Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | dddddddan's commentslogin

What? Yes it is. If you opened that link on desktop though it will show that message since it will try to open the mac app store.


Homebrew is such a huge pile of crap: terrible migration paths, constantly removing things, no _easy_ way to pin versions.

Nix has already replaced it for me. I'm not getting involved in any NFT stuff, it's all just scams all the way down.


How is it nominal? The current MacPro (which most of the target market would already be using) has a power supply that is >1kW. It's insane that this this is faster than the existing MacPro with a tiny power draw in comparison.


What? Do you have any proof of that?


Doesn't look like you can actually purchase anything from them yet.


It does now with actor based concurrency


Just curious why the three different constant values here: https://github.com/jbroll/xlsx-expr/blob/master/xlsx.tcl#L30...


looks like a conversion from a Julian date


You haven't cited any data.


> Among the 469 cases in Massachusetts residents, 346 (74%) occurred in persons who were fully vaccinated

> Among five COVID-19 patients who were hospitalized, four were fully vaccinated

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm


I think I missed where politicians are a protected class.


Can government force companies (say, Parlor or Gab) to display posts from a protected class they wouldn't want to host? Forcing a platform to display women or black or other group's posts seems like it'd be equally anti-First Amendment to me.


Its an interesting question, the gay wedding cake case "Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission" was a first test and it seems to say probably not but the final judgement was based on religious freedom. Will probably need another case to determine.

Regarding my personal opinion, I think they should be allowed to deny service to who they want as its a core feature of the business. I think this is different than a say black / white restricted eating areas as the core feature of those business' is to feed people, not to facilitate personal race / sexuality based interactions. Just my opinion though I am sure there are edge cases that would make me pause.


It is my (layman, not-a-lawyer, possibly incorrect) understanding that, if they were to state that they did not allow a protect class to join and banned all members of that class from joining, they would encounter significant legal issues. Which would most likely be avoided by just enacting the policy silently (risky) or becoming an invite-only service (probably legal).


This bill wasn't specifically aimed at only politicians. Try reading the entire thing instead of listening to sound bites on CNN.


This just shows you don't understand what the 1st amendment is.


I understand it perfectly and your "it's a private business" retort doesn't hold up in my opinion.

Feel free to read my multiple other comments. The government can restrict your speech by means other than passing laws.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: