
* keys and values are stored in tables up to 64 MiB,
* each table requires between 128 and 256 bytes of metadata to be kept in memory,
* auxiliary data structures such as a mutable/immutable table must be kept in memory, and where
* all memory required by the engine must be statically allocated.

That's alot of small keys and values!

Typically, a storage system might require at least an order of magnitude more than 1 GiB of memory to keep track of that many keys using an LSM-tree as index, even using dynamic allocation, which only needs to allocate as needed.

Another way to think of this is as a filesystem, since it's a very similar problem. Imagine you stored 100 TiB worth of 4096 byte files in ZFS. How much RAM would that require for ZFS to be able to keep track of everything?
Or national level legislation.
The issue there is the reactionaries who claim to be 'textualists' and 'originalists' have all but decided the ninth amendment is meaningless.

Scalia said, "the Constitution's refusal to 'deny or disparage' other rights is far removed from affirming any one of them, and even farther removed from authorizing judges to identify what they might be, and to enforce the judges' list against laws duly enacted by the people".

Of course, anyone with a brain can see that Scalia was the first to abandon textualism or the reactionary idea that judges should not engage in 'judicial activism' whenever they came in conflict with conservative policy.
You are right in the sense that thinking from the perspective of the user is a good professional skill to have.

In practice though, you a very privileged if you get to work on any software that is not user-hostile per design. In the end of the day, programmer don't make the decisions.
I found this post because it showed up in a TUI Microsub[0] client that talks to a Microsub server[1] which is subscribed to one of the HN-to-RSS service's front page feed.

I use my RSS/feed reader pretty extensively as a central hub to collect "news" from a variety of sources, including from closed platforms such as YouTube via their semi-hidden RSS feed support. I like having a central place where things that may be of interest to me show up without me having to discover them actively or having to rely e.g. on the YouTube subscription interface.

I personally really like the concept of Microsub, because it allows you to have a single designated server takes care of fetching the feeds, normalizing the content and synchronizing state (e.g. read status, subscriptions, channel/folder organization) and you can then access that data from any client that supports the protocol. I specifically like Microsub, as opposed to some of the other "synchronization protocols" that are more or less supported by some services because it is an open protocol independent from any specific platform/implementation.

[0]: https://indieweb.org/Microsub-spec
[1]: https://github.com/aaronpk/aperture
Biggest thing to me is the message this sends - that there is no settled law really - I think the notion that nothing is legally set in stone and change is only a relatively easy matter of installing supreme court justices siding with your beliefs - that's gotta have some chilling consequences down the line for the country as a whole.

Greater progress requires building upon smaller progress, a settled foundation. If the foundation is constantly under churn you can reasonably expect constant regression.
"There are a variety of needs and use-cases, so "the" doesn't make sense."
That's very true, however i view those services the same way i view communication services like Slack. Eventually most users are just going to flock to what everyone uses by default and that's it. But i sure do wait for the day that special somebody makes "the IDE" to use!
So they're doing labor but not moderation labor, they could do the same thing with an unprivileged account?
I'm sorry, where did I personally attack you? I struggle to follow your line of reasoning.

> You have already made up your mind the Ive makes many mistakes.

I made my mind just like any person would: by looking at past behavior. This is not a sin, is how human judgment works.

> you still dont understand

Ok then. Good luck with your debate tactics.
Try https://notik.app. It merges a project overview and a very simple and easy to use project management model. Also if you email me at contact@notik.app I can personally help you get started.
Electricity and internet access are typically private sector commodities and services. There is often still internet without Government.

Which authorities? I signed a tx, sent it to the swarm using free and open source software, and it was included in a block.
Trustless. No authority.

I’m sure lots of people gained and lost fortunes. It’s fine. The trade off is worth it.
I don’t get this originalist argument. After it’s introduction, OOP very clearly evolved in a professional direction almost immediately. Why would you erase that history, and the work of hundreds to thousands of people working on object technologies, because it wasn’t the original conception?
Abortion restrictions do not reduce abortion rates. They only reduce safe abortions. https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/21/health/abortion-restricti...
The US senate is 2 senators per state. The smaller states are mostly rural conservative issues. The senators that confirmed the three trump justices represent 43% of the population.

It's not that easy.
Principal component analysis over genotypes and phenotypes inevitably reveals major differences along the axes commonly known as race.
Looking at this ruling and the one a few days ago on arms - could someone explain to me why they're wrong legally? FYI I'm not American and personally am in favour of legalised abortion + severe gun restrictions.

My understanding is these rulings are both based on the constitution. The one on guns seems really straightforward:

"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."

I know this can be interpreted differently but to me it reads that nobody should be restricted from arming themselves.

Regarding abortion, what aspect of the constitution would cover it?

I'm asking in good faith here btw.

Edit: separately, it is insane to me that these big decisions can be completely split along political lines. A 'supreme court' should be apolitical. There are so many issues with the way the US Supreme Court works. It needs total reform. You should be able to trust a court to make a decision based on the law, not their personal preferences.
27% of america agrees -- https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/05/06/americas-abo...
> and you don't find it rather peculiar that the concentration of anti-crypto rhetoric has suddenly spiked about a year ago, and now there's a relentless assault from all opinion outlets?

When the price goes up, people are happy and write happy articles. When the price goes down, people are sad and write sad articles. How that actually happens is that, the people writing the happy and sad articles are different groups of people who each wait for the price to do what they need it to justify their position.

The price is down, so it justifies negative positions. When the price is up in ~3 years, there will be more people writing happy articles. When that happens I won't think they've all been paid to (even though it is obviously more likely that the group selling something has financial interest in promoting it).
Ah ok, I had somehow misread your comment as saying it is never a faux pas to show up over dressed. Thanks for the clarification, that makes way more sense!
Your free to be Christian or be ruled by their beliefs
> audited

I've not before seen this word used to substitute for being checked over for being robbed.
> Edit/disclaimer/tip: look at the dictionary and think a little bit, just a little.

The patronizing tone adds little to the discussion.
The fact that the same institution (SCOTUS), reading the same text (US Constitution) could conclude that abortion is a right, then isn't, tells us much of what we need to know about said institution, text... and certainly "historicism" as well.

It's all arbitrary; clever and well-read people spending a lot of time justifying and rationalizing their predjudice.
SpaceX moves a rocket with 33 engines to its launch pad for tests
So why doesn’t Biden change the size of the court to stack it with liberals?
Those arguments are from different groups of people. I'm in the camp of wanting crypto to have way more regulation. I would also like us to not hasten a climate crisis by turning on coal power plants to mine crypto that is useless.
It's a well-known fact among constitutional scholars that the founders supported abortion too. https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/05/15/abortion-h...

This isn't about originalism. This is about the sitting judges' religious beliefs.
On that topic, I wonder how much immigration from Latin American countries impacted this?

People who identify as Hispanic are nearing 20% of the US population - and the vast majority of those come from predominately Catholic countries and many see religion as a much more central part of their life and worldview than other Americans.
Modern Judaism differs from Historical Judaism in this respect. For example, the "Rabbinic sources" sounds historical... but then the first person quoted lived in the 1700s.
Raindrop: All-in-One Bookmark Manager
The approach that Thomas (and the court majority) favors is “do whatever I personally want, then hunt for a justification, however tortured.”
> I think he took Mondays off […]

I'm not sure if I'd gone with that given that there are a number of statutory holidays on Monday: if you take Fridays off then there'd be times when you only have three-day weeks.

Where I'm at we have Victoria Day, Civic/Simcoe Day, Labour Day, Thanksgiving:

* https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/tax/public-...

Throw in Family Day for Ontario.

Plenty of floating days as well of course (July 1, December 25).
If you care about the user but management prevents you from acting on it, you are hurting yourself for no reason, like agonizing over all the bad news across the nation and world. Your shoulders can't carry the whole world
It's the 4th Amendment. Justice Douglas in Griswold v. Connecticut:

> "Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship."

If your counterargument is "the word privacy isn't in the Constitution", my rejoinder is "neither is 'assault rifle'".
To quote Carlin - “if you’re pre-born you are fine; if you are pre-school you are fucked!”
This article talks about everything except what I think is the value proposition of Bitcoin/blockchain: A gambling system one can speculate about entirely anonymously.

It’s anonymous Las Vegas and people love it.

It’s a programmable Wall Street stock market where new kind of invisible wolves can Ponzi scheme the hell out of others in a new kind of scary unstoppable way.

You can argue this is bad for the world (in fact I think it is), but in my opinion this is why blockchain still exist.

Not because it’s a value storage system, or programmable money.

The scary part is that it’s built to be unstoppable so people will continue to gamble and get rich/poor over it.

A new more interesting discussion could be: is it inherent within humans to be able to gamble in this unhealthy way and what can we do to raise awareness about its real nature? (Similar to having facilities where people can get help on gambling or drug addiction)
Could you be a little more descriptive with this hypothetical?

How do you communicate from outside the US with someone inside the US without involving any US companies?

No Internet (nevermind facebook/twitter/email/etc) because US companies will certainly control at least some of the nodes in your path and probably the DNS.
It would be weird to pay people for things that they are willing to do for free?
That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. Again, if the government really doesn't want you to rent a hall or host a website, they'll just arrest you. I really don't know how you draw the line from that to saying "the solution is to transact in these virtual casino tokens", if you could explain that then maybe I'd be able to understand your "universe".
Thank you for sharing this. I remember rendering these 20+ years ago on a 386, & having to wait a few seconds for each set of parameters.
The point segfaultbuserr and unlikelymordant are making and I support, is that the WEF is not a conspiracy.

Yes, it is in the interest of many owners of corporations that own IP to push for XaaS model, a rent everything model. And some of those may attend the WEF.

But the WEF is not a conspiratorial group. And that often quoted and misunderstood fragment is not some declaration of their values.

People like to hate the WEF, or Soros, or the illuminati, or whatever because it gives the enemy a face and it directs the anger.

The reality is that most of the things damaging humanity are not masterminded by someone or some group. They happen organically due to the various self-interests of individuals.

Edit: Just to make it extra clear.

The difference is not in the interestes of the members of a group. You will find wide agreement that wealthy and powerfull people are interested in getting even wealthier and even more powerfull. Or at the very least retain all of their priviledges.

The difference is that conspiracy theories presupppose that the group has a structure, that the group can coordinate. And by extension, that the group has a leader, which if only you could KO, all of the worlds problems would be solved.

The structure is not there. And even if you eliminate all the individuals designated as enemies by a conspiracy theory, the greed and the pride is still there and they will be replaced by others.
A raise is not a reward. It is the baseline expectation in a high demand industry.

I can get the raise/promotion for doing little besides interview prep. If you cannot beat the effort to raise ratio, the optimal strategy for me is to do a mediocre job.
I wish they would start those studies with private companies. I am not sure about what is the situation in Glasgow but here in Toronto and in Canada in general the situation with the government services in many areas is atrocious. They are already behind in so many areas and keep blaming everything on Covid despite the fact that nothing prevents them to do their work from home.

In any case those bloodsuckers should be working more, not less. Apology to those who actually work and strive to serve the people.
i only share my BeReal with my friends. I don't really mind or care if they take a screenshot of me at my desk at work.
It's unfortunate, I thought you would have proof, or at least a technical paper, since you said "proven wrong". I was excited to dive into something more technical than the typical hand-waves to 'probable' backdoors and intelligence agencies.
There's no way to tell for sure, because it's such a broad statistic. Other people have opined that the removal of lead gasoline was also a reason of the drop in crime rates. No one really knows what is causing it.
Take heart! The majority ruling explicitly says that its reasoning does not apply to those, and goes into detail about why those rulings are different.
With previous Epson inkjets they've made me to print head alignment, nozzle declogging etc almost every.single.time I turned on the device.

Does the EcoTank do this too?
Let’s repeal the second amendment then. Let the states decide.
For anyone interested, the book Freakonomics had a chapter devoted to studying this as a factor that lead crime to drop from its peak in the early 90s US, approximately 20 years after Roe v Wade.

Kind of a provocative study and you could make a similar case for leaded gasoline and other factors but nevertheless interesting.
You’re just describing a trolly problem. If you believe a foetus has more right to autonomy than the person carrying it, but you don’t believe in making sure that all children have what they need to survive, you’re avoiding “killing” by direct action in favor of killing by neglecting to act.

As for paying for it… no taxes need to be raised. Just divert 1/1000th of the money going to the military.
I know that's what the post says. But that's not the actual equivalent. If we had free healthcare just for pregnant women, then it would be fair to say we should give free healthcare to children too, but we don't.