HN user
Reading the article it wasn't clear to me why exactly they couldn't sell elsewhere cheaper. That seems to be an important detail. Is there some fine print stating if you're 'caught' selling cheaper elsewhere you lose the buy button? This wasn't clear to me from the article.
Not to detract from your sarcasm but the conservation of energy only holds true in flat spacetime. So I guess you don't 'believe' in curved spacetime? That makes you a flat spacetimer I guess...
Docker takes advantage of various linux sandboxing features. On a linux bare metal host it's just a combination of namespaces and resource constraints (cgroups) whereas on other platforms it will have to be the above within a bonafide VM running a linux kernel. The general rule is that linux maintains backward compatability even in ABI so as long as the host kernel is the same or newer than the image requirements it should just work. Things wont work for example if your image requires iouring (a brand new syscall interface) but your host OS is running 4.x (doesn't map iouring syscalls to anything).
I just watched an interesting Veritasium on this aspect of aging: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QRt7LjqJ45k
I had never heard this before. Do you have a source? It seems to me the more informed in virology people are the more they seem to think the 'leak' is the most likely scenario.
I've had a fairly long-term side project working on git for chronological data (data is a cause and effect DAG), know of anybody doing that?
Worst? You mean _highest_? These people will be caring for your kids in their nursing home.
Abraham buys land in Genesis: "For the full price let him give it to me in your presence as property for a burying place." Gen 23:9. Private property contract law is nothing new. My thought is how many of these landlords will end up turning to more nefarious means to make ends meet? It seems when the legal system fails people inevitably turn to vigilantism.
I have to say, hermeneutics is something our western culture has become catastrophically bad at. When the failure of postmodernism became apparent (truths unfortunately must be shared to take any corporate action in society), we seem to have reverted directly back into a Nietzschian nihilism, every group only exists as a means to power. This has begun to erode traditional modernist western ideals which the postmodernists seemed to allow: offensive speech isn't necessarily wrong, interpretation and truth are two sides to the same coin, etc.
My perspective as a conservative:
1. These companies have every right to legally censor those they disagree with.
2. By exercising that right they put themselves at risk of being regulated more stringently (as utilities for example) when they demonstrate inelasticity in consumer choice.
3. I'd rather them not be treated as utilities because that hampers competition and thus impedes efficiency.
4. Your statement above is a farcical caricature of conservative ideology. Every product/service deserves a debate on what regulation is appropriate but as a society regulation only exists because bad actors necessitated its creation. No one wants car seats for their 8 year olds - we'd much rather be trusted to do the right thing.
I'm not the OP but I know several voters who seem to match the OP's sentiment:
1. Abortion is simply the legally sanctioned killing of helpless human beings. I know _many_ single issue voters who begrudgingly voted for trump because of this.
2. Climate change denialism is pretty much anti common sense. Anyone who completely ignores the issue stinks of corruption.
Connecticut
By that same logic why wait for any studies on the vaccine at all? Why not just start administering it as soon as it's developed (en masse)?
The rigor is to give the public confidence that we're better off getting the vaccine than not.
The existence of God does not preclude the existence of intelligent extraterrestrial life. Even the Bible itself references intelligent non-human beings in Genesis. Read the Space Trilogy by CS Lewis.
Not sure why this is being downvoted. I think your logic is sound. Typically vaccinations don't work this way though. AFAIK contagion is proportional to viral load which is inversely proportional to immune response (via some complex function over time from initial infection).
Unfortunately the biggest questions surrounding public policy inevitably fall into realms science can't answer for us.
How far do we go to resuscitate these victims of tragedy? How far do we go as a society to punish wrongdoing? When does institutionalization become dehumanizing? For that matter - what is a disorder versus simply a difference in human beings?
As a doctor, this author should know these are questions her field cannot answer and this overt humanism is just so arrogant.
Yes I grew up around there. Intercourse is close to Paradise.
I think the frustrating thing about this article is that every single observation has obvious exceptions. The thesis "mammals are unique" could just as easily be antithesized by the chosen evidence.
This taxonomical difficulty has always fascinated me. I give biologists the benefit of the doubt that they have solid evidence for their categorization but in the back of my mind I've always been curious about this. Why would these unique features exist in other lineages? Perhaps the space of diversity in behaviors is smallish to the point that random overlap occurs? Maybe it's purely definitional and the actual behaviors are distinct between say mammals and birds?
Or maybe my problem is that I failed my 7th grade taxonomy exam catastrophically and have never quite gotten over that :)
My parents were manipulated into having prenatal disability tests because of my mom's low amniotic fluid during my sister's pregnancy. Tests came back positive and the doctors recommended abortion. My parents were horrified, being pro-life. They endured a traumatic next few months and a premature delivery. That was 1989. My sister was fine but it left my parents with enduring resentment of doctors to this day.
My abortion "policy" has been that it should be illegal to knowingly put an unborn fetus in jeopardy (unless the mother's life is at risk of course) as soon as the pregnancy is known beyond reasonable doubt. I can't imagine any other policy that doesn't dance with eugenics.
I think that the government's prerogative should be facilitating adoption for the baby and mitigating the "unavoidable" inequity to the mother biology has put upon her.
I understand many disagree with the above, I only ask that you keep an open mind as I also try to do about one of the trickiest moral quandaries in the present age.
I will make a shameless plug for marriage. While it is obviously not foolproof, and can go bad just as swiftly as no marriage at all, it is still a good signal of commitment in a partner. If your partner desires to be married (not just to please you I might add) then at least at face value he desires commitment. It isn't just an idle ceremony but a contract and vows with family and friends witnessing ideally to hold you to account.
Best of luck to your friend! ;)
"I will get you to think about a directed graph or as operations on a directed graph". No human thinks about that!
Maybe they should try? Just because I can describe with words what I want to accomplish doesn't mean the implementation will be simple. I'm all for making abstractions over git but the underlying model is extremely robust.
I think the UI layout could use some adjustment though to be fair. Reset is one of the worst offenders in my opinion.
I don't practice law but it seems obvious to me how one would make rulings about marriage laws before and during Obergefell v. Hodges. One of the central tenants of originalism is using words/language according to their original meanings (within reason). Since when have we understood marriage to include same sex? Long after these laws for marriage were put on the books in many cases.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/marriage
So I turn it on you - I'm not an expert so help me understand - how is Obergefell v. Hodges not legislation from the bench when it changes the meaning of these laws unilaterally?
Let me push back one more time. If what you're saying is true, and no judge no matter how much integrity they have can be truly originalist - what do we do? Is our judicial system dead? Should we even try to pick originalists or give up on a third branch and let it be a super legislature? What comes of rule of law? Doesn't this seem like a problem?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_j6lRdktscE
Do you seriously think Scalia cared about protecting people's rights to bear arms beyond the text of the 2nd amendment? Again, what constitutes a true liberal originalist? These justices are not pursuing power but trying to interpret law - and they get accused of undermining democracy...
I believe for the last 30 years or so (after the late Antonin Scalia) 'conservative' judge is almost synonymous with originalist. I think you may be falling victim to correlation is not causation? IE there are no liberal originalists by definition (above). If I'm wrong, could you give me an example of a liberal originalist? I would be very happy to be wrong about this.
The correlation here is that conservative presidents pick justices who object to rulings like Roe v Wade. The mistaken 'cause' is that it is Conservatism that leads to this objection when in fact it could also be that originalists object to legislation from the bench.
Forgive my asking - what's cynical about this title? Should we not believe in people? Is the world not top-down oriented? Sorry - just confused.
Can you give a brief synopsis about how the federalist society is a conspiracy against democracy? I thought it was about originalism which seems to me to be pro-democracy by maintaining proper separation of powers etc.
I think it makes most sense if you see it from the perspective of your child. Having family and friends "witness" your marriage ceremony (especially your vows) has a strong cultural pull toward monogamy to the benefit of raising your children in a two parent household. Apparently the government saw this commitment so valuable they tied into it legislatively.
It seems the anti-nuclear crowd on HN always points out the cost/MWH vs wind/solar as a sort of coup des grace against nuclear but I have never understood that argument. Can someone help me to understand how the same reasoning couldn't be applied to fusion entrepreneurship as well? The cost per MWH for fusion right now is infinity because we can't _yet_ get net energy gain. Should the current inefficiency stop innovation and investment?
I know many people who vote Republican only because of abortion. The fact is that pro-life people see this as the greatest injustice of our society by a wide margin. The left is motivated by BLM and the right is by pro-life.