skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I don’t care if I agree or disagree with the content, there is simply too much power in mere “complaints” these days.

We MUST reach the point where every provider is incapable of knowing exactly what is hosted. In other words: you pay me money for service X, I provide X, and anything outside that simple agreement is out of scope.

Concurrently, we can address the likely reasons to want a “takedown” by working on new authenticity technologies: rather than trying to “remove X from the Internet”, make it so that any copy of X can be compared to a signed version. This would train people to scrutinize what they read, much like they sort of know to scrutinize non-padlocked web site forms.

For instance, given any snippet of text X, perhaps a browser has a way to determine if that matches any signed statements from the quoted person. And then, if you set up a smear web site claiming that I said X, anyone can use my official signing key to see if I actually published statements that match your text. If what you quote can be verified then the browser could indicate that the information appears to be accurate; otherwise, the browser could warn that the content is unverified. This concept could be extended to other forms of media as well.

In order for much of this to work, we need to be able to decentralize all encrypted content so providers can’t even easily guess who hosted something (like the firing squad: not every shooter has a bullet but somehow the deed is done). If the volume of traffic might also be a hint, then winnow and chaff the volume across providers to the point where you can’t even tell how much real content is present.

Obviously this anonymity would mean that we can no longer use sledgehammers to kill ants, for some definition of $UNDESIRABLE ants. To me, that is not only fine but downright crucial: put the burden/cost of proof back where it belongs. Or better still, let these people learn to do the digital equivalent of changing the channel: if you don’t like what a web site said then don’t visit that web site!
I don't see anyone here saying that this represents all Muslims.

There is a difference between stereotyping an entire group based on the actions of a few, and merely acknowledging the actions of a few. The fact that some Muslims practice honor killings is just reality, same as the fact that some Christians murder gay people or drive them to suicide.

Pointing out that some may suffer due to the actions of those few does not in any way imply that the whole group is in any way represented or complicit.
> Anyone else ever focus on their language-based thoughts while thinking them and notice how every mentally verbalized thought seems to have almost a pre-echo of that thought that seems like words but isn't?

Yes. I noticed this when I was first getting into programming and concluded that the verbal part wasn't strictly necessary and should be avoided when possible. Seems to be an issue similar to verbalizing while reading or not (i.e. 'subvocalization'. I always did verbalize initially, but now I can fairly often get into a mode where it feels like the book is reading itself and I understand the words, but there is no enunciation).

I have two main, perhaps conflicting hypotheses on language and thinking now:

1) It's used to solidify trains of thought, similarly to writing down ideas—makes them more stable and easier to return to. Sometimes it's useful to echo your thoughts verbally in order to get this solidification, but it's not necessary.

2) Everything that appears in consciousness is a representation of something deeper going on in the brain. Certain subconscious processes are represented as what we call language in the brain, but the language itself isn't 'active' in any sense.

edit: fixed phrasing.
From an AI standpoint, that's probably right. This was an unpopular position in AI a few decades ago. As progress continues on vision, robotics, automatic driving, and dealing with the real world without language, it's become more of a mainstream position.

All the mammals have relatively similar DNA, and the DNA differences between humans and the great apes are minor. This suggests that getting to chimpanzee-level AI is 90-95% of the way to human-level AI. Yet that doesn't require language.
The rule and the fee are complete bullshit. 30% isn't even remotely viable. They should be charging equivalent to transaction fees, which would tally below 5%. Hopefully one day someone will find a law with which they can challenge the fee's insanity in court. Anti-competitiveness seems like the appropriate avenue; we just have to wait for a company to try their hand at it.

At a bare minimum, apps must be allowed to explain to users in-app that they can reduce their payments by paying outside the app.
Interesting that Spotify would start pushing this issue so hard following immediately on the heels of Apple reducing their cut to 15% for subscriptions after the first year [1].

There had been rumors of Apple extending this reduction to some companies for a while now, wonder if Spotify had been left out of that?

[1] https://developer.apple.com/app-store/subscriptions/whats-ne...
Visa, MasterCard Class-Action Settlement with Retailers Rejected by U.S. Court
I like how he closes. That there are important roles for non-founders who jump in after seeing that an idea is a good thing.

On one hand, I guess it could be seen as a lack of confidence to not do your own thing. But on the other hand, it could be seen as not letting your ego get in the way of recognizing a good idea. I can see both sides and honestly, I don’t know where the truth lies.

For me, my sweet spot is when I can say, “That’s a great idea. It’s just getting started. Count me in.”
If updating the main body of the article was too much trouble after the DO statement update, do you really think they are going to bother digging any further? The wrote the story they wanted to get the clicks.
Electronically? Not that I know of.

I guess you could take a picture of a check and send it to someone else to deposit through their phone. But that's limited to $1000 at a time.
Brock, Founder of surge.sh here.

1. Digital Ocean did NOT receive a complaint on behalf the trademark holder. CloudFlare was the company sent a complaint on behalf of the trademark holder, which was forwarded to DigitalOcean which was then forwarded to surge.sh. To our knowledge the NRA isn't even aware of DigitalOceans or surge.sh existence.

2. There was no known trademark infringement happening on surge.sh. There was a complaint sent to CloudFlare that such a thing was happening. Digital Ocean acted as if the alleged infringer was guilty even though there is nothing other than the complaint itself to suggest this is true.

3. Digital Ocean was aware that we were willing to remove the content with proper due process. We at surge do not have editorial control of the sites published to surge.sh therefore we wish to provide legal justification to our customers when their content is removed. This would provide our customer with a means of recourse if the takedown is in error.

4. All we asked for was due process and this was something promised to use in the past by Digital Ocean. https://medium.com/surge-sh/more-on-january-7th-downtime-the...

5. We spoke with DigitalOcean on the phone at 11:02am where things were they said we needed to file a counterclaim with the NRA. We thought this was odd since the NRA doesn't know we exist however we were willing to do it anyway.

Our last message to Digital Ocean was at 12:05pm after Digital Ocean sent us the following case study http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=...

```
Thanks for sending this over. I'll get through this as soon as possible.

Do you mind sending over the counter-claim you are asking us to fill out?

thanks,
Brock
```

They responded at 12:47pm with the following...

```
I’ve shared the outcome of our phone call with our Trust and Safety team. Since this is not a DMCA complaint, a counterclaim does not apply here, contrary to my misunderstanding over the phone. I apologize for the incorrect information. [...] You have until 1:26pm EDT, a bit under an hour from now, to remove the content. Otherwise, we will need to disable networking to this Droplet.
```

We unfortunately didn't see that message until it was too late and at 1:26pm our network access was disabled followed by radio silence from Digital Ocean for the following hour.

So Digital Ocean communication to us went as such..

11:02am - "you need to remove the content or fill out a counter claim"
12:47pm - "we were wrong, no counter claim can be filed and you now have 39minutes to remove the content or we are disabling the network"

Since Digital Ocean realized they misrepresented themselves on the phone we would have preferred if Digital Ocean had picked the phone back up rather than shut us down with less than an hour warning.
I'm sure lack of interest is a big reason, but that just changes the question to, why is there a lack of interest?

Personally, I think it's because so much of this activity happens online, and online communities are still often extremely misogynistic. Women interested in participating in such communities often have to hide who they are lest they be faced with an endless cavalcade of "tits or gtfo" and unsolicited dick pictures and other aggressive behavior.
Your thinking in terms of a small coverage area. Networks needs to be nationwide and users are not limited to a single tower.

As density increases infrastructure can more closely map to usage.

Net effect if 50 million people take X towers then 100 million people take less than 2x towers.
Copyright claims are not criminal, they're civil; two different things.

Furthermore there are limits to free speech in the US. For example: obscenity, treats of violence, military secrets, etc.

Australia has no bill of rights, yet judges have upheld individual right to protests (Victoria has a Charter of Rights, but that's it). China has free speech in their constitution. Germany has free speech, unless it has anything to do with the original Nazi party symbols.
Again, this isn't evidence. I assume people on HN have better analytical ability than that, skepticism, and the ability to filter meaningful data from the large universe of assertions. Let's try taking this very serious issue seriously (see my above statements).
No, because Google isn't paying the Irish corporate tax but instead moving the money to a second Irish company (hence the double Irish) based in the Bahamas. A European company with a subsidiary based in the Bahamas would trigger anti-avoidance laws, which a US company won't (until they bring the money back into the US) because of a loophole in the US anti-avoidance laws.
Apparently it is not okay to expect parents to teach their children that it is not acceptable to steal shit by the time they have reached school age...
That's the only point I was trying to make. There is a lot of misinformation flying around on both sides and it's useful to know where the information came from so one can determine its veracity.
After trading halt, Betterment suffers its own Brexit shock – Financial Planning
Having held a few of those jobs, I understand the sentiment, but that doesn't mean those positions are unnecessary, especially as organizations get beyond a certain size. I understood his take on it to be that it just wasn't for him since he likes to be able to see something he has built in a fairly short timeframe, and at a place like Motorola in the '90s, middle management and probably many of the executives wouldn't get that kind of feedback.

From my experience managing managers in big corporations, a lot of the bullshit is created by people who want their own way after a decision has been made. They tend to be the reason meetings are called in the first place, since someone has to make the effort to get everyone moving in the same direction. They are also the most likely to walk around calling bullshit on everything that's happening in the place.

There's no need to denigrate the work of the people who spend more of their time than they'd like in meetings trying to get a big company of individuals to cooperate on goals that are set by executives.

As an aside, there are people who enjoy the kind of work that doesn't necessarily provide instant feedback. Teachers come to mind. Sure, there are little victories and defeats every day, but at the end of the year, there are times when they sigh and wonder what good it did. Try going to a good teacher's retirement party or funeral sometime and mingle with those who come to pay their respects. You'll often hear things like, "He changed my life" or "I'd probably be in prison now if she hadn't been so patient with me." Similarly, the people who make big organizations actually work have an impact on many lives and on the direction of companies, the effects of which are not always visible for years or decades.
The Supreme Court ruled in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. that defamation is not protected speech, and the Supreme Court's word is final and absolute. No amendment is needed, as the Supreme Court has consistently ruled multiple times that freedom of speech is not absolute. Your arguments are the same kind of logic used by tax protesters who concoct arcane reasons that they don't have to pay income tax yet invariably find themselves convicted for tax evasion.

Fraud has been illegal for as long as the US has existed. It's not protected. If it was protected as free speech, fraud laws would have been overturned sometime in the last 225 years.

Further reading:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_statements_of_fact

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
I also thought it didn't work. Sometimes it's rendered as:

Craig: (laughter)

which avoids the somewhat square "hahaha" construction.
Vanilla JavaScript; no libraries except XMLHttpRequest, WebSocket, LocalStorage, etc.
That's where I'm at. I've had similar good luck with Office 365, too--similar frequency of problems and responsiveness when I've had them.
It's true that it has limits but does a monthly quota make any sense as a way to prevent that? Right now, you pay the same for a photo upload during a 4am backup window as you do for uploading the same photo during e.g. a ballgame where 10,000 other people are doing the same thing.

If you were trying to run a network, wouldn't you instead have things like differential pricing based on traffic priority or payment plans which allow you to pay more for a greater share of the available capacity? That would directly align the users’ interests with the network operators’ and would provide a strong incentive for things like backup software to make sure they send traffic with a low QoS level and back off when the network indicates congestion. Most people aren't going to care if their phone waits until they leave the stadium to upload their photos but that'd make a huge different for the network operator having to handle 50,000 people in a small area.
The content loads from his API rather than the website itself, and also there is an Android app made by him.

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.premii.hn

I have noticed that some websites are actively obfuscating the content on their page to prevent it being loaded by content-viewers (like the website or the app).

I've had to email him to fix an issue in the app and he pushed a change to the Play store fairly quickly.
It's interesting to me that people seek to deny the obvious, the prejudice against Muslims. You can find many such statements on this page.
Actually, I find the bouncing around of fees and payments behind these internet companies very complex, and maybe even justified to some extent. The value-add that generates the taxable income is almost entirely elsewhere.

Let's say Google Spain got €100M in revenue and had €20M local expenses (mostly sales, local support and localization). Now, say they owe €30M to US HQ for the service, servers, R&D, IP, support, etc... among other expenses. (For simplicity, let's suppose everything is hosted and originates in California.)

That leaves Spain with €50M in profit, ready to be taxed by Spanish tax authorities. This sounds quite out of proportion. The great value-added is not in Spain, it's in the US.

Google HQ could easily establish Google Spain owes €80M in service costs, thus local profit is nil. To me that's fair: corporate has the right to charge whatever they see fit for their services and collect profits accordingly.

They way I see it, paying fees to the Bermudas is a US, not Spain, tax evasion problem.
So civil courts need not uphold the constitution? I understand the limits exist, but they are entirely unconstitutional. If you believe it would be a good idea to have such a law, go ahead and pass an amendment.
Database of 9.3M Healthcare Patient Records Breached
To hell with this "monopoly" crap. The term do not apply to the topic at all, and never has.

All it matters is that a company, or groups of companies, are big enough to distort customer choice to their benefit. This either directly in said market, or by being large in a related market that they can use as leverage.
Blockchain mail, anyone?

- Available anywhere

- Guaranteed notarized sending, guaranteed total ordering of messages

- Privacy and security built into the protocol.

The incentives aren't there -- what would miners get in this scenario? Also doing it in a way that retains perfect forward secrecy will be tricky.

Could be a startup idea.
Hmmmm, I'm as pro-Europe as the rest, but the idea of trusting other European countries with my BankID digital signature is basically a joke.
Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella Is Writing a Book Called Hit Refresh
Note: the dramatic photo is a composite, of Jupiter in visible light and its auroras captured in UV.
As an addendum to this, I found out Chrome doesn't even have GPU acceleration enabled by default.

Type chrome://gpu in the address bar. If you've got of unavailable options there. Chances are it's off.

Type chrome://flags in the address bar. Click Enable on the first option under Experiments "Override software rendering list"

Saved me quite a few CPU cycles, voila.
The investors certainly would be screwed if someone stole the trust's bitcoins.

There are a lot of risks inherent to investing in Bitcoin. I think risks to the network itself (mining centralization, regulatory concerns esp. in China, the halving, a catastrophic bug in Bitcoin Core, loss of market share to a competitor such as Ethereum, etc) are more worth worrying about than theft from this trust in particular. Cold storage procedures are well known and many exchanges have been successful in securing systems with a lot more exposure than this trust will have (including Gemini, which is backing this trust).

Risk is inherent in investing, after all. Without the risk you wouldn't have the potential for extreme returns that Bitcoin has.
Because no entity has filed a complaint...
Then taxes is not the way to remove those profits from the company.
Can Topology Prevent Another Financial Crash?
That would almost certainly condemn the local employees to face obstruction of justice charges, turning a minor "you have to relocate" issue into "you are imprisoned awaiting a criminal trial" one.
> Should I just send them the results of our 3rd party PCI compliance scans?

You could ask, "We are routinely audited for PCI-DSS compliance. Would you prefer to see the results of our latest compliance audit?" This may be acceptable, and the only way to know is to ask.

If that's not satisfactory, try to negotiate with them to cover or split the cost of a comprehensive third party audit that meets their requirements.

If they require FIPS 140-2 compliance, see your doctor for blood pressure medication first.

> Is there a cheap certification we can do?

Security isn't cheap, unless you compare security to the cost of a data breach, in which case it's a hell of a bargain.

If they're Enterprise, they're probably more willing to cut a check for $X0,000 than accept the risk of losing millions in disaster recovery.

Whatever you do, don't go for the cheap options, if for no other reason than, if anyone on the client's side is security-savvy, they'll figure it out quickly and that might turn them off completely.

Whatever you do, don't pay for the audit out of pocket.

(Disclaimer: I do source code audits for Paragon Initiative Enterprises. We tend to focus on web-based and desktop software.)
A noble goal, but good luck doing this with a QCOM kernel :(
Does fear-based marketing actually work?
A Natural Language User Interface Is Just a User Interface
For the Word on the Street, Courts Call Up an Online Witness
Because outside of silicon valley, Apple is a much smaller #2 to Android. Same with their laptop/desktop business. This is why Apple gets to engage in behavior Microsoft never even dreamed of with Windows. Can you imagine the hubbub if Windows on the desktop only had the Microsoft app store and didn't permit any other app store? Or only allowed Internet Explorer and didn't allow any other browsers unless they were just UIs and skins on top of IE? Or locked Windows down so you couldn't even install an app unless it was through their app store? Apple gets away with all of this on iOS because they're not a monopoly, so they can engage in all kinds of anti-competitive behavior as long as their customers don't mind and leave for Android. So far, they don't.
> You can't brush that away by pointing to discrimination.

I don't, I point to very poor reasoning and analysis. I challenge you to answer my questions above instead of posting more insubstantial analysis.

I do point to discrimination where I see it; as you say:

> If no one speaks up about this then these societies will continue like this forever

But if one spreads ignorance, it persists forever, with great harm to the victims. So we must be careful to do the right thing. Let's look in the mirror first, and point out our own problems; we are just as flawed and human.

----

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
It is a simplistic but very ironic claim.

One of the main problems with the existing social net is that it comes with "economic cliffs" where making a little more is not to your economic advantage. And then people who make the rational decision are seen as "lazy".

For a real example, my niece had to turn down a job because it paid her $0.20 too much to stay on food stamps. And she couldn't be paid less because it would have broken union rules. So she did the rational thing and turned down the better job. Which meant that her skills and education went underutilized.

One of the big arguments for UBI is that this kind of thing doesn't happen.
I don't know , but this is a great post on the subject: http://www.nickhunn.com/i-come-to-praise-arduino/

Tldr:the arduino don't take you beyond prototyping, the mbed could.
Ah, my mistake. I haven't read Kafka's letters, so I'm not sure what context they offer that changes the meaning of this quote. What am I missing?
There always will be greedy people who didn't even get that this is not a craptocurrency that they can resell. It's explained on the website!
Announcing the LibreCores design contest and ORConf 2016
Chomsky never said that. Animals can reason.
That wasn't the question I was answering.
A Women's History of Silicon Valley
Sure! thoughtphreaker <at> shady <dot> tel
Welcome to the world of certificate authorities, where the dumbest decision maker means the whole system is a joke.

If you're a government authority or even just a individual looking to get a nice signed certificate for some big domains you need look no further than that giant CA list. Any one of thousands. It's damn hard to have one developer write something reasonably secure, how hard do you think it is to have thousands write everything perfect?
Using two data points to fit a curve is indeed not very intelligent. ;)