skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Most importantly, though, the only contribution this post makes to the discussion is to add "I'm a woman and I agree with one side of the debate" to the mix.

Wow, this is extremely dismissive and ignorant to what this woman has written. Why?

Since she is a women in tech, the very thing which we don't have enough of and we so desperately want to have more, perhaps we should give her voice a little bit more respect and listen a bit further into what she thinks can help to fix the problem.
It's Time to Stop Using the 'Fire in a Crowded Theater' Quote

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...

Without fail, whenever a free speech controversy hits, someone will cite this phrase as proof of limits on the First Amendment. And whatever that controversy may be, "the law"--as some have curiously called it--can be interpreted to suggest that we should err on the side of censorship. Holmes' quote has become a crutch for every censor in America, yet the quote is wildly misunderstood.

those who quote Holmes might want to actually read the case where the phrase originated before using it as their main defense. If they did, they'd realize it was never binding law, and the underlying case, U.S. v. Schenck, is not only one of the most odious free speech decisions in the Court's history, but was overturned over 40 years ago.

Three Generations of a Hackneyed Apologia for Censorship Are Enough

https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...

Holmes' famous quote is the go-to argument by appeal to authority for anyone who wants to suggest that some particular utterance is not protected by the First Amendment. Its relentless overuse is annoying and unpersuasive to most people concerned with the actual history and progress of free speech jurisprudence. People tend to cite the "fire in a crowded theater" quote for two reasons First, they trot out the Holmes quote for the proposition that not all speech is protected by the First Amendment. But this is not in dispute. Saying it is not an apt or persuasive argument for the proposition that some particular speech is unprotected, any more than saying "well, some speech is protected by the First Amendment" is a persuasive argument to the contrary. Second, people tend to cite Holmes to imply that there is some undisclosed legal authority showing that the speech they are criticizing is not protected by the First Amendment. This is dishonest at worst and unconvincing at best. If you have a pertinent case showing that particular speech falls outside the First Amendment, you don't have to rely on a 90-year-old rhetorical flourish to support your argument. Holmes' quote is the most famous and pervasive lazy cheat in American dialogue about free speech.
Undesirable speech removed from the internet via multiple registrars refusing to host DNS, vs undesirable speech removed from the internet via Chinese firewall has the same result: undesirable speech removed from the internet. That's the fundamental issue. That is not different.
There's a third possibility: there's a flaw in the proof, but one that is hard to find, and the discovery of the flaw actually advances the field in interesting ways.

If I were a betting man that's actually where I'd put my money because the paper passes by bogometer test (but I am nowhere near qualified to assess whether it's actually correct).
CloudFlare provides basic anti-DDOS capabilities to anyone. You may as well complain that their ISP provided an internet connection.
Even hate speech is free speech. The public private nature of the internet is the only issue here. I am really getting scared and disgusted by all the 'nazi punchers' showing themselves here. To support someones right to free speech is not the same as supporting the content of said speech.
that means people must be free to express themselves on the internet

If that expression of freedom happens to be not wanting to let certain others express their freedom via your infrastructure then there's a problem. Because there's 2 parties, each having the freedom to express themselves. By your saying A should let B express themselves, but that takes away freedom from A. Likewise I'm advocating that A should have the freedom to not let B express themselves even though, yes, that takes away freedom from B. So this is a tough one, because none of both solutions lets each party have full freedom. In such cases you need to look further. What I see here, is that B spreads hatred and as such, in my opinion, does way more damage to certain groups and humankind in general if you will than the damage done by A. So, since there must be a choice, I'd rather have some freedom taken away from B here.
Google has every right morally and legally to not wish to provide a platform for hate speech.
Yes... leak please!
Yes, but it gets even more ridiculous once you consider the fact that the last 60 years have been relatively peaceful for Naval warfare. During WW2 the U.S. had well over 100 aircraft carriers on active duty.
> This is made challenging by the fact that the entirety of the internet is composed of private parties.

The entirety of the internet is not composed of private entities. There are plenty of public entities that comprise parts of the internet. (And, in the US, those public entities are restricted in viewpoint discrimination when they create public fora.)

Now, it's true that private users in the US generally must deal with private vendors for internet services, and most of those services (including, e.g., DNS services) are neither public nor regulated-utility services, which does mean that lots of things one might want to do on the internet are subject to viewpoint discrimination by other private parties whose collaboration would be necessary for one to complete one’s intent.

> Should we simply stop expecting anything resembling free speech on the internet?

Free speech involves, fundamentally, the challenge of convincing others that your speech should be relayed. The internet is no different in that regard.
> DC reports that Android made up 85% of the mobile OS market share in Q1-17, while iOS makes up 14.6%.

Yes, but Android has targetted mostly under-developed countries (sorry if this term seems offensive) and ordinary people (as opposed to iOS which targets rich people). Consequently, many Android users don't have decent devices for internet surfing and even if they had, they don't have permanent access to cheap fast internet.
Not everything is a slippery slope.
"Correlation does not imply causation". The go-to of the armchair scientist. It doesn't imply there isn't causation, either.

We have plenty of evidence of rampant systemic sexism. We have plenty of evidence that women left the field due to that sexism. We have evidence that the field's composition changed fairly recently (in the late eighties). We have evidence the culture changed around that same time.

If you would like to make your gender-essentialist case, you should at least try to build a model that explains these things, instead of asking empty rhetorical questions.

Most importantly, I suggest staying in the industry we're discussing, as opposed to bringing up straw men outside of it.
There are quite a few good options out there. I've used two and they were both good. If you want to use the same bot for multiple platforms (Facebook, Slack, embedding on a page), I suggest Microsoft's Botbuilder Framework. The only caveat is that the ability to connect to multiple platforms requires you connect to Microsoft's (free) bot framework service.

The Bot Framework SDK comes in several flavors and is fairly robust: https://dev.botframework.com/

Sample code: https://github.com/Microsoft/BotBuilder-Samples
I understand your point, but reducing the requirements for job applicants just mean more men can now apply, which will likely not change the ratio.
I am guessing he doesn't have to write code on a whiteboard.
I actually agree with your simulacrum. I also agree with others that code has more in common with a cake recipe than Pride and Prejudice ;-)

The above said, language is language whether you're struggling to control a state-machine, baking vegan cookies or ordering lunch in Paris. It's difficult, it takes time to learn and delivers the same rewards all around.

Cheers
I wonder how Uber employees actually feel about this, it sounds really condescending and tone deaf.

If I was working at Uber I would be like "Who are you to suddenly show up and act like mom?"
I have a Synapse running (among other things) on a 1/1 VM. It's at the top of `top` (heh) when sorting by memory:

PID USER PR NI VIRT RES %CPU %MEM TIME+ S COMMAND
486 synapse 20 0 510,1m 81,7m 0,0 8,2 3:03.73 S python2.7
...

There are six user accounts on that Synapse and few activity (less than 100 messages per day).

When I first installed it to play around with it, I joined #matrix:matrix.org and it brought Synapse to a grinding halt. Took quite some time to catch up with the thousands of peers it suddenly had to federate with, and I ultimately cleared Synapse's database to make it forget about all these peers.

For comparison, I also have a Prosody (i.e. an XMPP server) on the same box, which has about 10 user accounts and my own account is joined to a few moderately busy MUCs, so the number of messages is at least one order of magnitude higher. Yet memory usage is about one order of magnitude smaller (CPU usage is too infrequent to compare, but look at the "TIME" column for an initial comparison):

$ psgrep 'prosody\|synapse'
USER PID %CPU %MEM VSZ RSS TTY STAT START TIME COMMAND
synapse 486 0.1 8.1 522332 83664 ? Ssl Aug13 3:04 /usr/bin/python2.7 -m synapse.app.homeserver --config-path=/etc/synapse/homeserver.yaml --log-config=/etc/synapse/log_config.yaml
prosody 574 0.0 1.0 52408 10476 ? S Aug13 0:27 lua5.1 /usr/lib/prosody/../../bin/prosody
> If we cheer this, we are cheering the death of free and public internet.

I don't think it is that simple. ISIS does just fine on the web, I'm sure Neo Nazis will do just fine as well. But that's no reason why the IT giants of the planet should aid and abet them.
It makes more sense if you replace "our generation" with "our portfolio."
$100/month is a pretty low transportation expense. If you buy a car, you're going to spend more than that for the next few years, but if it was a used car, you might pay ~$250/month for 3 years and come out ahead in 8-10 years.

If you go for a new car, you could easily pay $600/month - at that point it would take > 18 years to break even.

Of course, there are other things to take into account: convenience on the one hand, maintenance, parking, & insurance on the other.

But, my gut instinct is that you'd be better off to keep taking uber and invest the difference in an index fund. Keep that up for long enough and you can buy a new car in cash (or retire early).

[edit]: Don't forget that you can bicycle also. A $400 bicycle has an incredibly high ROI if you replace a few regular car trips with bicycling. It's a net gain for your health too! (You may already be doing this, but it's worth pointing out anyways ;)
https://www.mindgeek.com/careers/
Mindgeek is the big name in the space, if you're willing to relocate to Montreal.
Removing it is the easy part.
No I mean it's a subjective view from the boss that doesn't mean anything.

She could have said that they were procrastinating, or could have said that they were consistently tired and whiny about it. Or maybe these particular women did not want to work all their weekends away and complained about it. Or it could mean they weren't cheering at the beer pong event. Who knows?

I'm just saying that 'women I hired lacked energy' is the kind of blanket statement that overgeneralizes and that fans the vicious circle she described as damaging below.
Thanks for posting this. It was a really interesting read, and I think it's an under valued point in these discussions that there are lots of small things we could do better that add up in a big way.
Which is the greater crime: wasting the fruit, or picking the fruit because someone else has legal title over the tree?

The former certainly seems more morally reprehensible.
>…he created the Land compiler and LLVM.

I think you mean Clang and LLVM
> You acknowledge and agree that you shall not use Services in a manner, as determined by us in our sole and absolute discretion:

> To display or advertise pornographic, X-rated, sexually explicit, or otherwise tasteless materials, images, products or services (including, but not limited to: massage, dating, escort or prostitution services);

GoDaddy probably (it is at their discretion) finds the Daily Stormer to be tasteless.
That was looking at only a very small part of the curve of journals. There is a long tail of really terrible journals publishing terrible science.
Gradual rollout also helps (whenever possible), especially with stuff that has to work on many hardware platforms etc, so you can roll out only a few to a new hardware platform, see that it works, then roll out the rest.
This is the common (and correct) solution.

In this scenario, the biggest problem is updating the bootloader, which cannot do this type of fallback.

Generally people avoid updating the bootloader (for good reason) but it is necessary sometimes...
This is incredibly specific to an individual, so specific that the math would have to involve an algorithm with probably 15+ inputs.

Consumer Reports and the like have calculated "true cost of ownership" for different model cars you can use as a rough guideline. They estimate depreciation, taxes, financing, gas, maintenance, and insurance over 5 years. However, that's just a rough estimate and only a first step, it doesn't take into consideration individual variables. If you are a young male, have to drive in stop-and-go traffic every day, and pay to park everywhere your cost of ownership will probably be close to double.

Auto insurance alone is probably close to $100 a month for the average American - depending on your car, location, and driving record, of course, I'm just making an educated guess. IIRC, last I ran the numbers with my car (average budget model) cost of ownership was around ~$20,000 over 5 years. That's amortized to $333 a month.
My experience :

Intellectually my post-doc was amazing because I finally felt I was a world-leader in my field. I was attending the right conferences, mentored by the right people, and showing that I could hold my own with heavy weights.

Psychologically it was taxing. I was very strict about keeping work/life separate which was good. However, my research itself was very isolating and I found my self drinking far more than I should to cope with the scientific and economic stress of the job.

Health-wise it was challenging. Drinking problem aside, my hair went grey, my hypertension spiked, and I gained 50 pounds. The work schedule and accommodations of the university made exercising just too hard to fit into a normal schedule. During grad school I worked out 3-6 times per week, during my post-doc I could barely fit in once per week.

Economically it was near disastrous. Quite frankly, if I didn't have outside support I wouldn't have been able to make rent. Even with that, I ran up about 10K in credit card debt and was forced to each rice/beans, and dollar menu lunches just to keep my head above water. I was the highest paid post-doc in the building and I was one mishap away from bankruptcy.

In the end, I jumped ship. I had a very good shot a landing a faculty position (multiple top tier first author papers), but it just wasn't worth it. The stress, moving, and lost income was just too much of a burden. So instead I took a job at a quasi-academic institute and tripled my income. I regret nothing.
If's its legit proof, they author should be able to explain why SAT2 is in P and SAT3 is NP-complete. That's my BS test.
Censorship! It's the American way!
You are dead wrong in regards to what the memo author was railing about.
Mandating that Google host this speech would constitute compelled speech, and violate the first amendment. Ironically, what you seem to desire here is something much more in line with China's conception of constrained freedom.
Hell I won't defend u you if u threat to kill me. That applies to Nazis pretty well.
I worked at a top 250 website building billing and payments software ($85mm+ annual revenue) on the back-end for pretty much the top cam site in the world.

Got hired through a recruiter actually.
>You can't have it both ways, that's why freedom of speech covers EVERYBODY equally.

Actually, you can, that's why there are free speech exceptions in US law and protected classes? Hate speech and hate crimes are a real thing.

Also "ANTIFA" (it's "Antifa" lol) and BLM aren't monolithic groups - one is an ideology dedicated to fighting fascism and the other is a social justice movement consisting of many decentralized local community orgs. Neither of these are comparable to Nazis literally shouting to gas kikes in the streets and running over peaceful protesters and if you think they are, you might want to check yourself.
How Germany responds to “blood and soil” politics
If you can fog a mirror, you're ready.
I actually am, but not about AI becoming smarter than us, or the 'singularity', for good reasons others have already stated.

I'm concerned what happens when human-sized combat robots become capable of defeating a trained and motivated human opponent. Such a thing is certainly a way off, but requires no fundamental advances in our understanding (very much unlike skynet/singularity-style general AI) so I see it as a certainty sooner or later, and the way everything is going probably sooner.

Throughout human history, the inherent power the rich have over the poor has had an equally-inherent counterpower: there are many more poor people, and if the rich make things too miserable for them, if they all rise up together, they will win. To my knowledge this is a universal in human history (please prove me wrong!), and in general tyrants and elites everywhere have to devote SOME of their resources at least to maintaining the 'general welfare', which is really a nice way of saying 'giving the poor enough to stop them rising up and taking our stuff'.

If robots become capable of beating serious human opponents one-on-one, then I think this age-old balance changes, because once you can build one such robot, you can build a hundred thousand, and what are the poor people going to do about that?
FWIW, my assessment is that this paper passes the Aaronson test, as well as my own personal bogometer. If I were a betting man, my money would be on "the proof will turn out to have a flaw, but it will be hard to find the flaw, and the finding of the flaw will be interesting in and of itself, and possibly even advance the field."
> If private companies have the abilities to squelch speech from the public internet

Nobody is doing that.

Nobody is mandated to give you a medium for your speech. Go on the corner and scream all you want.
The DNS tree at least probably should get the same treatment as ISPs, i.e. being considered a utility and thus provide service to everyone.
I first learned about this because there's a decades-old joke in NetHack that cites this result when you ask for a major consultation from the Oracle when you can't afford to pay for it. I think the joke is that in this case, the Oracle can't tell you anything that's useful to you. :-)
Freedom of Speech says this jerks should be able to have a domain. Business sense says its dumb to host this group.
Except that 'antifa' is Anti Fascism, which is a pretty good thing except of course when you're a fascist and BLM does not say 'but white lives do not matter', it is usually interpreted as 'black lives matter too'.

It takes a special kind of warp to see either of those as spewing hate, whereas it is pretty easy to why people in general believe Nazis spew hate.
Is that true? I see no evidence for that.
Apple makes 23 different dongles – and it would cost you $857 to buy them all
They do and explain as much in their FAQs.
“New” Malpelo microplate helps resolve geological misfit under Pacific Ocean
Freedom of speech is an ideal, not a government mandate - you are thinking of the first amendment, which requires the US Federal government to conform to the ideal. Monopolistic publishers that refuse to publish certain works are against freedom of speech.
The method (free from sexist…) is better but the outcome (employee similarity to general population) is worse.
Analysis of Great Freaks and Geeks Scene
Damn, I always thought interviews of guys like him went along these lines: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUhsNIeIgpY
taking the above as a starting point...

> If private companies have the abilities to squelch speech from the public internet, that is a very bad thing.

the whole point of the net neutrality folks is ensuring that ISPs can't keep them from accessing whatever sites they want, isn't it?

if it is in some sense OK for google to refuse these domain registrations, is it also OK for google (and then comcast, etc etc) to refuse to carry the packets for these sites?
Space-Based 3-D Printing Reaches Milestone
The more Google chooses what content is hosted on their platforms, the less authentic their claims of independence from the content and the more liability to which they should be exposed.
Just 6 months with Telsa? Kind of a red flag.
I mean, what if that planet has the hidden headquarters of ISIS on it? Better to be safe than sorry.
That's a good point. There are plenty of Tor sites (most of them?) that are on Tor specifically because no private third party is willing to host their content. Let the bigots go to Tor and enjoy all the free speech they like, down in the darkness where they won't bother anyone who doesn't want to hear them.
Nope. Affirmative action towards historically marginalized groups is explicitly permitted by the law, and in some instances there's even a duty to do so (for .gov stuff mostly). There are some complexities and details to all this, but generally speaking, affirmative action is legal in the US.
I see ads for MindGeek on the sidebar of Stack Overflow quite often.
Here's a great video on the subject:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YX40hbAHx3s
Do we know this is genuine?

All I'm seeing is an unsigned PDF, stored in google drive, purporting to be from Benchmark.
That's a paper worth reading even if you don't understand it all because it will give you a good feeling for the magnitude of the problem. But it's actually surprisingly accessible. Aaronson is quite good at making hard things (relatively) easy to understand.
Compartmentation is hard, but the Big Data playbook makes it harder still
Why are the AMD cards preferred by miners? Is it the price/performance ratio only? Can the 2x fp16 operations be exploited for mining?
http://iq69.com/ is a great source for stuff related to Adult Websites, along with job & gig ads. But it's private so you have to be approved by the admins first.
I wish I'd done the math on Uber when I bought my car some years ago. I ended up paying ~$80 a month on insurance alone. Add in the initial cost of the car, maintenance and fuel, it was not at all worth it in comparison to just shelling out for a Lyft whenever I needed one. So by my math if you're spending $100 a month on rides, you're well in the black in comparison to owning a car.

The main (and perhaps only) advantage to having a car is the convenience and the ability to go where ever whenever.
I will stop using Gmail and move my email elsewhere as google banned the accounts of Jordan B Peterson and Dennis Cooper, people who do NOT spread hate. Google is a SJW company.
Same effect is seen in browsers, it is not uncommon for Safari users to have 50-100% higher conversion than the rest. The device choice ends up capturing different demographics (i.e. people who buy iPhones have more money to spend).

Some first-hand reports:

http://blog.monumentvalleygame.com/blog/2015/1/15/monument-v...

http://www.winterworks.de/bloo-kid-2-the-definitive-revenue-...