skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> As for the reproductive rights, as long as contraception is legal (and who knows what will happen next) isn’t the choice at conception?

It's not so simple, when it comes to contraception, because various forms are controversial as well (even IUDs) and can also possibly become illegal.

In a submission that was posted and flagged for unclear reasons, it refers to an article that discusses some of the complexities and gray areas involved, like abortion pills or women being accused of murder because they had a stillbirth under "suspicious circumstances" (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/07/04/we-are-not-goi...). It might be worth a read, to see how various women can be looking at this issue, from a practical standpoint.

> ...women who are raped should be able to get an abortion imo

That's another part of the problem, when extremism gets involved, it can dissolve the issue into a total ban.

> ...do you believe that a man who gets a woman pregnant should have to support the child?

That's a good point, as various "Men's rights" have arguably been buried in the U.S. In various countries, an abortion can only happen if the father agrees or can't be found. To include other countries, where if a woman has a child against the will of the father, they allow or are proposing to allow men to renounce or give up their paternity rights or parental responsibility. Which is also kind of like how women are allowed to abandon (safe surrender) or give up a child for adoption, even against the will of the father, in various states and countries.
Founder of FTX has publicly said he thinks most tech companies have way too many staff (by a couple of order of magnitude I think he said?). FTX has something like 30 people, and that’s how he likes it.
Who does the distribution? The vast majority of people in the world can't afford to buy crypto. The people who hold most of the BTC, ETH, SOL, and whatever other major coins were already rich before they got into it. Maybe single digit thousands of people went from non-rich to rich through buying and holding crypto, but that's a tiny fraction.
They are targeting specific methods of contraception, which they claim are abortifacient. They have displayed zero signs of wanting to ban contraception in general, as opposed to just specific forms of it. By contrast, the law struck down in Griswold v. Connecticut was an across-the-board ban on all forms of contraception.

I think it is unlikely that Griswold will ever be overturned – simply because it is unlikely any state will enact a total contraception ban. To overturn a precedent, it is not enough that a majority of Supreme Court justices think it was wrongly decided, you also need a case – which requires a state to enact and seek to actively enforce a law violating the precedent. But almost nobody wants such a law now. 1965 (when Griswold was handed down), 1873 (when the law it overturned was enacted) was a very different world – when most Christians still believed that contraception was a sin. Nowadays, the vast majority of non-Catholic Christians (Protestants, Orthodox, etc) accept contraception as moral at least in some cases. And while the Catholic Church teaches artificial contraception is inherently sinful, it displays no signs of any interest in having the government make that sin illegal (unlike the situation with abortion). You might find some crazy Catholic integralist advocating it, but the Bishops and the Vatican aren't going to.

The bans on (allegedly) abortifacient contraceptive methods could be challenged, but I expect SCOTUS will uphold them – and the majority will probably just uphold them as state regulation of abortion, not overturning Griswold itself. However, I think a lot of groups are going to refuse to support challenges, on the grounds that they don't want to give this SCOTUS an opportunity to overturn any more precedents they support, rather save it for the day (whenever it may come) when there is a SCOTUS majority more amenable to their views.
Technology leads norms, not the other way around. Technology doesn't dictate norms, but forces materialization of norms that otherwise wouldn't be necessary.
Empirical knowledge is not the only knowledge there is.

Joe Manchin's pro-life and been in since 2010

Blanche Lincoln voted for the partial birth abortion ban

Mark Pryor voted for the partial birth abortion ban

Kent Conrad voted for the partial birth abortion ban

Byron Dorgan voted for the partial birth abortion ban

etc. etc. etc.
X-Plane does not simulate airflow based on the 3d model.
Has to be that, right?
I always have a concrete example in my mind in any discussion of strategy, to keep it grounded. So:

Vision: the unconditional surrender of Nazi German

Mission: defeat Germany militarily

Strategy: land an army in northern France, liberate France, invade and occupy Germany

Backlog:

- […]

- isolate Cherbourg

- […]

- capture Cherbourg

- […]
I had a chuckle at this note:

> First, it seems to likely show that the advice that it's very important to keep line lengths short is incorrect since, if that had a very large impact, it would've overwhelmed the other changes and resulted in reduced engagement and not increased engagement.

Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but I read all articles on that site with Reader view since they're impossible to read any other way. There's good content there, but man is it a pain in the ass to read!
> This is exactly the same as how prohibition required an ammendment [sic] to ban alcohol.

Can't wait for SCOTUS to apply the same logic to drug prohibition, which is also not at all an enumerated federal power (assuming the same logic that alcohol regulation isn't one either).
The pro life position is really simple:
1. Baby murder is wrong
2. Abortion is murdering a baby
3. Therefore abortion is wrong

That’s it. There is no requirement to meet some perceived bar of empathy beyond that for this to be a good faith argument.

“I bet you think shooting innocent people in the head is wrong, but yet you don’t volunteer at the soup kitchen every weekend, so do you ACTUALLY care about innocent people or are you just trying to control others?” Do you see how that’s a ridiculous non-sequitur? That’s the argument you just made against pro life people.
I'm not making a claim on why it is superior, I'm commenting on the fact that its use for this purpose is evidence enough that some people feel it is the best choice for this problem.
Given your history on the issue[1][2][3], I don't think its reasonable to trust your judgement on how the court will vote.

I think it's worth keeping in mind that either you were disingenuous years ago, or you yourself have moved to the right over time as well, as not only do you badly mispredict the court (and even mispredict how extreme Thomas would be [5]!), assuming it would have a stronger respect for precedent than it did, but also you yourself seem to have changed from a supporter of roe[4] to, well, whatever you are now which seems to be someone who is willing to quote contradictory statistics in order to claim that Roe's 24 week line has less support than it does (per [6] and [7], both sources you've quoted to claim that most Americans want more restrictions than Roe show that >60% overall and 30% of conservatives support the line Roe defines).

If the conservative majority on the court is willing to overturn a ruling supported by 60-65% of the population, what's to say they won't revert a much weaker precedent with only 70% popular support? You seem to be highly content to be a boiled frog.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24525637

[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12994309

[3]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26311034

[4]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5801204

[5]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30980056

[6]: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/06/13/about-six-i...

[7]: https://www.npr.org/2019/06/07/730183531/poll-majority-want-...
DALL-E is maybe copyright infringement, CoPilot is whitelabeling code sometimes in flagrant violation of their licensing terms, which may require such things as attribution, or even that the derived code is licensed in the same way.
I haven't tried this, but I would expect that maintaining precise and steady down-force is especially tough. The axidraw does a lot to make that work well.

Sloppy x/y motion (as you'd also expect here) can just be treated as a "lofi" aesthetic, but sloppy z can mean having whole sections fail to draw or your pen digging into the surface and producing unrecoverable tears and drags of the paper.
Because Copilot can generate verbatim copies of code, with only the whitespace changed in some cases.

The AI art generators are trained on copyrighted work, which is still a legal grey area, but they don't stamp or copy/paste parts of the source images unchanged into larger ones. Though I'd imagine if you used the same algorithms for something like logo or typeface generation you'd run into trademark issues.
> I believe that the unborn baby is a viable human life at some point and that abortion without a justifiable reason after that point would be equivalent to murder.

That's the entire point! You're not objecting to abortion. You're objecting at some point in time and only when it's medically unjustifiable. But those moral thresholds are different for every individual and there are medically justifiable situations, which is exactly why no individual should be able to impose their personal beliefs as a law which declares those medical situations as unjustifiable.

You're welcome to have moral objections and believe they are the most correct or reasonable, but they have no bearing on the concerted efforts of religious groups and individuals to outright ban access to medical care. And that's the discussion at hand, which you keep conveniently ignoring. Many people have total opposition to all abortions in all situations and specifically for religious reasons, which is what actual, real-life politicians are implementing as we speak.

Someone else having an abortion (whether you believe it's murder or not) doesn't infringe on your rights. But you imposing your beliefs in a way that affects someone else's medical care is absolutely infringing on their rights. These are fundamental concepts of our democracy.
The French government adopted Matrix for all their internal and inter-ministerial communications, to avoid dependence on foreign corporate products. https://archive.fosdem.org/2019/schedule/event/matrix_french...

Most people I know use WhatsApp (I refuse, and since I run Lineage OS without Google services I simply tell people my phone doesn't support it), Signal, or Telegram.
How is a crash going to distribute eth or btc into more hands? A bunch of people losing their shirts doesn't seem like it's going to motivate more people to buy in, and individual investors may panic sell before prices go down further.
I have a comet chasing memory with my father. We never saw it, drove around two different nights, and had a great time. Won’t forget being up at 3 or 4 am in a little agricultural town pulling over every few minutes to take a look.
This is how we end up causing our institutions to crumble. Your average American has no idea what Roe means or doesn’t mean, or what it’s repeal means or doesn’t mean. It’s incumbent upon elites to tell the truth. Instead, people are playing fast and loose with the truth for political gain. Erin Chemerinsky, for example, a prominent Constitutional law scholar, called overturning Roe a “pure exercise of Republican power.”

In reality, Roe was the left’s Lochner. A pure exercise of judicial law making that could not point to anything in the Constitutional text or history to support a sweeping rule. It’s a precedent that even folks in the left have taken to defending merely by virtue of its existence as such. It’s protection of second trimester abortions is out of step with public opinion, and out of step among the law in other civilized nations.

Not all liberal precedents are like that. In fact most aren’t. There’s a huge difference between Brown and Loving and Obergefell and Roe both legally and in how the relevant issues have played out in domestic and international politics. Nonetheless, it will make political hay to act like overturning Roe will unleash the floodgates of rolling back everything else. Never mind the fact that, even though Roe was so vulnerable from the very beginning, it took conservatives 50 years of single-minded effort to overturn it.
The difference is that one inures to state governments rather than the federal government. The concern at the time was that the federal government would take guns away from people in order to neuter the States' power to defend itself. The States themselves free to do what they wanted to regulate their citizens and militias.
> I and others wrote a letter to Congress, basically saying that cryptocurrencies are an complete and total disaster, and urging them to regulate the space.

This guy wants the US government to regulate what data structures, algorithms, and protocols you’re allowed to use in your software.

Sorry, but I don’t think anyone really wants the US congress and a baby boomer with a blog to be the ceiling of technology progress.
I've followed quite a lot of the lab leak discussion and I wouldn't say that's true. If anything the most popular people to point fingers at are Daszak and his associates who are mostly pretty white.
Make a guess how fast one can SIM swap you if you are a good target.
Phone calls and SMS should not be used for any such communication period.

2FA is ideally user generated to begin with, and not the other way around.

This is more to check the box and state to the court you tried your best.

P.S. Example: We had serious issues when people gave Google their phone numbers and the corporate accounts got hijacked.
Large platforms (twitter, YouTube, etc) banning views that they don’t agree with gives them power to truly shape society by controlling acceptable discourse.

What they deem outright information may in fact be true. And even allowing clear misinformation (1+1=3) is important. We need people to learn to process information not protect them from it. Using 1+1=3 analogy, wouldn’t you want people to rally around tooling people to learn math?
It's a 11 percentage point margin shift, and that is the correct way to view it. While neutral is a small position on this issue because it has high salience and is polarizing, neutral is a valid choice (which is also why the difference in “should be legal” is not identical to the difference in “should be illegal”.)
VS Code, React, Git: Dominant techs increase grip, says StackOverflow survey
JFK was an obvious government coverup not sure why you would choose to group the two.
I meant the consequences and response to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020-2021.

Of course there are longer term and big-picture consequences if it was a lab leak. Which is why I said it was important to research and understand the origin. I just get why it wasn't top priority during the actual pandemic response.

Edit: And of course there are geopolitical implications. I think the same point applies, at the time the focus was on the response and avoiding inciting a political battle over something that wouldn't have a near-term benefit.
>People talk about Roe v Wade as if women spontaneously get pregnant against their will and are forced to care for the baby.

They have never been forced to care for the baby, but will now be forced to birth the baby - that still doesnt mean they will care for it, even if it is in the same home.

To the other point, women get pregnant from male sperm, yet it is somehow the female who has been burdened with trying to police this - any male partner/husband can now force a pregnancy though subterfuge leaving the female with little no other option then to carry out his will. Women can have sex all day long, every day of the week with multiple people and they will never get pregnant so long as a male does not ejaculate his sperm inside of her. Yet males are not held accountable for irresponsible ejaculations - maybe they will be monetarily accountable 10+ months later

The burden of un/wanted pregnancy falls onto the female, males have a choice to provide comfort and support (emotional, monetary) if they chose, males can still choose to be absent deadbeat parents too - they are not forced to pay, they can chose not to and depending on their lawyer situation can do so and keep their money, or not do so and have to take steps to hide their money.

Also, contraceptives fail and males don't have to care because the full physical health burden falls on the female. Like this whole topic, wanting a yes or no on something like this or if males should have to support a child just doesnt do it justice, there are too many ways in which that happens - but if a female has the choice to easily get an abortion without all of the burden, then if a male does not want a child and a female does, he should be free from it - but before that can happen - the female must be able to have the choice to carry it or terminate it without burden.
There are safe heaven laws in all US states, which allow the parents to abandon their newly born child in designated places (typically hospitals) without facing any charges. Children can also be legally given up for adoption. So, in fact, the right to abandon a viable child is less controversial.

Now, the viability standard is important because it is very hard to consider a non-viable entity "a person" in any serious sense. If it can't even perform the basic functions of its organism, how can it be considered to have rights, and has never been able to do so, how can it be considered a person?
Ok good :-)
I think my issue is the your idea of eviction, its not eviction, in the same way we don't 'evict' cancer, we 'treat' it. I think its best to leave it at 'no moral difference between abandoning life before or after birth.'. Agreed. Lets not make this difficult situation harder for women who have to make very difficult decisions in life.
Either you have a product that customers clearly love and are willing to spend money on, or you yourself (and your team) are very impressive people in some way. The investor is ideally betting on both an impressive company && an impressive team, but at the very least one of those needs to be true to have a shot.
“When is a product \”done\“ and what do you do next?”
At the end of a casino the chips can always be redeemed.

There is very little liquidity in crypto. And when one of the whales breaks rank and heads for the exit every other holder will be sitting on chips with some nominal value but absolutely no buyers.
And Bukele has locked up more than 2% of the population in inhumane conditions…

Hardly a promotional asset…
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/06/el-salvador-p...

https://www.cato.org/commentary/el-salvadors-road-currency-c...

https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/crypto-crash-leaves-e...

President Bukele’s government declared a state of emergency on 27 March, following a spike in homicides allegedly committed by gangs, which has since been extended twice....Despite a drop in the homicide rate in recent years, El Salvador continues to be one of the most violent countries in the world....The government's financial problems are not because of bitcoin, but they have gotten worse because of bitcoin.

QED
If that happens though you are screwed no matter what they do. The above does sound like a big improvement though and is sort of like what Google does when you turn on advanced protection and it occasionally will ask you to match the number on your computer screen to the one on your phone
> I wonder if the latest crash (and no doubt future crashes) isn't exactly the force needed to distribute crypto more widely into more hands, normalizing to some roughly steady state value.

No. Hodl the dip.
The court decision goes over the process it uses to determine if something is an unenumerated right:

"We have held that the “established method of substantive-due-process analysis” requires that an unenumerated right be “‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition’” before it can be recognized as a component of the “liberty” protected in the Due Process Clause. Glucksberg, 521 U. S., at 721; cf. Timbs, 586 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 7)."

There is a lengthy appendix to the ruling that goes through the list of prior state laws that criminalized abortion and shows that a right to abortion is not, in fact, "deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition".
Having used various things that claim to be natural language, I find that to use them effectively, I end up needing to learn their particular structured language. These are often poorly documented and may have pretty weird/difficult edge cases (one often seen and easy to explain case is selecting lists with plural nouns and individual records with singular nouns... But many english nouns have the same spelling and pronounciation as plural and singular).

Regardless of the details of the language, if I'm going to learn a structured language anyway, I would usually prefer to learn the underlying language, and not an imperfect abstraction. Sometimes, there's good value in the abstraction, but I usually find they get in the way and make it harder to do what I want.
Apache Druid 0.23.0
And abortion being a woman's right up to the moment of viability was "nail in the coffin settled" in 1973.

The court's analysis that 'keep and bear arms' implies an individual right to carry a handgun (or a weapon 'in common use') for self defense purposes is exactly the kind of drawing of 'legislative-style' boundaries that the court railed against in today's ruling overturning Roe and Casey.
Fair point, I meant more for the nonconsensual aspect, although I'm unsure if incest is illegal even if consensual, I guess it might depend on the jurisdiction, at which point eve if it were two people consenting, it may not legally be considered consensual, similar to how people under a certain age have no legal ability to consent.
My main contact there is talking to a lawyer experienced in non-profits, and she said that, actually, the board should NOT have all employees on it.
Not sure about Maccy, but I’ve been using „Copy’em” (https://apprywhere.com/ce-mac.html) for last few years and been really happy with it. I highly recommend it if someone is looking for something like this.
...which you can do with:

su - admin

You can also run gui apps as admin, like:

sudo -u admin /System/Applications/Utilities/Console.app/Contents/MacOS/Console
> the potential consequences of the actions

Being forced by the State (ie at the point of a gun) to carry a pregnancy to term is not an inevitable "consequence". It's a choice.

Women have a long history of using abortifacients to terminate pregnancy, so there's nothing "natural" or inevitable about forced birth.
At first I felt personally attacked. But there is some truth to what you're saying. There is deeply rooted pragmatism among Indian immigrants, no denying that.

The reductionism is a necessary part of online forum based discourse. No one has the time to engage in hours long holistic discussions on a topic. A comment can at most aspire to capture 1 point well, and reductionism is the act of identifying the one act that has a disproportionate importance within the discussion.

Speaking abstractly about an unquantifiable rights allows you to pat your own back, but such discussions turn into ingroup signaling and adhominems instead of leading to productive discussion.

Most Indians come from a scarcity economy where bad decisions are catastrophic. This means that you must have skin in the game when championing an idea, because failure means starvation.(allow me some hyperbole). The society doesn't suffer delusion for too long.

Abortion rights are good. Yes, I believe that too. Republicans are actively interfering with women's control over their own bodies and that bad. Yes, I agree there too. Throw in specific anecdotes to appear nuanced.

Now what ? You still need to address the elephant in the room. Indians might point to it a little 'austistically', but it is an elephant, in your room. The nuance can wait.