skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I can think of one person who said that:

> The seven to two judgment in Roe v. Wade declared “violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment” a Texas criminal abortion statute that intolerably shackled a woman’s autonomy; the Texas law “except[ed] from criminality only a life-saving procedure on behalf of the [pregnant woman].” Suppose the Court had stopped there, rightly declaring unconstitutional the most extreme brand of law in the nation, and had not gone on, as the Court did in Roe, to fashion a regime blanketing the subject, a set of rules that displaced virtually every state law then in force. Would there have been the twenty-year controversy we have witnessed[?]

[1] https://time.com/5354490/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-v-wade/

(edited to add forgotten source)
Why does he need your help?

Why do you think he needs you to post on his behalf?

It's likely the main issue is not his problem but the team's: a lack of documentation for the system or of any reasoned basis for decision-making. And that won't change until the team gives up on deciding what to do based on who-knows-whom with a veneer of process, and instead has honest design discussions and decisions, on the record.
The problem is “A extends B”. You want to teach “A implements B” first. The important idea is that there’s a protocol/interface for which there can be different implementations used in parallel at runtime, and the interface type allows the client code to abstract from the different implementations. The next step is that an implementation may implement multiple interfaces at once, which also may be subinterfaces of one another. Only as a last step you can introduce implementation inheritance, which is just an optimization (both in runtime mechanism and code verbosity) when reusing code, an optimization which comes at a cost regarding maintenance and implementation dependencies.
The problem with this legal OCD is that in the meantime, people suffer.

This isn't a codebase refactor, this is people's lives. Pulling this ruling before you have "what the people want" in place is like deleting a feature you plan on rebuilding later before you actually rebuild it.

Nobody in their right mind thinks that's a good idea in any other context, so why would it make sense here?
The only presidency that ended with less regulation in recent times was Reagan's. In general republican administrations are the ones who get less done (and "undo" less of what the opposition party has done).
The substance of this argument is essentially "If you don't support every social policy I do then you do not have any basis to object to what you believe to be murder."

Obviously absurd and far beneath the level of rigor I'd expect on HN.
Just as explained by Retric ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31860308 ), while property rights may not be "natural" (define natural in this context), the idea of property does arise naturally in both humans and animals as a direct consequence of scarcity.

Scarcity and the lack thereof is fundamental difference between the physical and the digital.

A secret can be scarce but the more copies are made the less scarce it is.

Encoded information (either written text -language is an encoding- or digital information) can be copied losslessly infinitely for a vanishing marginal cost.

Sure, enshrining property rights as law is a human social construction. The goal is to limit the use of force, otherwise everyone has to guard thair own property, gun in hand. But property itself arises naturally.
Them being elected would only guarantee they are political. If judge appointment was not decided by politicians and instead an independent body there would be a better chance of them actually being apolitical.
But child abuse and neglect are already illegal, and we already have programs like WIC.
Why bother when you can simply rebrand Chromium?
> It's not anyone's business what you do with your body.

Sure, but abortion is also about the fetus's body. (And other things as well: dignity of humans, paternal rights [1], etc.)

> You want to protect innocent lives? [...]

You don't get to dictate what others should care about, but I agree with some of those, though often with a different framing.

For example, I think in a well-functioning society, you should be able to raise a family on a single stream of income. This is a framing currently advocated by people like Bake Masters (the AZ US Senate candidate). Elizabeth Warren (who, unlike Masters, is a left-wing politician) has also used this framing in her 2004 book titled "The Two-Income Trap" [2].

> christofascists

That's a personal attack, which I don't appreciate. Also, despite the Bible quote in my bio, I'm not a Christian.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternal_rights_and_abortion

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two-Income_Trap
Both parties benefited from abortion being a wedge issue that wasn't under legislative control. The dems knew that if they enshrined it in law, then the GOP could campaign on undoing that legislative imposition.

The GOP just plays politics better though, so now they're a dog who caught the car they were chasing. The dems have a chance to make that backfire on the GOP in the midterms, but they're awful at getting or wielding power, so I'm skeptical they will.
Urban populations tend to include more low-income earners, who are more likely to favor receiving more assistance from their government, as such is likely to increase their quality of life. Rural blocks tend to earn enough to live independently and provide for themselves, so their QOL is likely to increase more with taxes being lowered rather than assistance programs they'd be means-tested against (or at least presume they would be).
> Note that a man is not required to donate blood to save an adult human, even if there is no risk to him. The equal protection clause extends that right to your own body to women, and that is fairly sound constitutional reasoning.

Why did Roe v Wade rely on an unwritten right to privacy rather than the equal protection clause then?
But what is baffling is why they picked Roe V Wade to overturn rather than cut it at the root, such as Wickard v Filburn which would have undone a massive swath of the kind of unconstitutional expansion of the federal government.

They could have applied their logic uniformly but bizarrely singled out an abortion case.
has anyone done a comparison chart of the various "trigger laws" in different states? I ask because the other day someone on twitter accused my state of being "anti-semetic" for not allowing abortions when the pregnant woman's life is at risk, and a quick google search revealed that this is actually false:

22-17-5.1. (Section effective on the date states are recognized by the United States Supreme Court to have the authority to prohibit abortion at all stages of pregnancy) Procurement of abortion prohibited--Exception to preserve life of pregnant female--Felony.

Any person who administers to any pregnant female or who prescribes or procures for any pregnant female any medicine, drug, or substance or uses or employs any instrument or other means with intent thereby to procure an abortion, unless there is appropriate and reasonable medical judgment that performance of an abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant female, is guilty of a Class 6 felony. (Section 7 of SL 2005, ch 187, as amended by SL 2005, ch 188, § 1, provides: "This Act is effective on the date that the states are recognized by the United States Supreme Court to have the authority to prohibit abortion at all stages of pregnancy.")

Source: SL 2005, ch 187, § 6.

https://sdlegislature.gov/Statutes/Codified_Laws/2047216

are there any states where this is NOT the case?
Noooo! I’m glad they’re doing it because they want to, but I’m still sad as hell about this. Goodbye Zachtronics!

Time to replay shenzhen.io
It would be nice if 9th and 10th Amendment jurisprudence were stronger.
[dupe]

Plenty of discussion over here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31862258
Exactly. If you want it as a law then work with the appropriate people who operate through the appropriate channels to make it a law. Don't try to circumvent the process by using a different body that is not meant to legislate.
This peaked this morning, not tonight.
I've found it difficult after starting to work full-time to fully enjoy Zachtronics games, since they use much of the same parts of my brain as my day job, but the sheer joy I got out of Zach's earlier games (SpaceChem, KOHCTPYKTOP, Codex of Alchemical Engineering) contributed a lot to my decision to work in software. I've experienced little else that scratches the "design itch" in such a pure and thoughtful way, whether games from other developers or actual software development.
> You clearly believe that if they were forced to compete on equal terms with Chrome, they would loose.

Woah there. Will they actually compete on equal terms, or will YouTube/Google/Gmail (the most popular sites on the internet) tell people that not using Chrome is causing a variety of issues.

I don't think Chrome ever really won "on merits", it won on "Google keeps telling me I'm interneting wrong".

Besides that, "better" isn't really a recognizable concept. What you want and what I want are different. And if what I want is a way to prevent ad-tracking, and what Google wants is better ad-tracking, I don't think I win that war of words.

That is, I don't really care what features a browser has if I cannot block ads, and not blocking ads is high on Google's list.
This fight is not going to be over until the legislature formally defines what is and is not a person. I doubt that's going to happen because nobody wants to have that discussion.
>"If most people agree that it should be a constitutional right, no one stops the legislature from adding the required amendment. "

Meanwhile bunch of states will make abortions illegal. I think Texas already has with some technicalities but correct me if I am wrong.
Or to solidify their dedication to minority tule, specifically minority rule of one particular anti-science religious sect over the majority in a formerly pluralistic, science and education and hard work based society.

Stop educating people on biology (and in the post genome sequencing world), stop women from having reproductive control, stop LGBTQ folks from participating without fear, stop the free thinking people, stop it all in the name of that olde time religion (which itself is mostly a modern nostalgic reconstruction).

Very harmful to our ability to focus and succeed on technological transformation.
Damn. Well done.
Saying that Byuu is dead leads to a ban now on Kiwi Farms.

As far as I care to hold a position, the ones (wannabe terrorists) responsible for all this Byuu episode mislead everyone into thinking they were the Kiwi Farms so as to deflect the blame from the crimes they do. KiwiFarms is as much a victim as Byuu.
Well, there's always MineTest I guess (edit: a high-quality free and open-source and nearly identical alternative to Minecraft). Microsoft infects everything it touches. I am reluctant to use .NET Core stuff over JVM stuff solely because of things like this and [insert latest .NET Core proprietary code fiasco here].
Can you give a concrete example (even a hypothetical one)? I'm a little lost.
100%. As someone who's HoH (Hard of Hearing) this is by far the worst thing. It can lead to frustration, depression, and also self isolation simply to not be exposed to it.

Being Deaf or HoH can be very isolating. Sometimes it's nice (think "built in noise cancellation!"), other times not (feel really left out). Do what you can to include your team mates.
If the emergency C-section is to get the non viable fetus out , how is that still not an abortion?

The only alternative I can think of is that a women should carry the non viable fetus into term for 9 whole months instead of getting it out of her as soon as she can.
The "winter" in "crypto winter" may imply that.
It ran around of the 14th amendment. Only people who donated money to the right politicians got approved for CCL. NY is still free to regulate handgun carry requirements, they just can't deny permits arbitrarily.
They're just waiting for their real parents to come, it's all part of god's plan, innit
>...Scalia famously pushed originalism, but even he essentially writes out slavery, Native American disenfranchisement, and the chattel status of women in the 18th century, and other originalists are even less consistent.

I am no legal scholar by any means, but wasn't Scalia's argument that if the people don't like the social contract (i.e. the constitution), the people should change it via amendments vs having judges change it? I think he would say he did not "essentially writes out slavery..." but rather the 13th, the 19th amendments etc. wrote those out of the constitution.
I'm not arguing with that, since any argument about "beliefs" is pointless. I'm just saying that "legislating from the Bench" is there by design. If you disagree with the design, it's fine — but this application "works as designed", even if you or me don't like the outcome.

The Continental law is based on another philosophy — you have no rights except the ones that are explicitly given to you by law, and the only way to have more rights passes through the legislature. There are many countries that employ Continental law, but the US is not one of them.
I expect Reddit or some competitor to eventually create a platform where ad revenue is shared with subreddit/content creators (a bit like YouTube does). It would make a lot of sense.
Log Cabin Republicans are no longer welcome in the party, at least not universally -- they were banned from the Texas Republican Convention.
Do you think the ACA would have been more or less likely to pass if it had mentioned a federal right to abortion (which would have benefited zero people for the next decade)?
"The whole point of a court is to interpret the Constitution with new facts and situations that arise."

You're describing the "living constitution"[1] view, which has not been the dominant position among Supreme Court justices for some time.

Now they're all "strict constructionists"[2], who think the opposite of what you describe: that the constitution should be interpreted just as it was written.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Constitution

[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_constructionism
My theory is not that mythology kept you together, but that there was enough cultural and physical space to peacefully ignore each other if anyone so wished, simply by moving a bit further away. Communications were slow enough that they could be digested or ignored more or less at will.

The problem is that, between natural population growth and the rise of the internet, both the cultural plane and the physical one have largely run out of space. Figurative "midwest zealots" just cannot live their lives ignoring "coastern heathens" even if they'd like to, and viceversa. And so the fights have broken out and will likely continue for a long time.
So I know what you’re thinking but it is at least technically possible that they don’t store it as plaintext - like maybe when you set the password it stored a salted hash of the whole thing, plus also a special hash of the first 3 chars for emergency recovery or locking operations (ie can be used when you show up in-person with the photo ID they have on file). So they’d enter the characters, and compare the hash and you’d then follow password reset process offline.

But … while it’s possible, I think we all know they probably just stored it as plaintext :-D
Yeah, revolutionary technology! Money from computation! Sign me up!
> why did something that was in place for 50 years needs to be revisited?

Ruth Bader Ginsburg made it her career to overturn precedents around women's rights that had been around far longer than 50 years.
That's not at all what they're doing and I'm sorry you've fallen for the propaganda. They are absolutely planning on banning abortion nationally the next time they're in power, they already have the bills written.

https://twitter.com/MZanona/status/1540363376584495104

They also plan on making it illegal to travel to states where abortion will be legal for the purposes of receiving one.
Prioritization Is a Political Problem as Much as an Analytical Problem
Title should be changed to say that they approved an agenda item to discuss whether they should think about considering a 4-day work week.
> I've never really understood why citizens in the US aren't allowed these items

If they buy missiles, logistics and costs of maintenance aside, they will want to use them, or worse, sell them in the black market at great profit for the cartels/mafia to use.
Probably not. The line is vague, but I'll say there's precedent that a murderer who kills a mom and her unborn child gets charged with two murders. Or in the instance of that mother that was detained by the police roughly and lost her unborn child in the process. In these cases, the women/families want the child so the unborn baby becomes a human for the sake of argument, but I think a lot of people can see that rationale being a bit weird, yeah? A human is a human whether someone wants them to be or not.
Not OP, but yes, adding additional layers of indirection makes an election/nomination less representative of the will of the people and thus "less legitimate" if you think legitimacy is based on representing the will of the people.

Of course the bigger problem according to this perspective is that there are many more layers of indirection before it even comes to the point where "your" elected representative nominates a judge. Some of them are more prone to "shaping" than others (e.g. via gerrymandering, disenfrachisement, voter suppression in all its forms) but the goal is generally to generate "favorable" election results regardless of what the people currently want.
> If you understand how the US Government works, then you understand that the Supreme Court cannot establish ANYTHING by removing laws. (ie overturning previous decisions).

This was actually part of the issue:

> After cataloging a wealth of other information having no bearing on the meaning of the Constitution, the opinion concluded with a numbered set of rules much like those that might be found in a statute enacted by a legislature.

For way too long the entire political argument in the US on way too many things has been punted to the Supremes to let the elected officials get out of any responsibility whatsoever.
Monero just makes different tradeoffs than Bitcoin. Some upsides, but also plenty downsides. [1].

[1] https://phyro.github.io/grinvestigation/why_grin.html
In Israeli Desert, Archaeologists Find One of the Oldest Known Mosques
Abortion is not now "illegal in half the country" -- it may become so, but it isn't that today and this decision didn't make it that today

Moreover, guns may have outpaced automotive deaths, but they have not outpaced "accidents" writ large.
You call this "censorship-resistance" but it seems to be "law-resistance." This is a point that critics of crypto have been making for awhile: crypto's only use-case seems to be to avoid the law. At least in the USA, the courts have typically granted wide latitude to technologies that have a mix of both legal and illegal uses, but crypto seems to only have illegal uses, so it looks more and more like one of those technologies where the courts often allow strict regulation or outright bans. Especially in the democratic nations, where the laws have the legitimacy granted by popular representation in the political process, there is no reason to tolerate a technology if that technology exists solely to evade the law -- there must be some clear legal purpose for the technology.
There are plenty of rural poor, but providing services to them is logistically difficult.
Texas law has no exceptions for rape or incest. In these circumstances, you are literally forcing someone to have a child after they've been violated. Abbott's argument is "Rape is a crime. And Texas will work tirelessly to make sure that we eliminate all rapists from the streets of Texas by aggressively going out and arresting them and prosecuting them and getting them off the streets."

What have they been doing up to this point? Texas outpaces the nation in rape and has been trending upward.

Know what else is illegal? Gun possession by violent criminals. Didn't Abbott also claim that if we made it harder for 18 year old white boys to get AR-15s then only the criminals would have guns? Why not apply the same logic in two places? (I own guns, I like shooting, I'm just no a fan of being full of shit and I believe in common sense fun laws, like most gun owners.)

I know that last bit was a different topic but it illustrates some of the absolute mess that exists in TX politics. They can't even avoid using contradictory arguments in public statements. This is a bad state run by bad people who will say and do absolutely anything to defend the status quo, even if it means saying two opposing things in almost the same breath.
Hi aschleck, I am the PM for Bazel and love your feedback. Was wondering if you would be open to connecting so I can learn more
there seems to be, broadly, an inherent difference in mindset in populations based upon their densities.
It’s been known for decades that roe v wade was a weak basis for abortion rights. The constitution does not have any law on abortion, and it’s Congress’s job to create federal laws.
The Court's job is to balance your right to privacy with the state's interests. Let's say you're running a meth lab: meth is very bad for people, it's hard to cook it safely and you might grievously harm others in your house or those nearby. Therefore, if law enforcement has probable cause to enter your home (e.g. they have an informant who's provided evidence), they can obtain a warrant for the express purpose of ascertaining whether or not you have a meth lab. If you don't have a meth lab but you are smoking weed (in a State where that's not legal), they can't arrest you, because that's not what the warrant is for. Hooray 4th Amendment!
They may not actively think infants deserve no societal protection, but they sure are passive about actively enforcing any protection.
> If the voting majority truly cares about access to abortion then we will hopefully see enough democratic traction to give them the mandate needed

The problem is we have an electoral system that forces us into a two party system. One of those parties is beholden to religious ideologies. If any republican votes for abortion protection they will get primaried. So we end up in a situation where a healthy majority of the country wants some level of abortion rights, but because we need 60 senate votes it's impossible to implement.
Sure, and from the point of view of thieves the locks I install are bad.

Maybe, just maybe, people should stop trying to develop webapps and instead make websites that just work without javascript. Like this one.
The irony is that HN guidelines are often interpreted as loosely as constitutional amendments.
Thank you! Appreciate the feedback, agree we probably could have provided more transparent feedback for the community.

Out of curiosity, where would you have looked for such updates? GitHub issues?
When I saw the headline I thought it was making a different point, a better point: That it is deadly to your career if you as a person are generally boring. That is a true statement -- unless the job itself and everyone surrounding it are also boring...
Like I said, it's just a guess from my experience. It's a complicated subject because people can get "hungry" for different reasons. For me it could very well be that simply getting up to walk a 4-mile circuit around the neighborhood gives me enough of a goal and enjoyment that I feel less of a need to reach for food as entertainment, including the time following the walk.

What gives me an appetite is weight lifting. I honestly don't get how people can't be hungry after lifting heavy. Could be psychological for me because I am also intent on building muscle, but still. My hunger after lifting is more visceral than my usual "gotta eat" feeling.