skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Is it the worry that if the baby dies in the womb, it will no longer go to heaven?

According to a lot of American Christian doctrine, yes. The Bible teaches that humans are sinful beings not because of what they do, but because sin is an immutable part of human nature. There's no such thing as an "innocent" baby where the doctrine of original sin is concerned - all humans deserve hell by default. So unless the baby is born, baptized and saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ (which can only happen through their consent and free will, you can't "save" an unborn baby as a loophole) it will burn in Hell for eternity like any other unsaved soul.

Although I'd suspect most Christians simply believe life, in terms of a divine soul and part in God's plan, begins at conception. To accept that a fetus is simply a "clump of cells" would be too close to accepting a naturalistic (non-theistic) view of biology. To interfere with procreation and birth is to commit murder for the same reason that shooting someone in the head is committing murder - only God has the right to decide when and how life can be taken.
It’s not like perjury is enforceable at that level anymore anyways. I’m not a lawyer but I am not so sure he was even that careful in a legal sense. I think he was mostly saying things to not give a sound byte to opponents who would block his nomination like Bork. The conservatives who backed his nomination know the game and what he was put on the court to rule on, they don’t need to be told again. Enough to wink at it.

There isn’t any actual legal teeth there anymore as far as I can tell. Countless examples of presidents, justices, etc walking past perjury charges.
I heard this argument a couple of years ago via Youtube video and I liked its novelty (instead of having sides talk past each other it's gladdening to see some thought put into things).

That being said, for me, it fails on the responsibility front. The healthy person did not cause the sickness, is not the sick one's parent and did not in any way "give" life, so to speak. If we reimagine the sick neighbour's predicament so that her husband and child both need a new kidney and the healthy neighbour convinces her to give them up because the he has a special room in his house where she can convalesce and regrow her kidneys. Should the healthy neighbour now be allowed to withdraw the offer after the sick neighbour had donated both kidneys?

That kind of situation seems to align with some of the factors at play a bit better.
It. Just. Happened.
It's a testament to Confucianism. Same in Korea, you can leave your items unattended, lost items are always returned.

I also wonder if this is more the result of a homogenous society. Since everyone is expected to know the rules and the cost of going against it is known. ex) ijime culture in japan
> it's not difficult to imagine cases where you might actually use it. c.f. basically any game with dogs in it where they're a subclass of NPCs.

Except even in game design it's a bad idea once you get more than a handful of entity types. https://gameprogrammingpatterns.com/type-object.html
‘2nd Life’ creator shares lessons learned from one of world’s first metaverses
> "we think they were wrong", which is a pretty awful rationale for the Supreme Court.

What exactly are you looking for that would count as a rationale that doesn't boil down to "we think they were wrong"?
Exactly. Which is why I also added unenforceable. The government can make idiotic evil and harmful laws till the cows come home, and history shows that indeed they do.

The value in innovations like cryptocurrency are about making a particular class of the above idiotic laws unenforceable, to the extent they are successful. Other similar products exist which make other forms of law similarly unenforceable, for example Tor for dissidents in totalitarian regimes looking to smuggle information into or out of their open air prison camps, etc.

The harder agencies try that produce and attempt to enforce these fundamentally unenforceable laws, over time, the less able they will be to do so, because the nature of cryptography is that the mathematics massively favours the defender to such an extent that even the lumbering behemoths we have in nation states are inadequate to breach it if done correctly. The best they can do is breach supporting infrastructure around it, which just ends up as an evolutionary fitness function for the removal of such vulnerable supporting infrastructure, until they end up creating the monster they simply can't kill.

Which is fortunate, because I dread to imagine a world they actually had the absolute power they so desperately covet.
> The real goal is socially repressive puritanism and a desire to punish women for choosing to have sex.

Just because you believe this doesn't make it true. I struggle to believe that a single pro-lifer would say this is the reason behind their beliefs. As a pro-lifer, I can attest that it has nothing to do with my beliefs. Believing it may "demonize" prolifers, and help you feel good about fighting for your stance on abortion. But the reality is, blind beliefs like this are the cause of division and hate that seems to be ever increasing.
The figure is based on this study, which currently puts it at
241K cases per day:
https://health-study.joinzoe.com/data
They only allow it up to a certain point (12 weeks for Denmark the others are similar) and then after that only with cause. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Denmark

For those that don't want to click:

> "Abortion in Denmark was fully legalized on 1 October 1973,[1] allowing the procedure to be done on-demand if a woman's pregnancy has not exceeded its 12th week. Under Danish law, the patient must be over the age of 18 to decide on an abortion alone; parental consent is required for minors, except in special circumstances. An abortion can be performed after 12 weeks if the woman's life or health are in danger. A woman may also be granted an authorization to abort after 12 weeks if certain circumstances are proved to be present (such as poor socioeconomic condition of the woman, risk of birth defects in the baby, the pregnancy being the result of rape, or mental health risk to mother)."

That's a lot more restrictive than the US was prior to this recent decision.
I think this breaks the "don't compromise usability" rule set at the top. While "what you have" is quite good compared to "what you know" (a regular password), chances are the Mac they're buying has some form of Touch ID for authentication, which is only slightly worse than a physical smart card since it only opens up two attack vectors: chopping off your finger, and someone cloning your fingerprint while engineering a way to fake the sensor's liveness check.
Fun fact, Covid did leak from a Chinese lab, but it was in December 2021:

>A lab worker was bitten and infected by a mouse infected with the SARS-CoV-2 Delta Variant at a high-biosecurity facility in Taipei.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_laboratory_biosecurity...
At least in the UK, where there is a small, highly regulated, legal medical market, the few carts that are available contain no additives at all - only cannabinoids and terpenes. You can look up Theraceed and Columbia, both of which IIRC are sold in the US TOO.

They also cost around a whopping £85 in the UK, for just ~350mg of THC, which is some serious price gouging :(
What if it's an ML model suggesting parameters for jpeg? It could still hallucinate to some degree, but it's also more limited.
Google better shut down the AI before they are legally required to keep it on by some idiot judge who doesn't know better orders it remain on.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31864204.
Can the state compel you to get an ultrasound to prove you are pregnant? No, that would be an invasion of privacy. That was the underlying logic of the Roe V. Wade ruling.

Also, I could show you an ultrasound of a mouse or a dolphin at 6 weeks and tell you it's a human fetus and you'd believe it. "Well the human fetus has human DNA" ok, does that have any meaning at that stage of development when their features are all the same? At that point the distinctive trait that allows for abortion of a Dolphin but not a Human is the DNA, or that it's inside of a human mother. It's all arbitrary distinctions. You can have a real discussion about it but pro-lifers start and end at the Bible.
This article from Vanity Fair does a good job collection the circumstantial evidence surrounding the lab leak theory: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/03/the-virus-hunting-no...

The tl;dr is that there is a group called EcoHealth Alliance that was working with the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) making novel coronaviruses by modifying the furin cleavage site of coronaviruses taken from bats. The WIV (along with EcoHealth Alliance and also potentially the Chinese military) was also making chimeric viruses from the viruses responsible for SARS and MERS. They were then using these viruses to infect "humanized" mice (mice with human lung tissue). The head of EcoHealth Alliance, Peter Daszak, was one of the first to denounce the possibility of a lab leak (without disclosing the work he was doing at WIV of course). Daszak was later kicked off the Lancet’s COVID-19 commission because he refused to share old progress reports on the work he was funding at WIV.

All of this evidence is circumstantial, but it's really a bit suspicious that this outbreak started just a few kilometers where this exact type of virus was being created.
If Jane Street can teach OCaml to traders, I can teach it to developers.

You can if they are motivated to learn. Unless you are offering Jane Street levels of compensation; and in return, the candidate is willing to believe, or pretend to believe that company's shtick about OCaml being so categorically superior as a general-purpose development language so as to leave all the others in the dust -- most likely they won't be.
> Clearly it is not hard for a lot of people in the US to imagine this, since that is what they believe.

Well if they do, they're not acting like it. For example, miscarriages are pretty rampant. If there were a disease that affected people the same way miscarriages affect embryos and fetuses, it would be a bonkers plague that reduced our population to a a fraction of what it is. I imagine people would be acting differently than they are if we really equated humans with fetuses on this level.

Or we can go full personhood. How do we discern the will of a 14 week old fetus? What constitutes child abuse? When do child support payments start? Can fetuses sue for damages? What do their free worship rights look like? Do fetuses have a right to medical care? Can a fetus earn income and pay taxes? Do fetuses count towards population for apportionment?

I don't doubt the sincerity of people's held positions on abortion. What I do doubt is the rationality, and the more I dig into it, the more I find tons of ignorance about women, fetuses, and pregnancy.
Thanks for answering
I will definitely check that out
>The reality is that there is likely a broad consensus in the US for legalising abortion up to 12 weeks, the way it is in most of europe

Yeah, that's true, but there's also been a broad consensus in the US for federally legalizing (or even just decriminalizing) cannabis for well over a decade, and we haven't even managed to get that done due to the minority party overwhelmingly blocking even the most popular legislation if it goes even remotely against their moneyed interests.

Just because there's broad support doesn't mean that it will happen. At this point the Rs are going to have to be thoroughly crushed in congressional elections for a while, like what happened in the 30s through 60s, if any popular legislation is going to be passed.
I don't give a shit what other people believe. People believing in things is not a sufficient condition for the government to prohibit something.
I tried using the Wayback Machine to see what it looked like back when this article was first published, and discovered that danluu.com has been excluded from the Wayback Machine.
I wrote up a bunch of grievance examples for a blog post I never got around to publishing, but I'm traveling at the moment so can't pull up my laptop. I'll see if I can find them later.

> The syntax for annotation for polymorphic functions is isomorphic between OCaml and Haskell.

Sorry, but total bullshit. I had to use these pieces of shit all the time. https://v2.ocaml.org/manual/locallyabstract.html

> If I take a random module in the standard library, let's say Array

As I specifically called out, all the core data structures are polymorphic. (Let's not talk about the float array hack; is that still around?)

It's so annoying that pretty much every other library is monomorphic or functorized.

> I am thus genuinely puzzled by your statement that "OCaml programmers almost never write polymorphic functions".

Not sure what to tell you man. I spent 4 years reading & writing ocaml and 95% of the code that would have been polymorphic in haskell (because it would be easy/free) was either monomorphic or (multiple layers of) functors. Many/most of the devs I worked with (great devs with years of OCaml experience) didn't even know what LATs were, let alone used them, which means they were almost certainly not writing polymorphic code which "did anything" with the type. The only polymorphic code that you can write in ocaml without such things are functorial (in the categorical sense, not the ocaml sense). Arrays, map values, that's about it.
Finding the root cause of an unprecedented disaster might not reverse the history of that disaster, but it would help prevent future similar disasters. Now we are clearly aware of the costs. It isn't a distraction to look into the cause of a disaster as we are able as a society to work on many different problems at the same time.

It does help with our current situation of being very vulnerable to highly contagious respiratory diseases. COVID is probably never going away. To have another one join if this could have been prevented would be far worse for us.
Those two fit together very well, this isn't an either/or.

43 states with 74% of the nation's population having Shall Issue or better concealed carry regimes tells us the former option is not disastrous ("better": half the states not requiring a licence). Common sense tells us we won't be able to take guns away from criminals without currently unacceptable policies like Bloomberg's "Stop and Frisk" which some claim made NYC safer for a while.

A knowledge of history reminds us what happened the last time a deadly serious attempt to seize weaponry from the people was made, although hard experience tells us the only thing we learn from history is that we don't learn from history.

Common sense and history also tells us that whatever you think of the higher level merits, going "soft on crime" like the Warren Court was emblematic of and today BLM and "Defend the Police" means a surge in all crime and that breaking out "gun violence" makes no sense, an Asian in a city where effective defense is illegal murdered by a criminal doesn't care what instrument was used.

Note on the Warren Court period: there's an overlay of the demographic bulge of the Baby Boom that makes it impossible to say how much the policies adopted at the time made a fundamental difference. Although I'd say, not that I believe for a second it'll be addressed, removing force from the toolkit for the severely mentally ill had a significant impact (as in forcing people to take their meds, just these wonder drugs being available as my mother witnessed as a nurse in the 1950s does not mean they'll be rigorously taken).
McKenzie Friend
There is an episode of Lex Fridman's Podcast with Jamie Metzl on the topic: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=K78jqx9fx2I
Metzl is highly confident of a lab-leak. However, lab-leak doesn't require that the virus has been tampered with and I somewhat agree that is important to know if the virus escaped due to inadequate lab safety.
If your bodily rights supersede anyone else's rights to their body, then someone with lung cancer can go ahead and murder someone to obtain a new pair of lungs.
I buy Carhartt and then remove the obnoxious logo with a razor blade.
To be clear, I agree with you. These exceptions are not good enough and can create perverse incentives like you suggest. I was simply citing the lack of these exceptions being universal as evidence that a large percentage of the anti-abortion crowd do not see personal responsibility as important to whether someone should have access to an abortion.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/24/covid-infectio...

"Overall, it is estimated 1.7 million people in private households across the UK had the virus last week – the highest figure since the end of April."

With less than 20k cases per day you would need to accumulate them for 3 months to get 1.7 million cases.
The Constitution is a negative rights document, meaning that it enumerates all the actions that the federal government cannot do to you. The Supreme Court should not be in the business of legislating, as you mention it should be the Congress that legislates. The Constitution is clear on what the judiciary is meant to do, review if an existing law or executive action is in violation of the Constitution. Anything else is a gross overreach of power.
> elongated/disproportioned bodies of people (I forget the name of it)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Memphis
It's not 'sleeping' in the sense that the printer is 'down' or what not. It's 'on', but no one can ever send print jobs over wifi until the printer is reboot. That's the closest thing I can think of though - is it in some 'sleep' mode and just can't talk over the network because of that? It's been frustrating, and has happened over multiple printers, so it seems it's 'my network' but... absolutely no idea how to fix it. End goal would be 'leave printer on for 3 days and still be able to print to it whenever needed without having to reboot printer'. Doesn't seem like it would be that hard of a request, but... no dice.
They are taking it without need to protest?
Broadly agree, though getting a Mac five minutes before you need it isn't viable anymore given the two month backorder on many of them :-)

Just in time provisioning certainly worked a lot better pre 2020! Nowadays people are having to go to all sorts of odd lengths just to pick up a games console released 18 months ago..
Please don't post in the flamewar style to HN. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for.

We want curious conversation here. If you would please review the guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) and make your substantive points thoughtfully, we'd be grateful.
I agree but this is what our government currently does and I'm trying to explain this in the framework of how we currently make decisions in the US. A spherical cow model of Government I guess.
California has two orders of magnitude more people than Wyoming. I’m not sure they should have equal senate power.
This is such horse shit. No one in this issue is for taking a life so to presuppose that that is where the issue lies is plainly insulting. The pro-choice movement doesn't believe its a life. Understanding the greater social impacts of limiting abortion doesn't muddy that.
> No, the court remanded the lawmaking decision to the states, as it should be.

I'm ok with this argument, as I believe that legislatures, national and state, should write laws to address these issues, not rely on court precedent.

> Cynically, I'd suggest that abortion rights aren't even the issue at hand - lots of people seem very angry/afraid that after a century of DC slowly arrogating all available power and authority to itself, that this power might flow back the other way.

I disagree that this is the main reason, because SCOTUS just basically said the NY state law against guns in public was unconstitutional, and Congress is passing a national gun law as we speak.

So I find it hard to believe that it's just about state's rights, because it's giving states some rights in one week while also taking away other rights.
> Your comment actually made me think of something I had never considered: perhaps the mother's right against the child is self-defense.

I doubt that argument would get far in the case of most abortions, but it might work in cases where the mother's life is at much more risk than is normal for pregnancy, especially where the pregnancy has gone so wrong that there is almost no chance the baby is going to make it.
They seem to live on a planet where "PHP is the best". It's definitely one of the stranger parallel universes.
>all I can really suggest, as someone who is not American and not a woman

Why do you think your nationality and gender are relevant to your opinion?
Even when the fetus becomes a baby, it still matters. You are forcing another person to help that baby, in a much stronger (albeit temporary) way than any other.

Think about it; you are not required to help somebody if they're in an accident or a fire; you're not required to donate blood, but you would require a woman to donate blood and nutrients, spent several months of hardship and have a small but non-zero risk of serious health problems.

At some point it changes; in my mind, around viability. If the baby is delivered, you cannot kill it (you may be required to take care of it, although many states allow you to give up your kids).

Somewhere around 6 months, we might require a woman to give birth... Maybe
I remove any stitched on logos from my clothes before wearing them...
I haven't studied it, but I believe ZCash https://z.cash/ is not designed to eliminate that record (that's what a blockchain is right?), but to encrypt it and then use zero-knowledge proofs to show the validity of the transactions.

That seems like it might be the best of both worlds in some ways: laws can be enforced when it's genuinely important to do so (the record is there so presumably if you seize people's keys you can verify transactions), but not so cheaply as to entail practical mass surveillance and tyranny. In principle presumably a possible weakness is later large-scale decryption if the encryption gets broken -- but that's arguably much less useful to the would-be tyrants and surveillers.
Have you seen the recent news from Texas? You might have noticed that our police aren't all that effective.
It’s not literally that at all. Read about Schelling fences. It’s arbitrary, but it’s not pointless.
Ten years is long enough to inspire the next generation to make zach-like games.

Games like Signal State or Turing Complete.

But it's a sad goodbye to Zachtronics. They have a certain style of layering story to take you out of the raw mechanics which most their rivals don't. I think Shenzhen I/O was their peak but TIS100 is also a must-play and I certainly enjoyed most their other games.
Between gerrymandering and electoral college it’s pretty bad, see https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-new-national-congre... recently
How is pregnancy not a personal circumstance? Anyway, you are right that they are not directly comparable because pregnancy and abortion are such unique things. I suppose the most similar analogy I could think of is a doctor refusing to perform a surgery which has a high chance of outright killing a patient and a smaller chance of treating the issue.

Either way, there is no constitutional right to an abortion, and that is the fundamental issue. Call your representatives and demand them to take action on codifying the right to abortion.