HN does generally feel the same about Apple. 30% cut is egregious especially when they give favors to certain app owners.
“Court System” is very contextual: the Texas Supreme Court just blocked a woman getting an abortion for a non-viable pregnancy.
“Court System” is very contextual: the Texas Supreme Court just blocked a woman getting an abortion for a non-viable pregnancy.
It's inventory, delivery, and to an extent stewardship. The same with Steam. I don't expect junk and I expect refunds when I find it. Once you split that to a vendor the perverse incentives kick in and you end up right back in the Bad Place.
I personally think somewhere in the neighborhood of 18% is probably closer to sustainable, given all that we expect. And I also think Apple fucked up. If they had voluntarily reduced their fees and created the intro level at the same time, and a year or so earlier, they could have picked a higher number than they are likely now to end up with when all is said and done.
I meant the Hidden Notification Entitlement. By default iOS requires you to display a notification when you receive one.
But that conflicts with the idea of encrypting notifications. See here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38545984
That said, if I could not pay both Steam and Apple for Civ VI DLC, that would make me so happy
Not exactly. That would be a purely progressive tax like US income taxes. With the Small Business Program, what you say is only true the first time you cross 1 mil. Assuming your revenue never goes down (you can appeal if it does), in all future years you pay the full price. So if your app makes a consistent $1.5 mil / year, you’re paying the full tax on all of that revenue, not just $.5 of it.
The original filing said "It is also Dr. Karsan’s good faith belief and medical recommendation that that the Emergent Medical Condition Exception to Texas’s abortion bans and laws permits an abortion in Ms. Cox’s circumstances, as Ms. Cox has a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from her current pregnancy that places her at risk of death or poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of her reproductive functions if a D&E abortion is not performed. Dr. Karsan is unsure how close to death her patients need to be before abortion is permitted under Texas law. As has been the case with prior patients over the last two years, Dr. Karsan is unsure if Ms. Cox’s current medical condition counts as close enough to death under Texas law for the Emergent Medical Condition Exception to apply." (clauses 139,140)
The Texas Supreme Court said "The pleadings state that Ms. Cox's doctor believes Ms. Cox qualifies for an abortion based on the medical-necessity exception. But when she sued seeking a court's pre-authorization, Dr. Karsan did not assert that Ms. Cox has a 'life-threatening physical condition' or that, in Dr. Karsan's reasonable medical judgement, an abortion is necessary because Ms. Cox has the type of condition the exception requires."
In short, the court decided that Dr. Karsan described the statute, and that Dr. Karsan stated that the statute applied, but Dr. Karsan did not actually say "the patient had a life-threatening physical condition," but only that the patient WOULD have a life-threatening condition if an abortion were not performed. Or at least that's probably the argument; it's not explained very well. Therefore, the Court cannot not rule on whether the abortion is legal or not. After all, only a doctor could make that determination, not a court (you can read the smirk).
Truly an amazing decision, and if there's an award in Hell for achievements in pedantry, that court would have a real shot. Sadly, the Court would probably be disqualified for such an award as they technically lied (Dr. Karsan did in fact say "Ms. Cox has a life-threatening physical condition"), and one presumes Hell's Pedantry Awards interpret such rules quite strictly.
Numbers 5 gives a process for distilling a “bitter water” and circumstance under which to induce an abortion with said water.
In case you’re curious it’s simply if a husband has “a jealousy” and fear that his wife has “laid with another man.”
In other words reincarnation.
In a way we were set up before birth as said by Jeremiah above, because our DNA existed before we became the fertilized egg. Our DNA was in two parts which were then combined by the act of conception.
As a practical matter, they know that many women won't realize they're pregnant until it's too late to feasibly schedule the procedure. They're minimizing the number of abortions while moving what the American public sees as reasonable from 24 weeks to 6. Once everyone's used to six, they can reduce it even more.
I grew up in an ultra conservative religious community, and as a kid, stuffed envelopes for a pro-life candidate’s campaign without fully understanding what it was I was doing, because I was a kid. I’ve seen the mindset up close, and it’s very worrisome.
Do think it’s ultimately short sighted because of the likely pendulum swing. But there is certainly a lot of damage to be done before that happens.
These ultra religious groups provide a sense of community, and the highly restrictive rules and policies they espouse give them a sense of control - something that many of them have lost in various ways. It’s as sad as it is dangerous.
Looking at data from 2022, about 13.6% of the population is White Evangelical Protestant, but that's been on the decline. It was around 25% a couple decades ago. Overall, just over half of the country is Christian, most being Protestant of some denomination.
But it's the White Evangelical Protestants that are the big driver here. You might think it's the 12.6% White Catholic and the 8.6% Hispanic Catholic populations that are the most fervently anti-abortion, but most actually vote for more liberal politicians.
The thing is, Evangelicals, if I understand correctly, weren't even that anti-abortion to begin with. That was seen as more of a Catholic issue historically. But what they're very big on is the idea that 1) America is the greatest country in the world, and 2) America is great because it's a Christian country. As such, they feel it's important to elect Christian leaders who feel and think like they do. And because they are predominantly white and their leadership is exclusively male, they want white men to be in control. (And I say this as a white, cisgender man.)
Because they've always been such a large percentage of the US population, and, more recently, because US distracting gives rural voters a greater voice than urban voters, they've been a large political force in the country since the 19th century, but in the 20th century, they were never so large as to completely dominate US politics. And this kinda worked well for both sides in the early 20th, since towns, counties, and states dominated by Evangelicals were largely autonomous enough to do whatever they wanted locally. But when desegregation came, and women entered the workforce in greater numbers, Evangelicals were forced to accept nonwhites and women holding important positions, even in their areas of the country.
Abortion became an issue they could use to gain support from Catholic voters, and as a wedge issue for the larger community. For Evangelicals, it was less about writing specific religious creeds into law, and more about forming strategies to gain political power so they could put the "right people" in back in charge of the country. It also helps reinforce that men are in control by removing autonomy from women.
https://www.prri.org/spotlight/prri-2022-american-values-atl...
If you can make people believe that you can make them believe anything.
That's their goal, make critical thinking unpopular, condemnable and "sinful".
That is an interesting question which may have something to do with Game Theory and Prisoner's Dilemma. Even though Republicans as a whole will lose votes because of this, each individual Republican candidate will stand to gain an advantage over their primaries rivals by being perceived as more uncompromising, more principled.
And it is curious if not silly, 6 weeks is seen as, conceived to be "more principled", than 7 weeks.
One way to look at it is that killing millions of people is NOT morally equivalent to killing 1 person. Is it?
Similarly killing 100 cells of a just fertilized egg is not morally equivalent to killing a born person with 30 trillion cells.
Time limits can be a pragmatic and tested solution. I think most European countries use 12 to 15 weeks.
But if you want a shorter time-limit you should give a good rationale for it. Why you want it 6 weeks but not 1 week?
Whereas those who didn't propose any change to Roe vs. Wade do not really need a reason for NOT making a change. There must be a reason when we make or try to make a change.
I'd laugh, if it wasn't a situation with so much real harm to real people.