skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
clearly you're not looking then.. there's video of them attaching the peaceful kkk guys with bats and sticks prior to major fights breaking out. also what are you talking about "antifa wouldn't exist if not for kkk", they have nothing to do with kkk, they're anarchists that have coddled with the leftists like a parasite.
Show HN: Automate machine learning best practice and interact with it on Slack
Gutenberg Editor Controversy
>Who exactly are they arguing against here? Perhaps a strawman?

Yes, but the strawman that they are being beat over the head with by those with a certain political bent.
It doesn't have to be expensive if you tell everybody to bring something to eat or drink. It does require à bit of organization but nothing very complicated. If your place is too small you can do a picnic in a public park.
Can someone explain to me how the protection of free speech sits within the view of "the market will sort it out"? This seems like a very interesting case to take as an example.

In general this forum is pretty pro market but when a certain idea comes under attack from the market, people start talking about public goods. It seems like there are some contradictions here that feel under explored.
Once again I argue that people are genuinely or disingenuously conflating two different terms for the sake of a "slippery slope" or free speech argument.

Violence against certain groups based on their race is not just violence, but a hate crime [1].

It is not a free speech issue. Society has already ruled that attacking certain groups based on certain protected status is not ok and will be prosecuted accordingly.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime_laws_in_the_Unite...
> ...you have made an independent argument for your point that has nothing to do with the idea of a "slippery slope".

Um, no, it probably does. Slippery slopes happen when there's unintended consequences embedded in the assumptions behind a proposition someone is putting forward, and there are people with an interest in pushing for them to be realized. Sometimes you talk about this in your argument; bam, slippery slope argument.

To try to name a "fallacy" after this rather useful concept, when the "fallacy" is just the boring case of failing to make an argument at all, is useless confusion at best.
To be fair, anarchists didn't exactly make anyone their friends from the late 1800s forward. There was an incredible amount of political violence at the time.

Russia saw tens of millions murdered because the anarchists and communists (of that day) got exactly what they wanted in the overthrow of the old regime. It's weird how communism and fascism seem to appear out of the ether together and fight with each other.

How many states were destabilized by that combo in the last 100 years? Russia, Germany, Spain, at least, South American countries, etc. Fascists and communists are like pb & j.

There must have been a lot of normal people who just wanted to live normal lives but saw them destroyed by extremists who knew the right way to live.
Cloudflare got taken over by the government? That’s surely a surprise to everyone and big news...
"Public service" is an important distinction here that you're missing. There's a big difference between opening a shop and running a telecommunications business. While it would be totally appropriate for you to set the tone and messaging of your shop and even discriminate among customers, I submit it would not be good for our society if telecom companies banned customers based on their legal speech. You wouldn't want that, because while it would be great if it only targeted racists and Nazis, what if it didn't? This is basic public communication infrastructure, just like the public streets that link up private shops.

The principle that applies is a basic Enlightenment one: everyone has the right to speak. You don't have to agree. You can not visit their shop. You can protest outside their shop. But you don't get to barricade their shop and cut its wires.
You probably shouldn't compromise much on salary, since plenty of startups are happy to pay market salaries.

The trade-off for startups vs. big companies is really in whether you're getting liquid RSUs (with clear cash value) or private options (with more upside), not so much on the salary side—especially these days.
Working for a company building heavy hardware, I see the following happen time and time again:

* Reorganizing seemingly for the sake of reorganizing. Result: Every time the new organization has settled somewhat and people know who to interact with to make things flow smoothly, everything is upended and back to square one.

* Trying to make our products buzzword compliant without understanding the consequences - we've on occasion been instructed to incorporate technologies which are hardly fit for purpose simply because 'everyone else is doing it' (Where 'everyone' is the companies featured in whatever magazine the CEO leafed through on his latest flight. Yes, I exaggerate a bit for effect.)

* Misguided cost savings; most of what hardware we use, we buy in small quantities - say, a few hundred items a year, maximum. Yet purchasing are constantly measured on whether they are able to source an 'equivalent' product at a lower price. Hence, we may find ourselves with a $20,000 unit being replaced by a $19,995 one - order quantity, 5/year - and spend $10,000 on engineering hours to update templates, redo interfaces &c.

* Assuming a man is a man is a man and that anyone is easily and quickly replaceable (except management, of course) - and not taking the time and productivity loss associated with training new colleagues into account.

Edit: An E-mail just landed in my inbox reminding me of another:

* Trying to quantify anything and everything, one focuses on the metrics which are easy to measure, rather than the ones which matter. As a result, the organization adapts and focuses on the metrics being measured, not the ones which matter - with foreseeable consequences for productivity.
I don't understand how one can read that and come away with the gist of it being that antifa caused the violence in Charlottesville.

The only people saying that are members of right wing extremist organizations that have, as their guiding principle, the genocide of non-white people. These are groups that planned and trained to wage war against counter-protestors, and for weeks leading up to the event posted to their social media about their weapons, smashing people's heads, etc.

I've read a number of reports of the events in Charlottesville, and the overwhelming feeling I came away with was that antifa saved lives, in this case. One can reasonably criticize other times antifa has shown up; Berkeley, for example. But, I'm on team antifa in Charlottesville. I sure as hell don't want to be on the side of the Nazis who murdered someone.

More eyewitness testimony about antifa in Charlottesville:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/201...

Edit: I think it's really important to recognize that violence is what Neo-Nazis are about. They are not rallying to express opinions, they are rallying to recruit and build a network of impressionable young men who will commit violent acts in pursuit of their goals. They were there specifically to find more people like James Alex Fields. To frame it as a peaceful political rally gone bad is to wholly misunderstand the threat Neo-Nazi organizations pose to our democracy.
tell that to the democrats!
> Nazis are no different.

Be careful of this. There are very few actual national socialists in the United States, and they certainly aren't all part of a single organisation like Al Qaeda.

Even among them the majority are probably against genocide since they all deny the holocaust.

What you say does however apply to The Daily Stormer. So I agree that they're a threat and should have been taken down years ago.
Arguably they shouldn't. But just because both X and Y should be done, it's not wrong to do only X, or only Y.

I can also sorta understand how the groups in question create a strong(er) emotional reaction. These are hate groups from "our" society. And in the same way that the death of someone close saddens more than a stranger's, seeing a swastika-bearing mob of people who could have gone to school with you may stir more anger than the hate and atrocities committed by strangers–especially if you don't understand their language, and have gotten used to it.

If we interpret Cloudflare's action as a symbol, it may also be more effective when used in this case than with ISIS: coming from (in general terms) the same society, such a signal of disapproval is more meaningful. People are social animals, and they are hardwired to seek approval from their peers. No matter how much someone tries to convince themselves that they don't care, it stings when their neighbour stops inviting them to his parties.

The same isn't true for ISIS, to whom the people at Cloudflare would have always been "the other side".

Plus, obviously, the fact that stormtrooper monthly apparently said that Cloudflare were sympathisers. That statement made it impossible to continue working for them.
HN is a terrible place for such discussions, as opinions that go against popular narrative are often censored.

You are probably better off searching for answers elsewhere.
Algorithmic Trading of Cryptocurrency Based on Twitter Sentiment Analysis [pdf]
Colloidal+Silver+In+Survival+Situations
"Europeans are already losing representation"

What does that mean?

In my particular part of Europe we have rather more political representation than we did even 20 years ago.
And this is why in Germany you can't protest with any guns, military swat gear, masks, or other weapons. Doing so is illegal because a large group of people with weapons can intimidate another group into not being able to exercise their free speech.
Github project based on the paper https://github.com/mluders/tweetwise
Cisco's security business revenue misses estimates, shares drop
It's very simple. It's morally wrong to enforce fairness of outcome, for a few reasons:

1. Doing so requires taking away from those who have, whether property or opportunity. This is theft and oppression.

2. Doing so requires an unbiased party to make judgments about what shall be taken from whom and to whom it shall be given. Humans are biased, so this cannot be done fairly.

3. Doing so restricts others' freedom.

Those who want to enforce equality of outcome want to rule over others, because they think they are qualified to make such decisions. By calling for it, they have already decided that there is a problem, and that they have the solution, and that everyone else is wrong.

In contrast, those who want equality of opportunity do not want to rule over others. They want power to be decentralized so people can make their own decisions.

It's left as an exercise for the reader to determine who is more trustworthy: he who would decide for you, or he who would have you decide for yourself.
HN is a terrible place to have such discussions, as opinions that go against the popular narrative are censored and the poster shadowbanned.

You're better off searching for answers elsewhere.
Unless you bake cakes.
There's also no way to verify that a server is really running the same code that was open-sourced.
I always wondered why we didn't see the term crypto-fascism come up more in the last few years. Perhaps because it is too honest and gives room for manoeuvre (although equally it is going to be hard to disprove). Hence people shouting 'Nazi' - which reminds me of kids calling the cops in the UK 'The Feds' - both of which sound idiotic. We had the terms we needed (Neo-Nazi and Crypto-Fascist) and they both meant something.

I would say we also need to introduce a counterpart. e.g. crypto-stalinist or crypto-communist. As it is an equally plausible accusation to make that some people with hidden beliefs on that side of the spectrum could take them to those dark places.
> Antifa shows up when right wing violence is expected.

Right wing violence is not expected until Antifa show up. If Antifa don't show up, there is no expected violence.
Yea. Holy shit what the fuck is wrong with people.
I think it's economical. The highly regarded BenQ HT2050/W1110 I use isn't more expensive than the TVs I see in many homes. Sure, there's the audio system, but at least in my case and as a music lover that area was covered regardless of the home theater aspect.

What I'm trying to say is that you probably don't need to start with nothing - if you have a large TV and/or decent audio system you can build and improve from there.
There are often people inside cars, and those people are justifiably horrified when they are under attack.

Also, even when people are not in the cars, it is a "popular" hate crime to intimidate people by selectively destroying their property.

"We can do this to your car; we can do it to your home, too, even when you're inside" is the message.
Isn't it too melty for you? I think the taste is okay but I'd take Mitchell's or Smitten over Bi-Rite any day.
> Nazism is literally responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths world wide. Fact.

Not to defend Nazism but the death toll of WWII was between 50 and 80 million.
It's less than archaeology (where artifacts are embedded in soil) and more like geology (because everything is code, i.e. code is the soil). But yeah, I've had the same feeling when refactoring a decade-old application. You could really recognize the styles of different developers and eras in the same way that geologists recognize eras by looking at the type of stone deposited during that era.
This tendency to call everyone a Nazi is a very strange phenomenon in the USA. I think if Americans really experienced the atrocities of the Nazi, mass death camps, shootings of civilians, tortures - they would hesitate before they used this label against someone they don't like or whose views are different than theirs.
There is one cardinal mistake that management makes (and development blithely accepts):

* Management is always right.

This truism is built into the entire fabric of software development: whether your process is an agile one where the product manager has ultimate knowledge of what is needed and on what timescales; the project that is delayed not because of bad planning or poor company organisation but because the developers are not working hard enough; that the only variable that affects the business is how productive / expensive the developers are - all the factors that describe how effective the management is are completely ignored or irrelevant. The list goes on and on and described in better detail in all the comments here.

Of course the solution to all of this is better data. You can be sure that the volume of data is inversely proportional to the strength of belief of the above statement. This leads to the second fundamental mistake that management makes:

* Not reading High Output Management by Andy Grove.
Looking at this thread of comments a couple hours later, clearly, no one has an idea (so any security cleams seem unbased).
So in the end what you are proposing is some kind of media ban? Some kind of censorship? Not to have someone report on these things?

I try to understand your strategy. Because this does not seem to be a valid workable way imho.
Not sure what you mean, but Sci-hub was sued in 2015 by Elsevier. Nothing really happened because Sci-hub is hosted in Russia.
I think failures of BitcoinTip and flattr and later relative failure of Steem.it shows that there is really no market for micropayments for content.

But what do I do know, maybe ethereum is different.
Daily stormer, pol, and breitbart are all free to find another web host/CDN or start their own. There is no slippery slope with one business refusing to do business with another one. The business does not need to be accountable to anyone, because they have no requirement to host the daily stormer in the first place.
> If the KKK didn't exist, Antifa wouldn't exist.

Antifa are anti-capitalist as well. https://www.facebook.com/pg/AntifaAustralia/about/ shows "Promote the workers struggle against capitalism and it's puppet, fascism." They might be called Antica or some similarly silly name, but there would still be a nutty leftist movement against capitalism. In many ways, and incredibly ironically, anti-facism is the most marketable calling card.

> I don't understand the need to equate the two sides

I assume it is because they are all violent loonies? Or maybe because of the looting at Stanford? I dunno if that is the reason, to be honest. Maybe it is just one of those "but your guys are bad too" things?

> that Antifa started any of the violence

I personally don't believe that the sum total of people who are actively members or even share much of an ideology in groups like Antifa or white supremacy or the alt-right or even ISIS is anything but a rounding error on 0% out of 330 million yanks - let alone the 1 billion in the collective west. I mean, does anyone think these groups COLLECTIVELY have anywhere near 3,300,000 people? These are just umbrella terms the media can use to give something more punch.

BTW, I tried to look into who antifa were, and https://www.google.com/search?q=antifa shows a bunch of people talking about Antifa, but not a lot of insider info/manifestos/articles. If I were to guess, they are mostly rich, angry college-aged kids who think it is cool to "fight the man" - which is pretty much what all those groups are, including ISIS.

I vote we stop talking about any of them, and simply call them X-nutters. "neo-nutters", "prog-nutters", "Islamist nutters" etc etc.
communism is literally responsible for 100s of millions of deaths and almost all of the worst dictators in history were socialist / communist
What if not attacking, but instead simply utilizing freedom of expression?

What if a hundred neo-Nazis filed to hold a rally, and showed up with signs saying "Jews get out!" and chanting "We've thought about it a lot and decided we really don't like Jews!"

is the expression of that idea a hate crime that can be prosecuted? or the expression of peaceful protest and first amendment rights?

does a punch need to be thrown before it's a hate crime?

(of course, these magical, peaceful neo-Nazis probably don't exist. from the video I've seen, the ones at that rally were out for blood)
If most serious users have the wrong mental model about something, then either there's a serious documentation/training failure, or the correct model is non-obvious and counterintuitive (or both). Blaming the users for their ignorance is not productive in either case.
Maybe the coefficient is just not efficient
Messenger bot platform is the only reason I turned back to facebook.
I’m by no means an expert, but I’m fascinated by the idea that a neural net playing against itself can substantially outperform a supervised learning approach with a large training data set. I mean, gathering training data and making sure it’s labeled correctly and all that is a huge hassle so if you could eliminate that step or even reduce the amount or quality of training data required that should be a big win for AI, right? Especially if doing this not only makes things easier but also improves the performance of the model.
Racism and hate speech are not indications of future violence.

You can go to any internet space and find thousands of hateful and racist people. The chances of any of them committing violence is extremely low.
No violence is free speech. Not from white supremacists, not from antifa, not from communists, not from BLM.

What you had in Charlottesville is two group of thugs looking for a fight meeting and getting the fight they all wanted.

Pretending there are good guys in this conflict is stupid.
Ask everyone to sign up for different methods of communication

That's exactly what you are doing by insisting on Facebook use unnecessarily, when email is the true common denominator (doesn't everyone in your friends list have email?).
The "You can do surprising things when you have 64 kilobytes of fast RAM" ad made me realize how little we appreciate the abundant resources we are lucky to have these days...
Isn't the main issue converting 'analog' money into digital? I think Twitch was pretty successful with their tipping system..
Were there any real pogroms in the Soviet Union - the closest that I'm aware of was the Doctors Plot but that ended pretty much as soon as Stalin died. Indeed a common accusation of White forces was that the Bolsheviks were Jews.

Edit: Note that I am not seeking to defend the Soviets here - just questioning whether antisemitism was actually part of their ideology.
Thank you for the article, but I do have one quibble:

> We could ensure that any process takes out an exclusive lock
> on a file before reading or writing it, or we could push all
> operations through a single flow control point so that they
> only run one at a time. Not only are these workarounds slow,
> but they won’t scale up to allow us to make our database fully
> ACID-compliant

As much as I like Postgres, I also like SQLite, which uses a simple file lock and yet is utterly acidic (https://www.sqlite.org/transactional.html). From SQLite's FAQ:

> SQLite allows multiple processes to have the database file
> open at once, and for multiple processes to read the database
> at once. When any process wants to write, it must lock the
> entire database file for the duration of its update. But that
> normally only takes a few milliseconds. . . .
>
> If your application has a need for a lot of concurrency, then
> you should consider using a client/server database. But
> experience suggests that most applications need much less
> concurrency than their designers imagine.

--- https://www.sqlite.org/faq.html#q5
I don't really know much about Swarm. Can you describe how that is different than NodePort with Kubernetes (which is the default for Services)?
History teaches otherwise.
If they were cautious about attention, I don't think Elsevier would have sued Sci-Hub, as there was a major Streisand effect from that.
For Firefox, I have 378.3 MiB. Better, but much more than I expected:

USER PID %CPU %MEM VSZ RSS TTY STAT START TIME COMMAND
user 9309 59.0 4.6 2020900 282568 pts/2 Sl 09:46 0:01 /usr/lib/firefox/firefox
user 9369 8.0 1.7 1897024 104800 pts/2 Sl 09:46 0:00 /usr/lib/firefox/firefox -contentproc -...

However, When I look at the "available" column in free(1), it looks much better. Only 170 MiB increase when Firefox is started:

$ free
total used free shared buff/cache available
Mem: 6115260 598900 4324616 41748 1191744 5205960
Swap: 0 0 0
$ free
total used free shared buff/cache available
Mem: 6115260 781304 4116456 68908 1217500 5032360
Swap: 0 0 0
"Management" will never realize this because to some extent the reasoning is driven by ego. It feels better to be in charge of 20 mediocre producers than 5 amazing ones. Of course there will be exceptions but the general rule follows.
> A white supremacist killed someone at the weekend for protesting.

> these groups are opposed to free speech and willing to kill those exercising it

This is a false equivalence. His group was not calling for violence, let alone murder. You're using the same logic that the right-wing all over the world uses against Islam.
Goodfellow, Greg Brockman and two from DeepMind nominated to MIT's 35 u 35 l