https://text.npr.org is also a text only version of npr

I remember using both this and cnn lite 8 years ago quite a bit right around this time, cool to see they’re still going strong.

nice, reminds me using rss decades ago

That is what this article is about, changing the expectations of researchers and journals to be willing to publish and read research without p values.

I see. Thanks for clarifying.

I don't agree with overruling Chevron but saying "if they are going to try and override Chevron from the bench without legislation, then we have to ignore them" makes no sense because Chevron was not made by legislation in the first place. It was made by SCOTUS. It comes from the case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

I'm pretty sure Chevron deference includes some deferred powers of congress to presidential administrative agencies. Which is what I'm referring to here. I could be wrong about that.

But the rules I'm thinking of are more about Roe V. Wade, which don't make sense in their interpretation of the laws.

It also goes to the heart of the arbitrariness of the rulings if they can overturn previous precedent 'just because they want to' which is a lot of the logic of the rulings.

Brown v. Board is famous for not just overturning the precedent, but for giving a reasonable understanding of the precedent was meaningfully unfair in the previous setup.

Could you expand on "our fundamental rights extend to the modern era" and how that connects to the legality of abortion being based on the right to privacy?

The "right to privacy" includes the right to medical privacy and privacy over your body. It's not the government's concern to dictate what and how you can treat your own body. The natural extension being that it violates the 14th Amendment for the government to surveil intimate medical decisions.

The "modern era" part comes from the majority opinion of Roe, which notes that abortion was viewed in a much better light when the constitution was written. Anti-abortion sentiment is a fairly modern phenomenon.

“It is thus apparent that at common law, at the time of the adoption of our Constitution, and throughout the major portion of the 19th century, abortion was viewed with less disfavor than under most American statutes currently in effect.”

    The "right to privacy" includes the right to medical privacy and privacy over your body. It's not the government's concern to dictate what and how you can treat your own body. The natural extension being that it violates the 14th Amendment for the government to surveil intimate medical decisions.

This puts the cart before the horse. This assumes abortion is already a fine thing to do. Think about the other applications of privacy. Here is a pretty extreme hypo (we could get into a more subtle one maybe but this is the first thing that came to my mind). You are entitled to privacy in your home. In your home you can abuse your spouse and you can drink orange juice. Abusing your spouse is obviously wrong so we would never say privacy covers it. Drinking orange juice is obviously fine so we would say you are entitled to privacy from others to know if you drank orange juice or not. In both cases the police may never know you did either but that has no bearing on their legality. It seems to be the real central question and where a right would need to be grounded is if it is your body or the child's body. A lot of people disagree on this. If you don't think it is your body than the privacy argument makes no sense.

In terms of the history I have not dug into it but there seems to be conflicting arguments based on your priors. It doesn't seem cut and dry enough to just say it was a right then so it is now, if it was why not just do that instead of the whole privacy deal?

From Dobbs majority opinion: "English cases dating all the way back to the 13th century corroborate the treaties' statements that abortion was a crime."

I am also skeptical of origionalism. I don't know how much bearing 13-18th century common law should have on modern day law, especially when there was assuredly a diverse set of opinions on abortion just like today. Why shouldn't the 20th century have the same amount of weight as the 18th?

To me it seems that even if you believe abortion is morally right Roe was legislating from the bench. These things should come from congress not the supreme court.

It doesn't assume abortion is an okay thing to do. It assumes you have complete control and privacy over your own body - which you do.

An unborn fetus has never been granted rights in our constitution or anywhere else. It does not have personhood. There is only then one person here: the owner of the body.

> Abusing your spouse

This doesn't work, because your spouse has personhood and therefore rights.

To be clear, this has never been solved by any courts in the US. We still do not consider the unborn to be American citizens with individual personhood. The Supreme Court decided that's hard, so they just didn't do it when Roe was overturned. They essentially "carved out" an exception to privacy for exactly one-use case - Abortion.

You can certainly drink while pregnant. You can certainly smoke while pregnant. Because that is your body and your right, and you are exactly one person. None of that has changed from a legal standpoint. Now, you are one person with every right to privacy... except one.

I think, if you wish to ban abortion, you have to start at the core issue - who is considered a person, and who isn't? WHEN does an arrangement of cells become coherent enough to be considered a person? The reason nobody wants to answer this is because it's very hard, and there's a lot of unfortunate implications.

Then the Supreme Court "cheated", in my opinion.

> These things should come from congress not the supreme court

They already did come from Congress, when Congress passed the 14th amendment, in my opinion.

Posted elsewhere in this thread but here is the reasoning why from Melissa Holyoak, who voted no. This rule goes further than just the cancellation mentioned in this article and there are some legitimate concerns with that. It is unclear but I think Melissa Holyoak would have voted yes if it was just the cancellation rule.

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/holyoak-dissent...

Chevron deference is about statutory interpretation so it really depends on the statue they are doing it under and any ambiguities that arise around the ability to do this. It may be clearly covered or it may not be, we would have to look. And if there are ambiguities it may go the way of the FTC, but since Chevron is gone, not automatically.

The point of the comic that that from the outside no one knows how far along hard problems are, not that in and of themselves they are hard. Both the tasks in the comic rely on decades of foundational work in computing and even photography, the author is not saying all of that was easy up until GIS.

I totally agree. The comics is right - it's Munroe after all, but it's the analysis of the blog author that I am divergent with.

Ah that makes sense. I must admit I did not even read the analysis of the comic.

    The all items index rose 2.9 percent for the 12 months ending July, the smallest 12-month increase since March 2021.

So overall good news but I think the overall effects of higher inflation are still being felt and any small price increase is pushing the limits of what people can pay.

AN interesting and non rigorous way to think of it is can the compiler optimize away the non compute-able part. So this:

    if (God does exist)
      return isPrime(3)

    else 
      return isPrime(5)

The compiler can take this and in the first pass say, isPrime(3) is just return true, isPrime(5) is return true. Then we have an an if else with the same return for both cases, this is the same as return true!

I like this explanation, but how would you apply that logic to

    If (god does exist)
        Return true
    Else
        Return False

I guess I misread the first part of the article while skimming. I think the key is this paragraph

    computability is about whether a computer program exists to map inputs to outputs in a specified way; it says nothing about how hard it might be to choose or find or write that program. Writing the program could even require settling God’s existence, for all the definition of computability cares.

I guess in this case God's existence needs to be a compile time constant.

I saw it elsewhere in the comments but I think computability as defined in Computer Science and used by the author is more strict a definition than you or I are/were thinking, and that is really the main point of the article. People confuse computability with "can it be computed". Missing values (such as knowledge of God's existence or null values) mean you can not computer something but that is a different thing.

It would be something like this:

   if (God does exist)
      return isComputable(() => true)
    else 
      return isComputable(() => false)

(where `() => true` / `() => false` are functions, returning true / false)

You do know that the code above will always return "true", without having to know whether god exists.

But they will save more than $6M the second year because AWS will up their prices.