skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
>there's no need to create a report that goes over 99.999% of the whole problem space.

I agree, but the threat of lawsuits is why they have to be so exhaustive.
That works in principle but not in practice. The core issue in roe v wade was tossing out precedent while failing to show reasoning why tossing out precedent should be ok. So now the court seems to be chaotic. Whatever the makeup of the court, they may toss out precedent that doesn’t match the current majority’s interpretation of the constitution (of which there are many). Then suppose the scotus becomes a liberal majority. Then they may reinstate all the tossed out precedents. That’s just chaos, with the main focus becoming which party chooses justices, not any reasonable continuity and coherence of constitutional law.
I don't understand how these records were sent, and how it was confirmed they weren't deleted.

It can't be tracking info, Facebook doesn't give access to such things outside the company, so the authors wouldn't have been able to confirm the records sent were still available. Also, technically the pharmacy wouldn't be sending those records, the fake user's browser would be sending them.

If I had to guess, the fake pharmacy created "Custom Audiences" -- lists of identifying info, like email addresses, that Facebook can use to serve an ad to a specific person-- and labeled them as people that had purchased some specific drug. You can name these whatever you want, and can read their contents.

API docs here: https://developers.facebook.com/docs/marketing-api/reference...

There's no complex tagging system, it looks like name and description are the only places where you could say this is a list of people that bought a specific drug.
This case could have been decided either way. The result clearly depends on the makeup of the Court and the justices' personal inclinations. As evidence: a very similar question was decided by the Court in 2009, with a completely different result [1].

[1] https://ballotpedia.org/Massachusetts_v._Environmental_Prote...
As you start developing server software, you quickly find the need to do things asynchronously, by passing messages back and forth between various services. A common use case would be using celery to do job processing outside your web server. Another example might be calling webhooks, and doing other integrations. When architecting these things you might reach to a message queue. Different message protocols are either "at least once", or "at most once" delivery, and there is no "exactly once". In this talk we will discuss why "exactly once" is impossible, and some things you can do to mitigate it and get around the limitation.
Of course, this will come off as reactionary, but I gotta say it.

I don’t understand the logic behind the Supreme Court. How can such a tiny group of people, until the day they die, that weren’t appointed by the people, make decisions that affect all of human society?

Seems so anti-democratic to me.
Oh completely. It should be, but its also a black box which they refuse to discuss.

You don't know me, but it's totally fine to drink this this mysterious blue liquid. I pinky promise it isn't toilet cleaner.
> If something like that can't make it through congress then it isn't democratic

Ah, yes. The institution where 41 Senators, representing a mere 22% of the US population can block legislation is the zenith of democracy. Especially when considering the legislation we're talking about is as a response to a court case ruled by 6 judges, 5 of which were appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote, approved by senators representing fewer citizens than the senators who voted against their approval. Real nice system of democracy.
It is inspiring.
The court has already ruled in Chevron v. NRDC that executive agencies have deference in interpretation of statues if Congress has not explicitly granted that power. The Clean Air act was passed in 1970 to ensure air quality, through science and the advancement of our understanding the EPA has identified CO2 as a toxic pollutant. I don't understand why we need an updated law by Congress when the EPA is much closer to the issue.
Trying to understand what this is. A kind of Erlang runtime for Go/Java/PHP/TS?
This is the problem with partisanship.

Blockade of judges started in 2001, when Democrats declared Bush illigetimate, and decided that no judges would be selected. Republicans threatened the "nuclear option" (removing fillibusters). The "Gang of 14" in 2005 wrote ideological ground rules and approved a set number of judges to keep the nuclear option from being used.

Obama came to office, and the Democrats used the nuclear option - despite the gang of 14 framework, but then said that it doesn't apply to supreme court ballots. Republicans came in and decided that yes, it did apply.

We've been destroying our own government with crap like this for the last 20 years.

Partisanship is a hell of a drug.
> it makes the US completely incapable of operating in the modern world.

A less pessimistic outcome is that it forces the US to operate more like the EU, which seems more than capable of operating in the modern world.

Whether that actually happens remains to be seen.
Couldn't agree with you more. Democracy literally means "people rule." As the rulers, you occasionally have to rule. It blows my mind that so many people act really angry about states that gerrymander or take away abortion rights, but can't even name a single state legislature. The little political motivation people have gets funneled into a few super-popular national issues regardless of their political feasibility, so Congresspeople are incentivized to virtue signal rather than get legislation though.
Why do they trust that?

D'you think it might have something to do with the state willing to violently require you accept its currency?
Yeah, they're ahead of you on that one. Already zapped the Voting Rights Act and ruled that gerrymandering is legal. They're pretty competent at setting up the doom loop for Democracy - that and cutting taxes for the wealthy.
>It was the court saying it was a right not to be infringed upon.

Roe v Wade was ruled on the basis of the 14th amendment due process clause regarding the right to privacy. Anyone who thought this ruling was an iron-clad blanket right to abortion was fooling themselves.

Abortion is not specifically enumerated in the constitution. Just like everything else not in the constitution, it's up to States to make their own laws regarding it.
Another approach is to only run credentials that are ephemeral, which is sort of what most SSO systems will do for cloud IAM. Instance profiles using IDMSv2 work as well, too. However some malware out there only needs a few seconds of dwell time to wreak some serious havoc so even ephemeral credentials may as well be the same as static credentials potentially, especially if your credentials are used to do permanent privilege escalation. All it really can do then is provide a time window of usage and make filtering through a SIEM much more accurate, which is certainly valuable for forensics at the very least and even more important in terms of law (chain of custody, irrefutability, etc).
>We have 50+ years of Congress delegating authority and blame to various other branches

This became very apparent to me after pushed Congress to pass an Authorization of Military Force around ~2014. They balked, effectively continuing the trend of delegating their war-making abilities to the executive branch.
If that's all it is then fine. But it seems to be just the first step to what many fear will become a system tied to digital currency, speech and social credit.
It's a 2018 piece.
Wouldn’t companies switch to a one time purchase or open source model if mongo stopped developing new features? Why would they continue paying a subscription for a product that doesn’t improve when money is tight? Especially when there are plenty of mongo competitors.
No, that process was broken in 2001 - and temporarily restated wit the gang of 14 - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_14

It's a much bigger problem then just this.
The Constitution doesn't say that the Supreme Court is the final say?

Constitution, Article 3

> The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
It also makes it easier for states to expand access to abortion, including expanding it up through the 3rd trimester. Just today, CA put a Constitutional amendment on the ballot in November to allow up to the final minute abortions.

That ruling gave power back to the people and state legislatures. It benefit blue states as much as red.
If we had a parliamentary system, I would agree with you. But the actual on the ground reality is Congress does not represent the actual will of the people due to malaportionment.
> this court will reduce the Federal government to a non-entity very soon

This is an absurd take. All Congress needs to do is clarify that they’d like the EPA to regulate carbon emissions. That’s it. The laws regarding pollution control, many of which date back to the 1950s and 1960s, we’re not written with global warming in mind. So the court is saying the EPA needs to get permission from elected officials to regulate carbon.
Ask HN: Who Created QR Payments?
By which I mean the concept/first MVP, not necessarily the first successful product launch which IIRC was WeChat.

Anyone knows?
Anyone paying attention was pretty certain Trump was going to win that. All you had to do was look at Trumps subreddit vs Hilarys. Look at Trumps rally turnouts. The energy behind Trump was insane and it seemed pretty clear something was going on in the media to make it sound like only a "minority" of people supported him. That's why I bet around $1000 with some coworkers he would win that were certain he was going to get destroyed.

Note: This isn't me saying I support or don't support Trump.
Until demand drops, Amazon limiting Plan B purchases to 3 per week
This is a win for corruption.
Oh I rely like the idea and was very close to building something like that myself. I will definitely take a close look :)
IMO the reason to suspect that git is independent from the SaaS products, is that you can create and commit (and merge and most other things) to a local repo without ever pushing it to GitHub or any other site.
If i read the code published on github and later i do not infringe on any license.
If later i'm hired to implement some function chances are that i'll produce code which is similar to what i've learned from github.
Or if somebody asks me on how to implement some function and i can respond: Hey that and that project on github already doing it, just use it, i'm not infringing on any license.
Now, replace "I" in the above paragraph by "Copilot".
It seems that Copilot is not infringing on anything...
They're pretty much at the point of flat out lying about things, like the prayer case. Sotomayor, in her dissent, included actual photographs of the coach huddling/praying with the whole team, which is quite coercive behavior. It wasn't a 'quiet prayer'.

https://twitter.com/cristianafarias/status/15414273388266291...
That's exactly correct.
What is democratic about the European Commission?

Having an executive made up of people selected by other politicians for political reasons is all very well as long as they understand that they do not have much legitimacy.

JC Junker, for all that he was a bit of an old sot, understood this very well.

Von der Leyen, either because of her immensely privileged background, or because of her inability to communicate in any diplomatic way, has revealed the undemocratic abomination at the heart of the European Project.

Her press conference with Stoltenberg (and Belgian nonentity Michel) at the outset of the Ukraine war deprived the EU of any room for manoeuvre in relations with Russia. She unilaterally committed hundreds of millions of people to a diplomatically absolutist position. Furthermore, she actively spun against attempts by Macron and Scholz to moderate that position.

The EU cannot continue like this: already I'm quite dubious as to whether it will survive the winter, with double digit inflation and mass industrial layoffs in prospect.

If Putin wants to play divide et impera with Russian fossil fuel supplies, she has certainly created the ideal conditions for him to do so.

She is corrupt (see Pfizer SMS) and unaccountable.
Embrace, extend, and extinguish is still alive.
Build your own GitHub Copilot with Salesforce CodeGen AI [video]
It is explicit in the Constitution that people have rights not listed in it. Those unenumerated rights are, by their nature, not listed, but I find it hard to credit the idea that Americans don't have a right to privacy.

> You also ignored my example of 2A

Sure, because everyone does. The number of people arguing bans on personal ownership of nuclear arms are unconstitutional is... small. Even originalist/textualists seem to agree it's by no means absolute.
Your citation doesn't entirely support your argument. The court said "[vast] economic and political significance." This seems like a power grab by the court because now they and they alone can decide what has "vast significance," not the legislature and not the executive.
Wow. Seversky was the guy advocating for long-range air power in WWII. He wrote Victory Through Air Power, which inspired Disney to finance an animated film on the subject out of his own pocket. Seversky appears in person in the film to introduce some concepts. The film is just amazing. It was available as part of a Disney DVD compilation quite a few years ago (Disney in the Trenches? [edit to correct title of box set: it was "Walt Disney Treasures - On the Front Lines"]). The standalone film is on archive.org:

https://archive.org/details/VictoryThroughAirPower

Edit to add: Here's the Wikipedia page about Victory Through Air Power

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victory_Through_Air_Power

From the page:

Filmmaker Walt Disney read the book, and felt that its message was so important that he would personally finance a partly-animated short, also called Victory Through Air Power, which was released in July 1943.[3] Disney's purpose for creating the film was to promote Seversky's theories to government officials and the public. After seeing the film, Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt decided that Seversky knew what he was talking about, changing the course of the war.
I tried to find a more precise answer but technically an ion-drive is an electric motor, so I'm guessing it's comparable. The thing is that based on the couple demos I watched the flight seems really erratic. It makes me wonder if the fuel supply is somewhat inconsistent i.e. air turbulence makes the actual theoretical energy efficiency moot.
Where is this neutral body? Half of the court was explicitly groomed to take a partisan stance. They even have the ability to choose their own cases, plus a shadow docket.
I wonder if these would be a good choice for motorcycle riders. Regular helmet mics are noisy.
I bring it up because the reasoning I’m arguing against is not scale dependent so if you up the stakes and apply the same reasoning it suddenly is a lot less palatable.

So you amend the rule to be “you follow local laws that harm vulnerable classes of people as long as it’s just a little harm … as a treat” and it sounds ridiculous.
So CO2=0 would be legit? That seems against the spirit / motivation of the court at present moment. My third-hand impression was that they ruled that regulating CO2 at all was outside their responsibilities.
I think by the time you get to that point, you have no good options.

However, if the status of the company is more adequately described to the employees over time, you can "boil the frog" as it were, and never have to actually lie but still admit that layoffs may be coming if X or Y doesn't happen.

I bet it's much MORE common for the lie to happen in pre-public stages, where they're still trying to "sell" the company as perfectly sized and poised to grow to investors, VCs, etc.
You've almost got it, but you need to go one step further.

Congress isn't democratic. Congress is overly concentrated.

To begin with, the Senate is absurdly anti-democratic. The 710K residents of Washington, DC don't get a vote there at all. The 600K residents of Wyoming get the same 2 votes as Vermont (620K) and California (39 million). Anything that says that Texas and West Virginia are equal to each other in some mystical sense of having equal weight in decisions that affect the whole country is an ideology not compatible with democracy.

Then, the House of Representatives is (a) absurdly gerrymandered and (b) absurdly undersized. One rep per 750,000 people on average, up from one rep per 210,000 people in 1909 and up from one per 34,000 in 1800.

Any Constitutional "originalist" who thinks that the House of Representatives is just fine at 435 reps is a hypocrite. At one per 34,000, we need about ten thousand reps to meet the standards of representation that the founders thought was reasonable.

Oddly, that would solve the other major problem with the House of Representatives: the 2 year term is fine if the rep only has to persuade the majority of 34,000 people or so. A small campaign can win. A simple requirement that all districts must be compact, convex and allocated according to a geographic/population algorithm would cure the gerrymandering, too.
The court self limiting their own power, and pushing it down to an democratically elected body (the congress) is good for individual liberty.
Adapt and overcome. I'm against panic and FUD.
Theoretically, maybe you could do it over letters. Just like you could run a computing algorith with horsemen and flags in place of a CPU (like in the scifi novel, Three Body Problem).

Practically, you are talking nonsense and it's patently impossible. You cannot run any crypto currency with a system of letters even if you're transporting them with the full infrastrcture of the modern world with it's airmail and diesel vans.

Try and do it with letters delivered on foot. It is actually impossible.
Best comment. Nobody can prove or disprove consciousness.
This is short and to the point. I dislike patents, but as far as patents go this is a very good one.

In patents my company has filed, the goal is to describe the invention in the most obtuse and general language possible. It would be nearly impossible to use the patent to create the actual product described and the patent covers far more than the current product itself in an attempt to not only prevent anyone else from making anything similar but also to deliberately confuse the reader.

I was completely shocked that our patents were granted with very little push back from the examiner. I hate that my name is on them.
'Belief'... is now a problem?

If you can't believe even in a possibility, how can you do science? How can one even formulate a hypothesis and attempt to falsify it without in the first place believing in some potential outcome?

Skepticism requires an open mind to ongoing evidence and change of circumstances, not one proclaiming outright that 'belief' in itself can be a problem.

This rush to disbelief AI sentience is just as bad as those who proclaim outright that AI has reached the level of sentience. Neither, if you notice, constitutes a proper approach to science.
"duty to force some pain on the citizenry"

You do know that coal power kills more people than any other power source right? That makes health care a hidden cost, paid by the citizenry, to subsidise an irresponsible energy industry.

Think much?
I'm loving where the WASM world is going, and really do see something like NATS totally simplify the WASM/serverless use case in so many ways. Thanks for sharing!
> Because the Linux community also cares about expanding freedom- and privacy-respecting general purpose computing to as broad a user base as possible.

This is, at most, a niche fraction of the Linux community.

Most people and companies involved with Linux care that it works for their own needs, not about abstract "software freedom" ideologies.
It largely had been up until 1984, when Chevron v NRDC was decided in a way that yielded a _deference_ that previously didn't exist in determining the scope of executive branch delegation authority via statutory interpretation - e.g., "Can the agency I've tasked with regulating John also regulate the Boy Scouts of America, of which John is a member?" and "If a regulatory agency can regulate John, can it determine for itself that it may also regulate John's best friend Janet just by reinterpreting the statute for itself without input by the executive or congressional branches?"
Some sort of pesky "constitution...?"
Not everything.

It's abundantly clear from the Dobbs majority opinion they will not accept a Roe statue from Congress, that they would overturn it on 10th amendment grounds. It's not an express power Congress has, thus it's strictly up to states. Since they also stated in Dobbs they'd use rational basis scrutiny, the lowest scrutiny possible, when judging state laws on abortion restrictions, I expect they will accept state laws that:

* define moment of conception as murder

* fetus as citizen in fact, meaning out of state abortions are also subject to murder charges

* high burden of proof on women, low burden of proof for the state, that a miscarriage rather than abortion occurred

* hold abortion-is-legal states to article 4, section 1 "full faith and credit", i.e. civil fines and extradition for persons fleeing judgements in abortion-is-not-legal states

* hold companies paying for abortion procedures and travel as party to a crime

The Court is lost for a generation, short of expanding the Court. There is no chance 3/4 of the states will ratify a constitutional amendment on this issue. And there's a lot more litigation to come.

And should it come to the Court, I expect they will set aside Griswold, Lawrence, Obergefell using the same logic - it's not a federal power. How they could possible not reverse Loving, I'm not sure, except that likely no state is as yet backward enough to try and making interracial marriage illegal once again.

I think there is merit in the argument that we've been asking the Court to be expedient, while then not doing the dirty work of putting these rights in constitutional amendments. Instead we're kicking the can down the road, but then we are also avoiding a lot of public contention arguing about it - for good and probably not for good to some degree. But look at the polling. Most Americans now disapprove of the judiciary nearly as much as Congress. With all three branches of government at historic low approval, it is very damaging to representative democracy that this has happened, not least of which is that an unpopularly elected president put these three justices on the Court who lied under oath that these cases are "settled law", and yet just deeply unsettled one of them.
Like the school prayer case from yesterday where Gorsuch was literally making things up in his opinion, so Sontomayer included photos of the offending action to show that Gorsuch was making things up in his opinion?

The legal trappings of the conservative positions have been explicitly merely legal trappings.
How do you know this? Do you disagree with the outcomes or agree with them? If you disagree with the outcomes then it may come across as calling people who disagree with you tribal because they reached the "wrong" conclusions.
The audio sample sounds absolutely terrible - it’s muddy, there are constant shuffling noises, gulping. I get 100x cleaner mic input out of a pair of wired Apple EarPods, which are cheap and Just Work TM.
Because we are now at the point where we can just make shit up as we go along and anyone who can string together 3 words has a coherent argument for whatever they want.