skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Pace v. Alabama rejected equal protection as justification. Perez, then later Loving, are relevant because they overturn that on the basis of due process as well - Perez being the first, Loving being the highest. You can't get Loving on equal protection alone; you certainly can't get Obergefell or Lawrence.

The parent asked why equal protection is not sufficient to protect interracial marriage. I answered. You don't like the answers, either:

a) Make a legal argument. To the extent you agree with this current decision, "it's old" lends it strength. But "it's old" isn't actually a legal argument, despite what the Supreme Court thinks. (That's how you know their purported theories of jurisprudence are bullshit.)

b) Make a real moral argument not rooted in made-up shit like textualism - and admit moral arguments for abortion rather than hiding behind "this is just jurisprudence."
Fires
which may not be grounded on any text whatsoever.

Well when your job is to interpret the constitution, it should be grounded on the text. That's why there are textualist who disagree with your interpretation of the role of the court. It is supposed to be the foundation.
I'm not saying that I hold these views myself, I think that these are straightforward generous readings that you can take of common conservative positions.

Killing in war is bad, even evil, but there is no other way. It's a lesser evil than the alternative. Killing Germans in WW2 was bad, but the alternative was worse.

Forcing a woman to carry a child to term is bad, even evil. It produces a great deal of suffering. The alternative is to kill an unborn child, which is worse. Therefore select the lesser of the two evils.

Again, I don't subscribe to these views, but it seems like a pretty coherent position to me.
Look at Ada and its error-messages.
In 1992 they had to win the majority of the vote in elections to win seats, but they have innovated around that restriction in the past 30 years, so no, there isn’t a good expectation that this will make them lose
No, you still have the right to remain silent. You still have the right to an attorney. They removed (rather, neutered) the notification requirement; the police aren't required to tell you your rights. That's bad, but not remotely as bad as legalizing forced interrogation without representation.
There was the Nullification crisis, wherein South Carolina attempted to secede as a consequence of Jackson's government applying heavy tariffs on Southern states.
This is just trad vulgarity. There is no simple distinction between some abstract concept of "beauty" and different historical trends in design and architecture. Sure contemporary architecture can be terrible but the depth of engagement is atrocious on this subject. What are you talking about? Gothic influences? Roman? Greek? Does the author reference any modern architecture firms such as OMA or other less accessible ones? Midwit critique.
You are not obligated to follow a law purely because it exists. I realise you will immediately jump to the alternative here but you should take a step back and consider the implications of being obligated to follow any harebrained, harmful and sometimes downright evil law that has ever existed.

Legal and ethical are not the same thing. If a law is any of the above things plus unenforceable I would argue it makes zero sense to obey it.
Terminal stops apps stealing focus when Secure Text Entry is turned on. It's literally designed to do that. That the author disagrees with that behavior doesn't make it a bug.
I would take the pro-lifers arguments a lot more seriously if 98% of them weren't pro-military and pro-death penalty.
You "understand" and "think it is noteworthy" and "observe", but what do you "feel" about the people who've lost freedom today, because of the observable fact that this primarily happened due to the religious beliefs of the new members of the Supreme Court?

Not caring about the people for whom the system is designed for is exactly what makes this such a monumental problem. If the system doesn't work for the people it's designed to work for, it the outcomes don't reflect their will, then it's a broken system.

If this is the "correct" way, then the system might need to be torn down and rebuilt, possibly violently. Consider that as you avoid empathizing with those affected.
Agreed. Maybe there will be entangled particles in the future that get shot out down wires and then allow you to instantaneously communicate with people after you receive them.

The right future oriented mindset in terms of building a house would be to make it easy to install wires. Or pipes. Or whatever.

Just in time hardware is only useful if you have a place to put it. That’s the tricky part; trying to figure out how to make sure you stay compatible with whatever new stuff comes along.
I'd love to hear more about how you set all this up, particularly, do you have some sort of extension or bookmarklet that submits the current page to yacy's crawler?
> California

New York* I believe.
If 80% of the USA wanted marijuana legalized, does that mean the 20% that say 'no' should keep it blocked?
> It is good for unelected bodies like the Supreme Court to allow such dividing issues be figured out democratically.

Speaking as an outsider on American politics, it seems to me that it won't be figured out democratically. If it was done democratically, on a nationwide vote, abortion would easily stay legal.

What will actually happen is that the decision will be referred to states, where government is elected on small turnouts, in gerrymandered divisions, heavily influenced by untrue TV propaganda funded by billionaires, and in many cases elected based on supposed economic reasons, not any moral ones.

The effective result is that vulnerable young women will be forced to carry unwanted babies to term at the cost of great suffering to themselves and the resultant children.

> with all political sides to blame.

I can only see one side to blame here.
Except that states banning abortions after X weeks was already a thing under Roe.

And this decision was not about any "state rights" bullshit. The court previously found an unenumerated right to an abortion, and now they completely reversed themselves. Women do not have complete body autonomy and must support another life no matter the impact on their own.
Wearing an unbranded Kirkland Pima Cotton T-shirt right now thinking how much value it has to me. It feels comfortable, looks a little more formal with thicker cotton, and costs less than a branded one.
Yes, a poor 15 year old in Mississippi can SIMPLY cross three or four states to get her abortion done. Problem solved, folks.
mosyle is an ok MDM. Just ok, not great, but it works.
This is why I have a password on my Telegram account.
What happened to the lab-leak hypothesis?
There is a reason this decision is so backward-looking and out of touch with the general trend in favor of the rights of women globally. This is the fulfillment of a religious fundamentalist, dominionist agenda. That's invisible to most people in the tech industry because tech is mostly irreligious. The nation as a whole is increasingly irreligious.

Don't argue the case. Marginalize the dominionists. Neutralize their effectiveness. Exclude them from institutions and communities. Dominionism is a movement closely related to white supremacism and the American flavor of fascism. It is as fundamentally dangerous as those related movements. Debating dominionists is just as useless as debating neonazis, and for the same reasons.
> The rhetoric each side adopts precludes/ignores the other side's arguments, and thus there is no communication.

This is the blue dress vs gold dress of politics. There is no communication because the two sides see the world in fundamentally different ways.
I suppose you can dispute anything then, but the upthread comment is right, and the same amendment of the Constitution is pretty clear about it:

> All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Homogenous and wealthy society, basically.
PCL and PostScript are standards. If you have a printer that supports it, some supported both, a generic driver is all you need, except for special features.

Entry-level printers didn't support these standards as it required what at the time was significant computing power on the printer side.
They believe they should dictate the behavior of other people, that's fundamentally asymmetrical to the counterpoint. The "other side" is not advocating compulsory abortions, they are advocating individual freedom to make a deeply personal decision. The people that want to ban abortion for all people are taking away rights from people they disagree with. Who cares what they think, indeed.

If I want to disband and illegalize the Southern Baptist Convention because I sincere believe they are heretics, who cares about my sincerely held beliefs about what others should do? I should should just not go to a Southern Baptist church.
> There's no basis behind their beliefs other than the bible

That is a bit unfair. An ultrasound is pretty compelling evidence.
Exactly, there is no miranda right (miranda being the notification of your right to remain silent and obtain an attorney).

And there is, as of yesterday, no remedy for violations of your right to remain silent. So, you better hope your lawyer can have anything you say suppressed before trial.
Ironically the zksnark paper had a glaring, crypto system breaking error and the implementers of zcash went out of their way to hide the parameters until sapling, where they could correct the problem.

That being said, zcash is a quite useful construction.
Awesome! Anything you wanna share?
> It's hard to imagine that something the size of a chocolate chip has "individual rights", especially when balanced against the rights of the pregnant person.

Clearly it is not hard for a lot of people in the US to imagine this, since that is what they believe.
Here's the thing. It's easy to believe that one side truly believes in the right to life, at least for innocents. Being against killing, at least for non criminals/enemies, is pretty common.

The right to bodily autonomy is not believable because there weren't a whole lot of people campaigning against vaccine mandates because they were pro-bodily-autonomy.

As for your examples, surely even pro-life people don't care about "abortions" of babies that are already dead? If laws are interpretable in that way it seems like an easy wording fix. Not many people would care about that even if religious.
I've never heard of the "Steven Black DNS list". Is it legit and valuable?
>They believe that abortion would be illegal everywhere.

While that will not be true, access to abortion will be very limited everywhere. With 26 states limiting it seriously and no constitutional protections on getting abortions in a different state, you could see a vast majority of population not have access to abortions.

Even if everyone starts traveling for abortions, a huge amount of the population won’t be able to travel. And the ones who travel will stress the medical facilities to the extent that people living in states that have legal abortion access, will still have it’s populations access to abortions severely limited.

It doesn’t matter if 2/3 Americans don’t know what it actually means. What matters is 2/3 Americans want access to abortions, and that access will be severely limited regardless of whether it’s legal in your state.
Do you think it's acceptable for a mother who plans to carry their child to term to use drugs and alcohol or otherwise damage the fetus?
This article is just weird at best (no pun intended) but like many other industries that benefit from agglomeration this can very well be true.

1) Chefs rarely do any cooking. At best they are conductors. And restaurants are famously highly unprofitable businesses. So you need a combination of a large number of workers, willing to work for cheap (relative to cost of living for the area) and are still highly skilled.

2) Ingredients matter. NYC food used to be crap. It’s the farm to table movement that took advantage of the many local farms within the true state area that revolutionized food in NYC. And SF is in California.

3) Tastes matter. It’s hard for a place which identifies with a certain food to build a great overall cuisine. So New Orleans is great for Cajun/sea food, but it’s hard to see other cuisines flourishing as much (most places in the US tend to have a couple of international cuisines that do wel due to clusters of immigrants, but I’m talking about building a general food culture). That may be one reason why food in SF tends to be better than food in LA, which identifies very much with “healthy” eating even though LA has pretty much every advantage over SF to be a food city.

4) Competition matters. It takes time to build a competitive food scene that can weed out bad restaurants, or even restaurants that haven’t adapted to the modern world. NYC is an extreme, potentially going a little too far, example of this.

So yeah, there are many reasons why great chefs can become not so great chefs after moving somewhere else, at least in a restaurant setting. The top chefs will probably be fine since they will get the cream of the crop and fly in ingredients and workers. But it’s the middle to top-middle layer where these factors show up the most.
It was probably something like legacy/default zipfile utility encryption anyway.
I mean in principle almost any form of communication is possible, but there's a reason you don't go to dinner with a friend and only communicate through post-it notes: because it is unnatural and inefficient.
This court will never say a federal law allowing abortion is constitutional. Thomas is 74 and Alito is 72. A lot of stars need to align so that anything can be done about this. The lone thing I see changing the calculus is if women in red states stage a mass protest by actually moving to blue states in massive numbers.
>I also know history, probably better than most on this board.

I should remind you again, past performance is not an indicator of future results. The history might give you clues, but it can't point you to a guarantee of what will happen.

>This conversation is about trying to find the crux of your disbelief.

If you have an interest in being reasonable, I think you can see how this statement is total nonsense. I don't "believe" or "disbelieve" in anything, this is just the reality of the situation. If you're trying to get me to "believe" in something, that suggests you're putting trust and faith in them and you want me to do the same. A "belief" would be if I was making predictions of when BTC will collapse, or if I was saying it will never collapse. We can guess, but no one can know that for sure.

I certainly do hope it collapses, because it is actually a giant fraud based on nothing. It has no value, it has no fundamentals, it is based entirely on the "belief" that you will be able to dump the coins on someone else some day. Yes, I know that government-backed fiat dollars are also technically like this, those are at least based on the local economy remaining stable, the economy that (unlike any cryptocurrency) is absolutely required to keep your farms and food imports running if you personally want to not experience mass famine and death. If BTC collapses, you can't get your money out because it's worthless; if your local economy collapses, you will have a lot worse problems than not being able to take money out of the bank. And no, you cannot remove the need for a local economy by forcing people to transact in cryptocurrency, businesses will just not transact on markets that are too risky for them.

>you are throwing gotchas that we mostly disregarded years ago

They were not disregarded for any real reasons other than the opinions of the BTC miners and the developers of the protocol. Actually a great many people disagreed with their opinions and thought they were wrong to disregard them, hence the existence of bitcoin forks, and all the other crypto coins that aren't BTC.

I unfortunately understand the BTC maxi attitude, but it's not even consistent with its own world; the goal appears to be to dismiss all the other coins as "shitcoins" for disregarding certain issues with the network in favor of profits, despite that BTC has exactly the same fundamentals and also disregards a lot of issues with the network in favor of profits.
I remember reading an article back in 2015-16 where the author argued that Trump's election was exactly about Ros vs Wade. Specifically they explained that a number of SCOTUS judges were expected to be appointed during the term. Once enough conservative judges were in place, one of the conservative States was going to pass a law with the express goal that it be challenged in front of the SCOTUS,so that they could overturn Roe vs Wade.

That is precisely what happened. I wish I had kept that article, given how impressively prescient it was. Sadly I don't even know where to start looking.

There is a lot that blows my mind with this. The level of planning involved, and the willingness by the American right to set the country on fire to be able to control women's right is just amazing.
Island ECN Source Code
The issue here is that this belief is not based in reality. A fertilized egg is not a human.
Finding it surprisingly hard to reproduce this in dalle-mini
Perhaps what they meant is that it could gain democratic traction within the states where abortions are restricted.
Hypothesis: The extremely rapid movement in the ML space has created, as if overnight, hundreds of new acronyms that we in tech get exposed to.

I haven't otherwise observed a rapid increase of acronym invention in tech.

In the past two months, I have observed on HN what I believe to be a big increase in the number of submissions of Twitter, YouTube, and original academic papers. The former two could invite gratuitous acronym use due to space pressure, and the latter because the expected audience is hyper-focused on experts.
> 2. drugs are available online and there are drugs that can provide medical abortions - perhaps those can be put together.

And you are willing to risk going to prison for murder (that's what they will call it) if caught?
I wanted to keep it broader, but narrowing it down to my specific case:

- location: remote companies with different "original" location (Germany (remote), Barcelona, London)

- role: Software Engineer (full-stack roles, mid-level)

- years: 1.5

- industry: again, all over the place, from Fintech to EdTech

- employer: mostly companies with <200, some startups
I could say the same about you. There is no right to an abortion. Therefore the state is not depriving a person of anything.
Frankly, I judge a person by their personal email address.
So all of reddit can be moderated by 68 people getting paid $50k/yr?
Sorry, I didn't give enough shits to realize we were comparing to the Range Rover and not Landrover SUVs generally. In that case the 4Runner was the wrong comparison point since the Range Rover more directly competes with the LX600 (86k MSRP). I'm not going to dig through the options lists to figure out where the discrepancy is.

My point still stands. Expensive Toyota SUV buying people like to shit on expensive European SUV buying people not because they are of substantially different means but because they are of substantially different tribes.
So "sexual assault only happens when people are near each other, maintain distance to prevent crime."
that's why i never used 2FAs using SMS: they are crap.
If live captioning fails for whatever reason and someone who types slowly needs to communicate, an option is asking the person to speak calmly and clearly as if speaking to an audience of 100 people. Calm simple language makes the guy at the back who can't hear every word understand you and a lip reader who may miss a few words would be able to understand
I agree; I also think it's important to allow the people to decide these kinds of hot, controversial issues.

7 people shouldn't have the power to command millions of people.

It's better to persuade, discuss, debate, change hearts and minds, than to dictate top-down.

I personally believe only women should be allowed to vote on this issue. It's their bodies, and they bear the overwhelming brunt of childcare and labor associated with raising children. They take the risks. They ought to be in the driver seat.
How the FCC can protect consumers from unwanted political text message spam
Dissenting opinion (which I agree) starts on page 148 of the PDF: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf
> It has also been reported that as an additive N-L-lactoyl phenylalanine improves the taste of food, conferring an umami flavor. It is found naturally in significant amounts in some traditional Chinese fermented foods such as preserved pickles and soy sauce.

―https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-Phe
This already happens when the fetus is unviable or already dead, called a D&C. If a doctor and a patient is legally obstructed from D&C, we will have cases where someone has to birth a dead baby or, if their contractions process isn't working, become septic and die.
>> Do you think that religious people should be denied the right to vote or hold office?

> If that’s what it takes, so be it (regarding holding office, at least - voting is not something I would restrict in that way).

Shades of "you can vote for whoever you want to represent you, so long as they're a Communist who will govern according to the will of the party."

> This government is not supposed to let religion dictate policy.

I think you have a serious misunderstanding of the establishment clause.
Author here. This is not a charitable interpretation of what I said. See especially my points at the end explaining how the implementation could be improved.

The bug is that nobody except Apple engineers even know "It's literally designed to that." I had to file a Feedback to discover this.
It's also not 1970 anymore. There's a prophalactic pill, there's morning after pill, and there's freedom of movement between states. Women are capable of exerting self-responsibility over their reproduction, and they are not helpless victims.
"A car is a wheel, and is a wheel, and is a wheel, and is a wheel".
My wife had a successful, “uncomplicated” pregnancy and has permanent lifelong physical and mental damage from it. Not that this is anyone’s business, but apparently I have to share this private information because of all the extreme ignorance out there.

It’s hard to believe there is such ignorance out there that pregnancy isn’t even considered an inconvenience by some men, let alone a life threatening event. If I can object to my corpse being used for organ donation to save lives, a woman should be able to object to her organs being used to support the extreme demands of a growing fetus. But now we are in the odd situation of corpses having more bodily autonomy rights than women.