skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It's still like that in most of the US. And until today, abortion into the 2nd trimester was legal in the entire US, minus some delta in one state as this case reached the Supreme Court. Also, some consideration is needed for lack of abortion access in some states though abortions themselves were technically legal.

Still, 2nd trimester abortions are very uncommon to be legal in Europe. Is there any evidence to suggest that the liberal abortion laws in the US up until today attracted people from Europe to take jobs in the US instead of their home countries with more restrictive abortion laws?
Also every modern browser is based on what was originally Apple's Webkit.
I moved to Fort Worth a long time ago for work, we had a 1 year old. I didn't really like the idea of him going to school with kids... lets say, of the "Texas mentality", but was really just using the job as a stepping stone to get out of my home state and hoped to be in CA before he'd reach school age.

The first week there we met a family that had also just moved from a northern state and ended up hanging out with them all summer. The kids were super nice, they played with our 1 year old, who had no one else to play with, being new to the area, for hours on end without any fighting whatsoever. Their son, maybe 7, had long red hair "like Shawn White" who he idolized. A few months later, school started. The first week the family showed up at the pool in our complex and he had cut his hair short. We mentioned it and he ran off, clearly holding back tears. His mom said he doesn't want to talk about it, the kids at school had bullied him so bad he wanted to get it cut.

Never made it to CA but left TX to go back home within just a few months. That story wasn't the only reason but there are plenty of others that made it clear to us TX wasn't a good place to raise a kid.
1) probably since people started carryind them inside themselves, they've had that right towards themselves

2) does it matter?

3) does it matter?

4) does that matter?
I know, it's almost like when it comes to harming other people the state has some sort of power over us. I'm sure there are some people that would love to murder their neighbors. I mean, if that's their preference, why should the state intervene at all?

If you're engaging in some activity that doesn't harm other individuals, go for it, who cares. In the case of an abortion, there's at least some gray area. I hope we can agree that aborting a child that's going to be born tomorrow is much different than aborting a child that's 2 weeks into development. When does a human life start? If we truly believe that all men are created equal, then we need to answer the question when does a life begin?

Put another way, I'm sure many slave owners preferred to keep their slaves. Doesn't make it right, and it's a disgusting perverted belief, to believe somebody is less of a human because of their skin color. In the same way, who are we to say that an unborn human is less of a human than us?
> Docker-engine doesn't support running as a user other than root. Podman does.

Docker engine does.
Most people also support political positions that are orthogonal to or even against their self interest. That is what makes them different from corporations.

Literally nobody will benefit from a ban on abortions. That doesn't stop people from taking such a position.
its just a dumb-phone you get at the grocery store. it makes calls and does texts, but in some cases you pay per text.

edit: am i getting downvoted for not having a smart phone or for asking a dumb question? i cant tell what i've done wrong here, I'm just not a phone person.
That's the problem with lab-leak theory that it's basically unfalsifiable. No matter how strong evidence you gather against it you can always dismiss it with ease.
Who would be the members of a non-profit that fundraises and awards grants for scientific research? Or a non-profit that runs a food bank?
Stare decisis is not a time limit. It just means there has to be a very good reason to overturn. There is no such reason to overturn Roe v Wade, which is obvious by the split in the ruling.
While I support marriage equality, it seems like fundamentally the wrong issue. Government shouldn't be involved in marriage in the first place. A better solution would be to eliminate civil marriage from the legal code entirely. If people want to go through some sort of ceremony and declare themselves married then that's fine, but that process shouldn't grant them any more legal rights or privileges than single people.

Currently civil marriage is bundled up with other legal issues like immigration, child custody, income taxes, and medical care decisions. But there's no fundamental reason other than tradition why those things need to be coupled. They could all be handled through separate contracts or elective registries.
Exactly how is it wild speculation when they are outright admitting that they want to do it, and they have enough far-right reactionaries on the court to do it?
> I said Kavanaugh was a maybe.

Most recently you said there were three votes (acb, Thomas, alito), and before that you said kav was "probably" not going to overturn. I don't think it's wrong to hold you to that. Either you were downplaying compared to what you really thought, or you're creating a justification now. I'm really just asking that you take a minute to reflect on that.

From the npr link:

> Allows abortions, but only up to the time there is viability outside the womb, at about 24 weeks

Has support from 30% of republicans and 40% of democrats. The remaining Democrats generally want less restrictions. That's consistent with 60%+ support for second trimester abortions.

Your Forbes link also mentions 47% support (and only ~40 percent against) elective abortion until viability, which may be well into the third trimester!

And I have a difficult time believing that "all or most of the time" doesn't include the second trimester.

I'm not relying on polling of roe. I'm relying on your polls! I agree that there's inconsistency here, but it's not cut and dry like you claim.

> As to your point about Thomas, you cite a comment correcting a misreading of Thomas’s concurrence in the Kim Davis case. I said nothing about how “extreme” he is or wasn’t. Also, that has no bearing on Roe. Anyone could have told you Thomas would vote to overturn Roe

My mistake, I thought that thread was about the draft opinion. But I'm not talking about roe, but revisiting Obgerfell, which between Thomas, alito, barret, and one of the others probably does get cert! And I can see Roberts ruling against it now since dobbs splits the precedent (I'm not saying thats likely, I'm just saying it's believable).

> In my opinion that was a tactical error.

For whom? Like it's obviously harmful, but it's correct jurisprudence and supports the federalist strategy of dismantling as much federal civil rights law as possible. Like I have a very hard time finding the consistent values you work from, since apparently this was an error despite you agreeing with the ruling in a technical sense and in a meta-political sense (in that whatever your opinion on abortion, you believe abortion law being defederalized is good for the social fabric). And it's obviously what Republicans, if not conservatives, want. Who is it a tactical error for, and why?
Did you see the recent breakthrough where platinum was dissolved in gallium and worked as a liquid catalyst, but even better than in the solid phase?

I wonder if something similar could be done with iridium or other platinum group metals.

Entire new types of chemistry might become viable at industrial scales…
> The US broadly has very permissive abortion laws compared to most of Europe

a) I assume you're talking about the past, and not the future.

b) The issue is less that our laws are restrictive, and more that they're written in a capricious, illogical, incomplete, and ignorant way. What do you think is going to happen to people with emergency reproductive conditions (e.g. late stage ectopic pregnancies) when doctors have a prison sentence hanging over their heads if they accidentally terminate a viable pregnancy?

If I was a woman trying to get pregnant, I'd be getting the fuck out of these redstate shitholes because I don't want to die.

EDIT: You seem to have written a reply to this comment and then deleted it. I composed a counter-reply in my head on my walk home from the bar, before seeing that your reply had vanished. That counter-reply was: "Your flippant disregard for human life is as astonishing as it is disgusting."

This decision is going to kill real people with hopes and dreams and loved ones and people who depend on them. If you support it, or publish apologia for it, you are some combination of a moron and/or a monster.
I'd agree with that, but unfortunately, that makes it even harder for maximalists on either side to communicate.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31768611
But will Google - or any of the others - pledge not to support record keeping or data mining aimed at the prosecution of those who seek abortions? Any changes to their privacy rules or app store policies? While it's nice that they offer travel/relocation benefits, the cost to them is down in the noise relative to their total budgets. Turning away or alienating government (and shadow-government) customers by refusing to aid them in their march toward Gilead would show more real commitment.
Acrually I take this back, the US is not a fine country, it's an utter mess.
NASA asteroid mission on hold due to late software delivery
Why do you care what some random women you've never met and will never meet do?

Why is it important to you?
Hate to be the PM on that project
You're suggesting we put a limit on the number of abortions someone can have? Maybe you think one is okay, but that's it.

If a woman's life is in danger from the pregnancy, how does that figure into your calculus?
Yes it does, it’s a terrible thing to do.

We close our eyes, we don’t see it’s there, we pretend it doesn’t matter, we call it clump of cells, we call advocates ’pro choice’.

Let’s face it, it’s the killing of a human, that have no voice, no choice in the matter.
You are picking and choosing an out of context citation and twisting what the 2nd amendment means.

"Many historians agree that the primary reason for passing the Second Amendment was to prevent the need for the United States to have a professional standing army. At the time it was passed, it seems it was not intended to grant a right for private individuals to keep weapons for self-defense."

So no. Your quote is not what the 2nd amendment means at all! It is a modern twist reinterpreting it.
That is exactly what it is though. The Ansible CLI is just a client of that API. You can easily interface with the library itself in python
I linked to a comment for the medicare for all and single payer polls. They were from 2018 and 2020. The other polls have been all over the news in the last month.
Isnt this contraproductive? This means less voters who may in a furure overturn this
Sorry, the one who is living in a bubble is you. I wouldn't be surprised if over 80% of Google employees support abortion rights. There are many ways to show that Google employees (or generally in the tech industry) are much more liberal than the average US citizen.
> Charitably, I think, this is "Americans are willing to accept the rule of law", which is perhaps true.

Yes, that’s what I mean.

> I also don't think it's true, given the long history of protest and sometimes violence in response to legal proceedings (Shay's Rebellion, the Civil War, anti-Abortion violence and murders in the '90s and today, etc.).

It’s relative. Americans are incredibly orderly compared to say Bangladeshis, where there are violent protests after every election.

> I don't mean that judges aren't conservative or liberal, they obviously will be, but the actions of the Federalist Society, which preaches and advocates for a very particular judicial philosophy is, to many, a violation of the social contract that allows us to respect the court.

How is it a violation of the social contract to advocate for reading the Constitution the same way we read any other written document?

How is that worse than say law schools, which vigorously advocate reading the Constitution as loose guidelines to guide elite lawyers in dispensing Justice according to their own world views. That’s exactly what Roe was, seven highly educated white men overturning the will of the people based not on law, but on their personal notions of justice.

> I think it's easy for someone who is a lawyer, especially an appellate lawyer to have "the institution" go to their head, to an extent.

I respect the institution because I’m a foreigner who comes from a country where respect for institutions is conditional. I have a deep veneration for societies where people reflexively trust institution even when they’re in the losing end of a decision. A court could order a British person to jump off a bridge and they’d do it!

And I’m terrified of what I’m seeing in the US. There’s always been unruly mobs, but now elites are egging them on. Your accusations of “perjury” are exactly the problem I’m highlighting. Nobody perjured themselves. They said Roe was precedent, which it is. Precedent can be overruled—and there are clear guidelines for when to do so and Roe fit the bill on a lot of the factors. To say otherwise is to rely on the ignorance of the general public in an effort to delegitimize the institution in their eyes, and that’s irresponsible.
Yes, the right to life is apparently quite controversial.
How about a compromise: you gestate the unwanted fetuses.
No. Texas has way lower property prices than California. Do not take that choice away.
> it [caller id] was made decades ago to serve as convenience

It was made decades ago as a profit center when the telephone network was a monopoly company operating an isolated network.

Because only the monopoly phone company operated and had access to the isolated telephone network, there was no need for any authentication or verification because all caller ID data came from "themselves" and they were not going to start trying to scam themselves.

It (caller id) was a profit center because when it first rolled out it cost somewhere in the range of $20 to $30 per month. The phone company was already tracking which number called which other number for billing purposes, and they found a way to monetize that tracking by allowing the call receiver a tiny sliver of visibility into their billing tracking data, all for a nice sum per month. It rolled out circa 1985 or so and factoring for inflation that $20/month fee at the time was the equivalent today of paying $54.33/month. All for data that was effectively free to the phone company because they were already tracking it for long distance billing purposes and/or for local toll purposes if one was on a "local toll plan" instead of an "unlimited" plan.
AFP, Reuters, WSJ, Fox etc.
The ones who aren't actually accused of spreading disinformation, unlike NYT, NPR, WAPO etc. who have to retract lies on the daily.
Yeah I never realized that a sender could spoof the number in a way that would make my phone insert it into an existing conversation. I had assumed (foolishly, it would seem!) that getting a message in a thread means it is from the same sender as the previous messages.

I guess this is one reason Apple has verified iMessages when you talk to them. The background is a different color, I think, to signify their verified status.
I didn't downvote you, but your EDIT line was egregious. "facts progressives don't like" ... progressives talk about this stuff all the time.
> It speaks volumes about their respect for you.

?????

You think you can just walk into a job paying $500k without some kind of rigorous interview process?

I mean good for you if you're above it all. I'll just put in the prep work, buy a couple Porsches afterwards and call it a day.
That's an odd take. Wouldn't you want American companies to care more about people of America than people of other countries?
That's making my point though.

Those numbers are far closer to 50/50 than one would imagine in the bubble, but that's also reference to specifically overturning Roe v. Wade, not whether or not abortion should be legal, which is closer to 50/50.

Have a look at the second chart[1]

It's been 'mostly, roughly, steadily ~50/50 'ish' for about 20 years.

I think most self described progressives would be surprised by those numbers, and even the 64/36, as you brought up.

This is a 'big win' for 35% of the country, and another 15% are maybe ok with it, and a few others ambivalent.

That sentiment I think is at odds with the moral outrage felt by ~55% of the country, and it's hard to ingest.

Which makes this a big more difficult to navigate than I think we might normally assume.

I think Google's response is rational, but it's not as 'Black and White' an issue as our 'tech culture instincts' might have us believe.

[1] https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx
They're not for battery power, since a major part of their appeal is integration of the power supply and amplifier on a single board. Some of the other modules sold by Parts Express are designed for lower voltage DC power. Then it becomes a matter of how much power you need, for how long, and what that translates into in terms of battery capacity. Speaker efficiency also plays an obvious role.
I thought marcan on Twitter had a pretty good take on this:

> Source code [is] relatively low entropy compared to, say, images. It's a lot easier to see how feeding a pile of photographs into an AI that maps them to subject erases the copyright of the photographers, because the subject isn't copyrighted.

> It's trickier when you feed artwork or music into an AI, because the AI might reproduce specific artistic or musical choices that happen to pinpoint a copyrighted work too well. With prose it's even worse. And code has to compile, [so] it's even more constrained!

https://twitter.com/marcan42/status/1539825034860335105
Ah, sorry, I should clarify that when I say "talk", I didn't mean it in the literal sense. I've only worked on text as a source, though Speech-to-text shouldn't be too hard to integrate if it was needed.

I like your insight about using... let's call them "key phrases"...to help guide the query. Perhaps having a way to map a key phrase with a specific query, maybe one that is parameterized, would be useful. thank you.
Do you see companies investing their money to give workers a better salary or better working conditions? No. But they invest a lot of money in lobby to take away worker's rights.

Do you see companies moving their offices to places where people have better rights, which usually translates into better salaries, better benefits, better working conditions? No. But they spent lots of money moving their operations to places where people have less or no rights at all.

So it's clearly virtue signaling.
> It has 72 instructions with seven addressing modes for a total of 197 opcodes.

noob question: why so many addressing modes?
When in video meetings with team members, there are often a few people who do not turn on their video camera because of some reason given like "they are shy" or something.

This is unacceptable because they have no problem with showing their face in the office instead of concealing it behind a veil.

These people need to be reminded that to be inclusive with this team member, they need to turn their camera on.

I remember one job interview I had, I had my camera on, and the two people interviewing me had theirs off. Difficult situation for me because it makes a difference in communication being able to see the person, and also, a job interview is especially difficult because one wishes to not upset the interviewer. But in retrospect, I think if this situation occurred again I would speak up and ask if it would be possible for them to turn on the camera.

Camera being on or off in meetings can be passive-aggressiveness.
Valid point. There are certainly negative scenarios and those need to be considered seriously.

I was born in a “conservative state”. For me, it wouldn’t be cultural colonialism but, rather, moving home. For my cousins and friends who are just starting their careers, it’s an opportunity (I didn’t have) to continue to live and work locally.

My assumption is that there are more people in my situation than people motivated to migrate away from their home town with the intent of colonizing other places. Certainly possible my assumption is wrong.
The "food forests" that once "fed an island" fed an island populated by a small tribe of subsistence farmers.

Modern agriculture has created the most amazing abundance the world has ever seen, but sure, go ahead and go back to tiny populations always on the edge of starvation. Though the process of getting back to a tiny population is not going to be fun.
My comment was flippant, I apologise.

What I meant was taking sides on divisive hot button issues is fraught with peril. The probability of blowback is high.

Even if a large proportion of employees held a particular political position, I'd imagine only a small number of activist employees would be disgruntled by the company choosing to stay out of it.
Be fast.

I have read many comments but the cruelest part for me is that when this starts nobody feels safe and you don't want this feeling to stick around with the ones that stay.

It's better if people leave the same day to avoid sabotage and helps to turn the page fast.

And be aware that your culture will be hit and you will loose more people that the ones you are letting go.
That's a really interesting question as I rarely think of a company from pre-seed to series C as having profitability. If they have the cash on balance sheet to do smart M&A, it would only be worthwhile if the company had the human capacity to source, diligence, and integrate without compromising the core product. Integrating is the most important part of that because that's where all of the value is generated and tends to eat a ton of everyone's time. That's going to be series C/$20M+ of ARR at the earliest usually. Even then it's buying a team or niche technology, not a complete product/business/ So the answer to M&A is a yes with a lot of caveats.

Otherwise, if you are a profitable, late-stage company, why would you raise money at all? Either spend your profits down close to 0 to achieve business goals and only raise some money if you've got non-dilutive ROI (i.e. the margins on this new spend are superior or equal to existing margins in your profitable business and you are in land grab mode). Or just be comfortable with your current trajectory because of how well-defended you are financially. From a risk management perspective, founders should be able to live with going from $10 to $20M in ARR this year at break-even instead of $10 to $30M by burning $5-20M if it means your business gets to continue existing.
Give me the numbers. As far as I know suicide rate is higher than whatever can be attributed to overweight for 19- people.
That's your opinion, not what you said, and none of the research shows this is true.
Interesting. I do this but for westerners looking for women in Ukraine, as an American myself. Didn't realize the market potential here and I am probably selling myself very short.
> decentralization (of nodes, not miners)

Others are just as decentralised. They are smaller, sure, which makes for a difference in numbers of nodes, sure, but not some absolute quality which makes bitcoin work and others not.

> liquidity

Same.

> upgradability (I once thought doge was ...

Doge? Doge is a joke. Literally a joke. If you're surprised that something someone created to take piss out of the whole ecosystem hasn't kept up on changes, well, I don't even know what to say here. It's like saying you're suprised that you can't pay your taxes in disney dollars.