skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The opinion goes into strenuous detail on the history of marriage cases before the court. This decision was not tearing down "what is marriage?", but pivoted (for Justice Kennedy, who was the deciding vote and wrote the majority opinion) on providing equal dignity. In essence, they found that the core aspects of marriage were upheld in gay marriages and as such they were due equal protection.

Your question — whose dignity falls under the scope of consideration — is the tricky one here. This is malleable and in the US Constitution is reinterpreted as views change. The majority's view is that, as we have seen states experiment with gay marriage and civil unions, we have found the arguments against them to be untenable. We've never defined marriage as being about procreation (e.g. if a man and a post-menopausal woman want to marry that's never been an issue) and we hold it as a form of social cohesion (which applies in LBGT unions, as seen in state who have allowed them.)

Why not siblings? This has a genetic argument against it that was not addressed here. Why not 12 year olds? We don't see their union as a part of the social construct. Again, this decision isn't about tearing down the definition of marriage. It upholds the definition of marriage and says that it applies to same sex couples.
Uber currently pays its drivers 70-80% of its revenue... A self-driving car makes that 0%. Not to mention marketing costs to get new drivers, all those iPhones, etc. Uber's revenue run rate is expected to hit $10B by the end of this year. That's a lot of cash sitting on the table that could be used to finance driverless vehicles.
The quality of my arguments remains fairly constant over time, the reactions to them depend heavily on the politics involved.
I wanna freckin fly, Jetpacks coming soon
You say this as if the particular organizational structure of a company has any bearing on the matter at hand. I think that's a ridiculous notion.

If you're happy with your Volvo, feel free to replace that make with any other you don't like. All the same, really.
Yup, every OS has weird annoying quirks. Funny how this thread is "Windows does lame thing X for me, but my Linux is cool" "Your problem is unusual, Windows works fine for me, but my Linux does lame thing Y" "Your problem is unusual, it works fine for me"...

FWIW, Windows has been mostly painless for me, except for the ridiculously bad command line UI, and my last experience with Linux on the desktop was a circus of weird problems.
Hmmm...the post is not about offense. It is specifically about modern use of "guys" being inclusive, and being perceived as inclusive by the vast number of listeners when used in 2nd person plural.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Atlanta_Motel_v._Un...
Should likely just link to the Reuters article instead:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/26/us-autos-selfdrivi...

This article is just a snippet of Reuters with nothing added and some stuff removed.
I have friends who "got married" in a legally unsanctioned way. No tax penalty, but they still feel like they expressed their commitment to one another.

And yes, obviously there are massive downsides to this approach.
The opinion very specifically did _not_ provided any protected status to gays and lesbians.

Persecution had nothing to do with it.
Even basic SQL can make a lot of things easier in Excel, and SQL is not that complex so it might be doable. And the plugin is perfect for teaching SQL to someone, you can immediately see the effects of queries on data. Just sayin... :)
Gay Marriage Legalized by Top U.S. Court in Landmark Ruling
FarmLogs (YC W12) Is Hiring Hackers, Designers, Scientists, Marketers. Join Us
At my company, each of our API responses sends a randomly selected compliment in an HTTP header. When we're onboarding new engineers, everybody's first commit to the codebase is adding a compliment to the list.

Nobody's noticed yet because the API is currently consumed only by us, but maybe they will someday. :)
A sad day for our country, our highest court and much of our culture has succumbed to social insanity. For my part, I will never under any circumstances recognize by word or deed that any so-called marriage can be or has been established between two persons of the same sex. No government on earth has the power or authority to do that, anymore than a legislature could repeal the law of gravity or a judge could declare a human person to be a toaster oven. With kindness and charity, but with firm resolve, persons of good will should give civil disobedience to this court ruling and all that flows from it.
>Of course, there are even more powerful arguments in favor of marriage equality. For one thing, the black letter language of the Constitution, right smack in the beginning of it prior to any amendments, requires all the states to honor each other's judicial proceedings, public acts, and records.

It's not clear cut as you imply. If it were, Concealed Carry Licenses for handguns would have reciprocity everywhere.
As I learned recently, you can click the time stamp of their comment and flag it for moderator review on the resulting page. That's the path to reporting hateful or unacceptable speech.
[Myth?](http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2014/October/Idaho-Ministers-T...) Also, what about [photographers](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/07/supreme-court-g...) and so on facing fines and criminal charges for not taking on clients? I came across this amusing story too, [pro-gay bakers refuse to make cakes that do not support their own precepts](https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/this-evangelist-asked-a-ga...).

Wait and see though, is what I say.
That is correct. Change in attitude can be reflected by due legislative process, but some of the liberal victories always believed in Fiat, either from the POTUS or SCOTUS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ischemic_cascade

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

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1161422-overview

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2841970/

The status quo of efforts basically discards the totally anoxic tissue after a stroke, focussing on protecting the (often large) partially perfused border region. This is what's practical now, but the fight about the totally ischemic core regions is far from over.

It's a race between anoxic necrosis (which is the point of no return, where passive cell dissolution happens) and active cell death cascades that are triggered in the fully or partially reperfused cell. The latter one can potentially be halted, the first one leads to irreversible information loss. What the actual timing windows are on both of these in the human brain is subject to active research and the view on them is likely to change over the coming years.

I posted links mainly to stroke and TBI-relevant articles, because that's where the research happens. However it's important to keep in mind that the fully dead brain is relatively static, whereas damaged areas in the living brain are subject to internal "cleanup" mechanisms pretty much right away. In this context, prolonged cardiac arrest might turn out to be preferrable to a stroke.
The US civil war was only in 1865. I think if the southern states had tried flying the flag any earlier than WWI, they'd have been met with opposition from people rightfully thinking they were trying to restart the war.
Same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry nationwide, the U.S. Supreme Court said in a historic ruling that caps the biggest civil rights transformation in a half-century.
Atom is a text editor and logs are text files that may need to be edited. It's not unreasonable to expect a text editor to be able to open the various text files littered through a system, and it obviously is a problem to a lot of people. I know that for me personally, I sometimes end up wanting to mangle logs in ways where grep falls short and stream editing with sed or awk is either more cumbersome than using the various tools at my disposal in vim, or just beyond my understanding of these tools.

I can open larger files with emacs, nano, vim, nvi, ed etc., so I think that it's fair to say that the limited buffer size plaguing Atom is a solved problem generally. Somehow it has a built-in package manager, but falls short of ed on very basic text editing facilities.
To be fair, the response you're going to get there is: how about when the US elects a woman as head of state.
They would finance the vehicles and pay for them with the revenue they produce. Rental cars are actually a pretty good case of this for conventional vehicles.
I'm sad to see this happen, not because LGBTs can marry, in my personal opinion I think they should be able to. I just dislike systems in general that force any global mandate and prefer those in which entities can freely compete against one another to decide between one another what works and what doesn't. The two party, winner takes all system the USA has right now, is already too totalitarian IMHO, this just seems like another step in that direction.

I think in the long term all less efficient, less happiness producing systems will loose out anyway. All you need to do is ensure that your system protects the minority enough so that they can freely compete and coexists with all the rest.

But I'm a libertarian, so I think all laws regarding sexual relations between consenting adults should be repealed whether gay or straight...
I like that approach. Might I ask what the header is? HTTP-COMPLIMENT or somesuch?

It could be a fun 'standard'.
I think I just said it's not that clear-cut. :)

Another really helpful thing to remember about the Constitution is that it's incoherent. The framers were not logicians and the Constitution was not an exercise in formal consistency. There are provisions and even rights that conflict directly with each other.

And that's by design, too. The idea is to set up an enduring process that will generally converge, like a good distributed commit algorithm, on the citizenry having access to the channels of power. When that system arrives at a circumstance that implicates a conflicting set of Constitutional mandates, the design of the system is "fuck it, let smart judges chosen (at some remove) by the people resolve that."

The justices are supposed to be referees. They aren't supposed to change the outcome of the game. But anyone who's ever watched more than a couple baseball games knows that it's tough to keep refereeing and outcomes separate.

It happens to make sense to me that (a) allowing MS to deny full faith and credit to MA marriages is overt support for discrimination against LGBT people: it's using an implied principle (respect for people's belief in religious sanctity of marriage) to upturn an explicit principle, and (b) allowing MS to effectively monkeywrench the decisions of other states, so that you're effectively un-married if your job moves you from IA to MS, is undemocratic. So I think the refs made a good call this time. But reasonable people can see it differently.
>Eleven Years ago, Dave Chappelle just outright said "gay sex is just gross, sorry it just is", and it was considered funny and acceptable. (Not harping on him specifically, just pointing out what it was like in 2004)

iirc the bit you're referring to was how saying outrageous things is viewed as acceptable when a white woman does it.

In the black Bush piece he said 'and no gays settling down!' to poke fun at the GOP.
If You're Not Profiling, You're Not Doing Security
Because even if you eliminate discrimination as one degree of freedom in the legal code, that still leaves a lot of room for experimentation. Some states have legalized marijuana, others haven't. Some states have high taxes. Some states have low taxes. Some states allow self-serve gasoline, others don't. I could go on and on. There's an awful lot of room for legal "biodiversity" left.
The math is well defined and rigorous not every analysis that uses it. I think you're conflating those two things.
Same in Portugal. People I know are already doing alternative celebrations to regular marriage, influenced in part by the cost - since marriage celebrations are expected to have certain elements (catering, dresses, etc) which these celebrations do without.

"De facto unions" have existed (for both hetero and homosexual partners) for more than ten years already, and have many of the same rights as married couples, including inheritance, refusal do testify in court, etc.
Absolutely serious question - are riots considered part of political life in the same way protests are? If they are politically motivated, what sets at least these riots apart from terrorism, defined in Oxford Dictionaries as "use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims"?
I've lost count of the number of times I've had to slam on the brakes because a pedestrian walked right into the bike lane without looking. But my closest encounter so far has been with a (particularly stupid) cat, which I missed by mere centimetres.
Easy way to find java memory leaks with javOSize
In 1995, the system was updated to make it applicant-friendly rather than hospital-friendly

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Resident_Matching_Pro...
The Art of Testing Less Without Sacrificing Quality
Thanks for the link, I didn't realise they came this cheap.

Yes the B52 is a bit more "motorbikey" but it has pedals and falls back to being a regular bicycle too. :) It looks like a lot of fun!
> Because I see self-driving cars so often here that it's a non-event

No, you don't. You see cars which have a hands-free driving mode. Every single one of them still absolutely requires a driver.

I've been closely involved in automated transport for years, and the current hype cycle is getting exhausting. There are several orders of magnitude of difficulty between a car which allows drivers to take their hands off the wheel some of the time (or even most of the time), and a car which does not require a driver. We are many years, and possibly decades, away from the latter.
"Excavation cave-ins cause serious and often fatal injuries to workers in the United States. An analysis by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) of workers' compensation claims for 1976 to 1981 in the Supplementary Data System of the Bureau of Labor Statistics suggests that excavation cave-ins caused about 1,000 work-related injuries each year. Of these, about 140 result in permanent disability and 75 in death. Thus, this type of incident is a major cause of deaths associated with work in excavations and accounts for nearly 1% of all annual work-related deaths in the nation."

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/85-110/
This situation is ridiculous, both for taxis and the government... and will only serve Uber in the long term.
Let's share my view as a Frenchy frog :)

1. Taxi drivers began selling each other taxi driver licenses (although they are obtained for free from the state, on a waiting list). They are angry that Uber registers in a new category, so they "skip" the entry price. But, it's only the taxis fault if they bought licenses and thought they had "value".

2. Violent taxi demonstrations should lead these drivers directly in jail. But it's France, so you don't go to jail... and if you're a lobby (and they clearly are), you even don't get arrested.

3. The government is 100% wrong to side with taxis from day one and punish Uber for the taxi drivers riots, rewarding people who harassed drivers and their customers, destroyed cars and burned streets. It's a huge blow for their popularity which is already very very low. It shows a poor image of the state to both citizens and visitors.

4. People will just stop using taxis more and more. Who wants to be driven by violent guys, and who already are usually bad drivers that even harass people who are not their clients (saw one cab driver last week yell at a woman who was wearing a summer dress)?

5. We're now sure that everybody in France knows about Uber!

(and it's not only about Uber, as there is also a French competitor named https://www.chauffeur-prive.com/ )
This is true, and a reasonable point, although it still puts the outcome nearly completely in the driver's hands, which is the part I have a hard time getting past. Given the number of people I see talking on their phones or otherwise distracted and weaving a couple of feet here and there, it wouldn't really take much to end up a hood ornament.
I have to try this next time I'm in the pool. I already kick ass with butterfly, so I should be able to test this theory pretty well.
I think the change from drivers to driver less cars is a large enough one for people to accept and get used to, that it would make sense for uber to have their own small fleets of self driving cars in test cities, so that customers would get used to the self driving car concept in an environment where they could more directly provide feedback to the ones responsible for the car (uber in this case). It would also allow uber to work out issues that may arise from the change. I agree with others who say that this eventually leads to people having their own cars be taxis when not in use, I just consider the idea of uber managing their own small fleet a step towards that.
If you are so intent on redefining/bastardizing marriage, while we're at it, please take a look at family bonds and friendships and see what we can come up with "novel" and "progressive" ideas to add to the conversation.
holy crap! "granted by the US Constitution" - wow, where to begin?

Here, how about this: our 'rights' are not granted by the Constitution, they are emphasized, publicly proclaimed. The Constitution delineates the rights and responsibilities of the GOVERNMENT. Anything granted can be taken away.
What behavior of 19th century Mormons are you referring to? The majority of polygamous relationships were about taking responsibility for widows and their families. Mormons were violently persecuted and polygamy was a support mechanism.
You really think the "oppression" of women in western industrialized nations today is comparable to the oppression of a conquered people in medieval times?
Pick a class and new it up from a unit test. You will quickly find out where the dependencies are, and how tightly coupled things are.
By a wide margin, but Tesla actually makes cars.
Currently, you can file your federal taxes as "married" if you got married in any state that recognizes marriage equality. This right does not end when you move to a different state, so there are couples who have to file as two singles in Alabama but as married to the federal government because they got married in Vermont. So, the answer to your second question is: status quo.

The first question would probably decided by a judge.
Uber and Über drivers were already illegal, even before the protests.

In part because they not pay social security like everyone else and that is part of how they drive the prices down.
Thanks, we updated it to that of the article.
It might seem counter-intuitive, but you are much safer riding with traffic than against it. Drivers are conditioned to look in the direction of traffic and they aren't going to expect someone coming the other way. This ends up causing a lot of accidents at intersections and parking lot entrances.

In my area, [these accidents](http://bicyclesafe.com/#wrongway) are way to common. I almost hit a biker like this the other day because they were riding against traffic past my apartment entrance.

[Here is a stack exchange question with some more stats on the topic](http://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/9033/why-is-it-s...)
Because autonomous cars drive in a world that is 99.99% human drivers, so for automation to be considered viable they have to cope with that not the 00.01% of autonomous-autonomous scenarios.

There is also legitimate security concerns, bad data from bad actors, interference, weather issues, and so on. It is just better to depend on reliable data from sensors and design systems around them, than assuming perfect data from other cars (which might be flawed).
In conclusion to the story, Robin is back on Google Play! Thanks to everybody who contributed to the discussion. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.magnifis.p...
The Navy Is Paying $9M to Keep Using Windows XP
We're not a democracy; we are, and this is essential, a constitutional democracy

Or even a Constitutional Republic - as you say, we're not a mob-rule democracy.
Anyone else think of the Encyclopedia Galactica?

Less is known of "The Mule" than of any character of comparable signifigance to Galactic history. His real name is unknown; his early life mere conjecture. Even the period of his greatest renown is known to us chiefly through the eyes of his antagonists and, principally, through those of a young bride (Bayta Darell)...
No, the beatings will continue for as long as you fail to respect the law. If you want to forbid gay marriage, it's very simple: repeal the fourteenth amendment. (Good luck with that.)

It's like I tell my liberal friends: if you want to regulate guns, it's very simple: repeal the second amendment.
Point taken:) I have no idea where I got the "paint me xyz" from. Thanks for pointing it out, I changed it to "color me interested"
I was just pointing out that it wasn't anti-semetic remarks that got Richards in trouble, it was disparaging remarks against blacks.

Edited the above to make that clearer.
Thank you for sharing this! It stretched my mind a bit. :)
The near collision raises important questions about self-driving cars, including who’s responsible when two are involved in an accident.

Simple. The same sort of accident investigation that we do now would take place, and the owner of the car that caused the accident would be liable.
It's not perceived as exclusionary by >90% of the people in the informal poll cited.
Ah, that totally flew over my head. Thanks!
> the founding fathers did not intend the constitution to provide universal equality for all peoples

In fact, they agreed that some people should be slaves to others and only landholding white males should vote. But the founding fathers intentions are not decisive or necessarily even important (and relying on grasping their intentions is, as I understand it, is not a legal principle but just one philosophy of many).

To emphasize the difference in perspectives: This is not a religion; the Founding Fathers are not gods, and they did not hand down scripture to us. They were the citizens of their day, they did what they did (I think they did very well), and we are the citizens of our day, to do what we think best. That's the essence of democracy; the Constitution and country are now ours, not the property or responsibility of 18th century or 19th century or any other ancestors; they belong to the people, to make of it what we will.

If you think about it, it's a very conservative and pessmistic idea to say we must appeal to these ancient authorities to decide things for us, that we can't do it ourselves just as well (and if you read about the people and politics of that era, you will see they were no different than us). A more optimistic and I think democratic point of view is to say (it's a well-known idea but I don't know who I'm quoting ...), "We are the ones we've been waiting for'.
Yes, it will work on Office 2007, 2010, 2013 on both platforms (x86/x64)
> all Go code is always and automatically asynchronous

wat?
Other reasons too. In the protests in the north of France over British beef (amongst other things) in the 90s(?) there was much burning of lorries.

I doubt it is a french thing either: how many riots end up involving fire (London the other year for instance). At a certain critical mass of angry uncontrolled people, a fire will be started somewhere within or near by.