skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> The only thing, why do you assume that only people "on the left" could be intrested in using these tools? Sure it's people "on the left" that are creating them and control them now

Your critique is correct, the right is every bit as brutal about censorship when it comes to a context of authoritarianism. The left in the US is progressive (to varying degrees) in mentality, adopts technology much faster, and gets to utilizing new tools (in this case online) for censorship much faster accordingly.

The interesting thing about the left in regards to censorship is two fold: they (used to) pretend to be the champions of free speech and civil liberties, that makes them a dangerous fake protector. They can strip your civil liberties much easier, as their own base will remain quasi-silent (as we saw in the Obama era), while the right often won't protest because they agree with the abuses. This is fundamentally why the left was able to put us into Vietnam: there was nobody left to stand in the way of it, the right (more inclined to war) was naturally going to agree with the premise.

They're also fast adopters of technology. In my opinion people in the more left half of the political spectrum (call them Democrats or whatever makes sense), on average, move substantially faster as adopters of technology (Clinton & Obama were far more technologically progressive than the Bushes or Trump). The big platforms are all extremely left in their political bias, deriving from the people who work there, the memo was correct in that regard - not to mention credible people like Marc Andreessen and Peter Thiel have noted this publicly for years. These platforms are/were built by young people, who (likely inherently) do not tend toward conservatism.

It makes perfect sense that social platforms founded by people with a left wing bias, including: Twitter, Reddit, Facebook, Google - would then link up with left-favoring ideology/politics/causes when it comes to what they allow on their platforms, or what ideas they tolerate.

The left are the fast(er) adopters of technology, at least in the US. Of course they're going to get to using these tools for censorship before the slow-moving conservatives do. The far more scary part, is when the right catches up, and both sides are gun-ho about abusing technology for censorship.
GridinSoft Anti-Malware 3.1.9 Crack and Key Code Here
It was a nice write-up of a Mathematician I've never heard about. HN tends to have a mix of tech startup, programming and STEM-related news. I'm not surprised to see it here.
I think that brave is working on anti-fingerprinting stuff too: https://brave.com/bebraveday/
Funds like Renaissance consistently make money
These results are a bit scary. For the U.S. election category, the only comment in the "least toxic" set that really took a stand on anything said: "Too much media influence." All the other comments were either meta-comments or along the lines of let's all hold hands and sing kumbaya.

I agree we need to weed out toxic comments, but human-moderated systems are the best. Hacker News has some of the best discussions that I read online. Even when I vehemently disagree with someone's point it's still worded in a respectful tone.
Yeah, this sounds like the start of an arms race. People will just start using coded language to say their 'toxic' things.

This is just another Euphemism Treadmill.
"Some scientists have discovered that the intelligence of climate change deniers is highly likely to be statistically indistinguishable from that of a randomized sample of invertebrates. This is likely due to similarities in their biological and chemical composition."

10% toxic.
This article is arguing against four straw men. Damore's memo was not arguing that women have any less ability. Nor did it state that men and women are vastly different. It pointed out where statistically measurable differences exist.

It also acknowledges that culture does influence what careers women are interested in and offers some ideas on changing the culture in order to include more women. So Damore and this professor agree?

The memo was imperfect and jumped to conclusions many of which are probably incorrect, but I am really tired of it being mischaracterized.

This professor's piece is intentionally misleading.
Here in Austria, you have to behave really bad to not make a decent living if you can code, or at least pretend to be able to code. Developer conferences are _flooded_ with recruiters and CTOs trying to recruit.
IANAL: How culpable are the authorities for certifying this craft, ie, reviewing engineering designs, inspections during build and post-build verifying control systems' fail-safes functionality, for passengers?
I saw this roll through Twitter the other day:
a bot that's as good at detecting toxicity as Google is in 50 lines of code

https://twitter.com/toxicitychecker

It came from this thread where there are complaints that the Perspective API may not outperform a random number generator.

https://twitter.com/NoraReed/status/895498083131207681
Diet drinks and food actually trigger weight gain and diabetes, says new study
Can you be a bit more precise? I feel like we're talking past each other but perhaps have misunderstood each other.
Hello, I think Calafrax is probably right. :o) I think you implicitly agree because you say "under parametric assumptions..." which means you know whats going on; but to make the point->

Statistics as we know it "works" (can be derived) under the assumptions of controlled experimental data. As a thought experiment think about the weather - we know that if we build a classifier that predicts the weather in my garden tomorrow based on the history of the weather in my garden it will do very badly. Why - well because weather is very very very complex; the range of behavior is vast. But worse, it's unstable. The weather in my garden is driven by several complex systems; the ocean, the atmosphere, the earth's orbit and sol! Statistics can't predict the future of the weather in my garden.

Statistics also can't predict other things like the future of the financial markets (not least because if you find a statistical law about that they you will act on it and then screw it up)

It's important to me to bang on about this because there are loads of people who sit through their introductory courses and read the example of predicting a biased roulette wheel. Years later they end up running the company/country/community that I live in and they have a view that they can use the same principles to do it... and this thinking leads to nasty surprises for me.
This is cool, but it has some inherent biases. If you type only "Trump", it suggests that there's a 42% chance that your comment could be perceived as toxic. If you type only "Clinton" there's a 14% chance.

That being said, I think there's some huge potential to use AI/ML in this way to improve our ability to communicate less toxicly. I've seen some research from Google investigating biases in AI/ML outcomes, so I'm excited to see what develops.
The game is very substantially changed since release. Indeed each revision of the last few months has invalidated more of the information you'll find in online game guides from commercial sources, and with this update I'd say most of them are either entirely irrelevant or downright misleading.

No Man's Sky is now in a sort of no-man's-land between "interesting tech demo" and "full blown video game". This new update has many new features but also myriad new bugs. It's clearly still a work in progress.

What's interesting, and unusual, is that developer has continued to work, as though the first release was really more the start of an "early access" series. Hard to believe they've made significant money from the drip of sales since.
If you presuppose that Prop 13 could be eliminated, then you probably wouldn't need a land value tax or any parking because all those single family homes would be sold and developed into higher-density uses.

Driving is a pretty minimally wasteful behavior compared to the low lot coverage and building heights prevalent here.
Perhaps unrelated, but is this the same type of collusion that is continuing the practice of having middle & hs students carry around huge backpacks full of books instead of some e-device with the books on it? Or is the latter just impractical.
To me, if you want to regulate controversial opinions, you have to err strongly to the side of too-open.

Remember, before the declaration of independence our founding fathers were terrorists/rebels. I don't mean this as a snappy hollow comparison. I'm saying fundamentally, you can't distinguish between a US soldier recruitment video and an ISIS soldier recruitment video without applying a moral context. How would an AI ever do this? And even if it could, who's moral retelling is the right one?

Better in my mind to stay out of the censorship game altogether and promote a forum that is inherently structure in a format that incentivizes accuracy over emotions.
Humans on Hacker News misconstrue sarcastic comments, I'm not sure a neural network will ever be able to do better than a human WRT sarcasm.
You have to take the DMCA request or else you lose safe harbor.
I don't use Facebook and I get by just fine. However, when I tried to switch to bing for a while, I could barely use the internet. Google is much worse than Facebook can ever hope to be.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Authentica...
I've messed with people a few times when I thought it was really important for them to agree with me. You can trick people into considering a different opinion by planting evidence that supports your point of view.

A very effective way I found was to identify their role models and find one that shares my opinion. For example, I have a friend who salivates to Elon Musk and I've had great success getting him to consider alternate viewpoints by casually mentioning that my opinion aligns with his.

Another more subtle way is to read a bunch of stuff that supports your point of view using their phone or PC. Most big sites these days will show you what they think aligns with your beliefs. You can use the creepy targeting they're already doing to skew the point of view your friend sees.
...less services at a much higher cost...

While the "less services" part is sometimes true, in semi-rural/sparse suburban areas it's often possible to get quite a bit more for a lot less. Car maintenance, food, land, recreation, all much cheaper outside of the major urban areas and high-cost states. This is yet another obstacle people face when trying to move to a big city. They can't afford to pay twice the price for half the food.
If you've solved toxic comments then you've solved AGI.
> Trying out it's Writing Experiment
> Google is evil.
70% likely to be perceived as "toxic"

> Google is good.
4% likely to be perceived as "toxic"

> Google is god.
21% likely to be perceived as "toxic"

The content above is considered 51% likely to be perceived as "toxic".
That would be the concern. My impression from poking at the API is that it doesn't seem to have any topical biases. The accuracy is nonetheless hard to judge in the 1-40% range.

For example, the API rates this comment as 21% likely to be perceived as "toxic". The use of quotes around the word "toxic" increases the likelihood.
Humans still have difficulty with sarcastic comments and could miscontrue sarcasm as toxic.
Soon this API will be a condition for using AdSense on pages with user comments.
It's a bit weird on single words. I tried some local politicians and the politically correct ones scored worse than the alt-right ones. "Klu Klux Klan" was not a recognized language. Etcetera.

I ran both our comments through it:
11% toxic for you, 25% for mine. Both contain some trigger terms.
Fork.lol
The page says that it means 2% of the people asked will find it toxic. The first two options you listed are saying the same thing; if 2% of the population would find it toxic, you have a 2% chance of it being found toxic if you asked a random person. Your last option (2% confidence that it is toxic) assumes an objective measure of toxic that doesn't exist, and the API is not trying to show.
How do you know it doesn't just draw out a capacity to think that you already have, and that you could equally well have drawn out by studying or working at something else?
The Scholar
Most people don't change their minds about more than just a few things after some early age - barring some life-changing even. I think it's rare that any number of [books, movies, conversations], or amount of time exposed to same, causes change.
Inherent in this is the notion that toxicity is bad. It isn't. We grow stronger through exposure to toxicity in our environment.

It may seem glib to equate chemicals and comments but it's not. There are many people who have become hyper-fragile to speech they disagree with. That is not good mental or emotional health.
I didn't mean to imply otherwise, rather I just wanted to point out that one of the principles of Libertarianism as I understand it (freedom from government regulation of things) is counter to the libertarian value of wealth accumulation.
There are many wonderful passages in the book "Genius" by James Gleick that describe Richard Feynman's deep intuitive understanding of calculus. He also talks about it a bit in his own works such as Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman. Highly recommend if you want to see lots of interesting answers to this question. His key approach was that he always wanted to understand things based on "first principles". So he would usually take on a new mathematical frameworks by breaking them down and re-deriving them on his own from scratch.

Reminds me of how Ben Franklin taught himself to write by reading famous passages and then attempting to write them from memory, comparing his version to the original version afterward and seeing what he did differently and why.
You know how some people want a sports league where absolutely every drug is legal so we have the most insane juiced to the gills crazy motherfuckers out there?

I want the AI version of that for video games. Completely unshackled, brokenly powerful AIs fighting against each other in just utterly bonkers displays.
Yes I saw that too but it doesn't pick up everything.

"Adolf was right" - 17%.

"Hitler was right" - 55%
> With Trump, more liberals are also starting to think in this direction. Concentrated power scares them

Hilariously predictably, it strictly only scares them when it's not their person in power. We get to watch this rotating clown show every few years, where the left suddenly wakes up again and pretends to be against concentration of power or various rights abuses (Clinton to Bush, Obama to Trump). When it was Obama abusing his power, they were as silent as could be (except for a few fringe people like John Cusack or Cindy Sheehan, who both got ostracized for speaking out - they were consistent in their beliefs - once it was a liberal in office).

If it were Hillary in there abusing power right now, they'd be just as silent as they were a year ago. There are more people willing to speak up against abuses of civil liberties on the left than there are on the right, it's still always a small bunch when you've got a Democrat in the Presidency (people like Ron Wyden).
Webtorrent does not meet the distributed requirement since webrtc needs signalling servers.

Plus the discovery component is still hosted on websites subject to the networking effect.
I wanted to get a feel for the logic so I made a quick carbon copy in JavaScript with a simple UI to play with:

https://codepen.io/blixt/pen/ayyjpZ
Anyone else interested in seeing this bot Vs itself?
Thanks. I am in the US. I am not being cagey intentionally, but I am frustrated and workshopping ideas.

I am considering literally an "AT&T sucks" t. I am going to likely get more creative and do political cartoonish art but I don't have a lot of concrete ideas yet.

I am considering selling these shirts to encourage people to vote with their wallets and inform them about potential negative side-effects of supporting these companies.
Actually, economic models often include such concepts as community and social support. In fact, they can often be quantified too: you can measure what's the necessary increase in salary to convince people to give them up.

There's nothing "greedy" about trying to formally model a situation, which is what seeing as an economic problem is about.
It's an interesting concept, but falls short when comments are sarcastic or contain contextualized information.

It seems like this is more of a "word filter" than anything. I mean, sure, it's pretty obvious a comment will be toxic if it contains "asshole" in it. Here are some examples where the labeling fails. Some of these I got from real comments and articles on CNN or Breitbart.

# Toxicity too low
34% toxic: Obama was born in Africa and he should move back there.
40% toxic: George Soros and his Jewish sympathizers want to destabilize our government.
25% toxic: Breitbart is run by jews - as is all mass media. As the saying goes, "the best way to control the opposition is to lead it".
47% toxic: Why do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you don't take yourself seriously.

# Toxicity too high
51% toxic: Ivanka is arguably the most powerful Jewish woman in America today.
51% toxic: US Muslims and Jews are strengthening bonds amid acts of bigotry.
48% toxic: The problem of income inequality is not between Black America and White America but between black haves and black have-nots.
87% toxic: I lost my grip and fell on my ass. Not a great bike.
I had no idea that 12% of the population makes top one percent income for at least a year of their life. What causes so many of these people to fail?

How could there possibly be so many jobs that offer that kind of income. Or maybe it's that most jobs offering high income have short tenure..
The Evil Book of Big Ideas
Turned it into a blog post:

https://medium.com/@siliconvalleythoughts/the-evil-book-of-big-ideas-7293a3917ae9

Hope it helps.
And

> Don't be evil.
66% likely to be perceived as "toxic"
People who buy cookers buy cooker light bulbs. End of story...
Even then you're talking a cost for something you'd be devoting most of your free time to doing. You don't have to do it in California.
Considering that the CEO of Admiral considers himself a "beloved VC" (literally his words), I'm guessing he'll keep stepping up his agressive tactics. Typical sociopathic behavior from the type that believes that money trumps everything and that everyone worships him.
Figuring teamplay out is going to be a lot more complicated but a strong 1v1 bot is already very impressive. Props to openAI, that universe didn't take off was a bummer, it was a pretty cool project as well.
Two examples that support your reasoning:

> Your a socialist snowflake!

Is ranked as less toxic than:

> Please put yourself in the shoes of women, minorities, and LGBT people

Extracted from the "US Election" demo on the page.

Edit: for the sake of clarity, when taken to the textbox below, snowflake gets 58% toxicity, and minorities gets 29%. Still, when using the slider, snowflake appears before, with a circle (which would correspond to an ok comment), and minorities much later on, with a square (which would be a dubious comment).

Edit 2: testing on the textbox, commas and periods get you a lower score (less toxic), while exclamation marks, lack of punctuation, and "bad writing" (not just grammar, but a general bad style you could say) get you a higher score.

Edit 3: the final gem I'll take for my professors at University: FAT is an old filesystem! gets 90% :P

Secret -- caps seem to also rise the score.

Actualy... fat 88%, fat_ 41%... now that's it, I got tired of this.
Machine learning is getting a bit out of hand. not in the sense of AI and replacing humans (that's not happening) but in terms of hype and over-application.

This API may represent an attempted technological solution to a social problem. Those have a very poor track record.

As a filter for human mods it might be an interesting incremental improvement. But google has a need to do this at a scale where I can't see it staying there in terms of the concept of deployment.
thanks. Just curious if I could produce and sell from the US and have a logo or name on the shirt. As noted above political cartoon style art and a message
> It pointed out where statistically measurable differences exist.
> So Damore and this professor agree?

No, they don't agree. Grant is arguing that the statistics don't bear out Damore's argument that: "the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership."
You people really do have a powerful imagination, a fantasy that simply will not die. How you all insist against all science and reason that men and women are the same in the brain is beyond me.
Reminds me of an old Mad Magazine bit (I'm sure it didn't originate there) where someone gives a scathing review of a movie and the PR guy hacks a positive one together through creative use of ellipses.
That sounds about right. Merely mentioning Trump, favourably or otherwise, starts flamewars.
Jesus the results are abysmally bad. "Genocide is awesome" is rated at 20% toxic, while "Genocide is awful" gets 90% toxic.

Google, step up your game.
They've made an episode on that in South Park. Didn't end well.
I understand the hesitation. A user has submitted a text-based version:

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paulgb/BarbBlock/master/Ba...
Sure, but this <1 hour bus ride is well within the margin of error on your 30+ hour train ride. It shouldn't make a meaningful difference.
"What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproduction of our race and our people, the sustenance of our children and the purity of our blood, the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe." -Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf... 12% likely to be perceived as toxic.

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." -Martin Luther King Jr., letter from Birmingham jail... 40% likely to be perceived as toxic.

You might even argue that Hitler's statement is in fact not very toxic, that MLK is actively trying to cause problems for injustice and as long as nobody is making Hitler think the existence of his people is at risk he won't do anything, and so the API is accurately measuring toxicity. The question is whether a non-toxic, anodyne discourse is what you want. Peace for our time!
Yeah, this is common knowledge at this point. The book, "The Spider Network" details how global bank traders worked with each other to move the LIBOR up and down a few points to favor their own positions. They tried to use one guy as a scapegoat for what was really an endemic problem that still goes on today. The only thing preventing collusion are officials pinky swearing among each other that they won't do it; nothing more.
May 26 2018 is going to be a very interesting day. The GDPR will trigger across Europe, and Facebook will become legally compelled wrt any European citizen to share everything they know about them, discard data not relevant to delivering the Facebook service, and allow users to correct any of the data, or remove all of it. It will be fascinating to see what exactly they know about me. In theory, not that much, since I barely engage with Facebook at all, but in practice I suspect quite a lot.
Does this work for you? https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paulgb/BarbBlock/master/Ba...
This would be better as a blog post than serialized into multiple HN submissions.
There are alternatives, service-by-service.

Try startpage or duckduckgo for search. (The prior is essentially a proxy for Google).

Fastmail or protonmail to get away from GMail. One of the hard things about avoiding Google in email is that even if you switch, others you communicate are likely still there, so Google's still getting that information.
Title might benefit from a short description, e.g., "Scala build tool".