overrun11

There are appropriate, consistent definitions for what a woman is. The fact that there are somewhat vague boundary cases is true of any definition of real world things and not an indictment of its utility.

Short sales, in the United States at least, limit downside. You can generally sell a house underwater and not owe anything, so the risk to you is only whatever you put in plus some harm to your credit worthiness over the next 5-7 years.

> because covid unlike the flue will kill people that are other perfectly healthy

Not true. Every flu season there are stories of young people in great shape– often athletes or in the military, who die due to the flu.

> Covid has BECOME a disease that primarily effects the elderly and immunocompromised.

Could you point to a reference on this? My understanding was COVID had always primarily affected the elderly and immunocompromised.

Currently there is far lower proportional representation of low income students in college than of any race targeted by affirmative action. So clearly something isn't working.

Low income students are obviously disadvantaged in the admissions process and current affirmative action processes are not remedying it. So the question remains: why shouldn't socioeconomic status be added as a factor for affirmative action?

> it applies to all minorities, including Asian people

This is explicitly not true, unless you mean that affirmative action applies to Asians by negatively affecting their chances of college admission. Could you cite a source as I'm confused where you'd get this idea from?

Heuristics like this seem pretty useless. It's true for basically all political rhetoric. The right is made up of dumb, weak incels living in their parents basement but also are going to usher in an era of totalitarian control and fascism.

It seems pretty natural to denigrate your enemies as well as play up the fear depending on your goals at that particular moment.

Was their argument rigorous or obviously irrational? On the spectrum of plausibility from lizard people to JFK, 9/11 doesn't strike me as especially delusional. I believe we sometimes don't differentiate well enough between abnormally suspicious people that act rationally from the clearly deranged. Non-consensus views could be a sign of either but a failure mode a different set of smart people have is to write off anything non-consensus merely because it's low status.

I've seen this: https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.01296 but I'm not qualified to really interpret it

There's no possible reading of the original comment where it is "objectively incorrect." Clarifying what is meant by extremely vague labels like "Pro-choice" and "Pro-life" is far from a definition game.

> what matters is how many approve of Roe being overturned

Exceptionally few people understand exactly what the implications of Roe are so this framing is useless.

You'll need to carve out a definition of "viable" that excludes late term fetuses that could survive outside the womb but includes born babies that cannot survive without the care of adults.

Yeah I reject that definition and am not particularly considered with dictionary definitions when determining what is moral.

By this definition we couldn't consider any killing sanctioned by the state to be murder.

Ok but the original comment from andrewclunn was clearly correct and your response incorrect. His point was that when nuance is added, the majority belief is less clear. This seems pretty important when there is no definitive understanding of exactly what "pro-choice" means.

You've now retreated to an argument that no one was making.

Society has already decided that proving guilt in a drunk driving case is a sufficient reason to violate bodily autonomy. I argue that saving a life is far more important than proving guilt for a fairly petty crime, therefore by the already accepted standard, it would be permissible to force the transfusion for this purpose.

I agree it would be difficult to force a pilot to fly a plane, in this way it's not quite analogous. However, imagine if by some miracle the plane is landed without the pilots help– passenger happens to be a pilot, stewardess talked over the radio how to execute a crash landing etc. Should the pilot be charged with any crime upon safely reaching the ground?

The substance of this argument is essentially "If you don't support every social policy I do then you do not have any basis to object to what you believe to be murder."

Obviously absurd and far beneath the level of rigor I'd expect on HN.

Am I misreading this? Your link seems to verify the claim of the person you are responding to. Only 19% support legal abortion in all cases without exceptions.

Different people have different sets of principles by which they measure progress and sometimes those principles run in opposition to one another.

Even serious pro-choice scholars concede that a fetus is biologically a human life e.g., Peter Singer. If your argument is that a child is definitional not unborn then that is a semantic argument of no moral relevance.

In the United States a warrant is sufficient for a compulsory blood test to check blood alcohol levels. If we accept that proving guilt in court is an appropriate reason to violate bodily autonomy than so too would saving the life of someone who's been endangered by your actions.

Morally however, I also do think it's wrong to not give the blood transfusion because the burden is small and the cost of not doing so is large. Whether it rises to the level of murder is a tougher question that I think would depend on intent.

Do you think a suicidal pilot has the right to stop flying a plane mid-flight even if she knows that no one else on the plane will be capable of landing it?

Wildly inconsistent how? I'm asking in good faith and would like an example of an actual logical inconsistency, not a meme non sequitur about AR-15's or free healthcare.

We don't use this standard of reasoning for anything else. If abortion is murder then it ought to be banned regardless of how effective the ban may be.

Your job is to argue that abortion is not murder. Any argument that sidesteps the morality of abortion is not going to convince anyone.

I think people like to exaggerate the difficulty of these interviews to excuse themselves for not having one of these jobs.

The lifestyle/compensation gap between top tier tech and everything else is enormous and it's a tough pill to swallow that the only thing keeping you out is some light studying every day for a few weeks/months.

The average college graduate makes ~60k out of school. The median law school new grad makes ~80k. Yet a large group on Hacker News acts like anyone who studies enough to get into a FAANG company fell for some horrible scam.

I've studied less than 200 hours in my life and now make ~320k and expect to get ~450k when I switch jobs later this year (both remote)– I have only a high school diploma. Chalk me up as another victim of big tech... I guess I should've been more "skeptical".

The rigor of an intro level algorithms course at a serious school far exceeds what is expected in a FAANG Leetcode interview.

My understanding is that companies like these have equity that is easily liquidated privately? No direct experience though, I could be wrong.

Complaints are definitely useful but I'm not sure aggregate star rating data would add anything.

It's not a "solved problem" because your proposed solution wouldn't even work. Officers have discretion over who to engage/pull over which makes it totally different from most customer facing roles.

If the rest of the police force is doing the right thing and not modifying their behavior to get a better score then a single officer can always perform better than average by avoiding potentially negative encounters. This doesn't even get into differences in job duties/ patrol area that can totally skew the data even if every officer plays by the rules.

Doesn't follow at all from anything I said.

You've ignored the point. Twitter made the claim that they made a mistake, should they be held to your standard that "you have to offer evidence to prove that claim."