skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
This is neat!

Can you share what techniques you are using for reverberation processing? Early and diffuse reflections?
I'm using Chez Scheme for a side project. It supports R6RS.
> As an analogy, should AT&T monitor calls and terminate service for customers using racist slurs? Now, a lot of people would surely argue that such example is false equivalency, but it follows from the same line of reasoning and would have similar long-term consequences.

Angry mobs aren't thinking about "long-term consequences." Unfortunately, the media loves angry mobs because it generates viewership and clicks.
They're different reports. I don't quite understand what you are saying.

> The IC assessment was just regurgitating CS's report. The IC just took CS at their word since they would have contracted out to someone like CS to begin with.

The IC assessment appears to be very different. It describes information sourcing without any reference to an analysis of DNC servers (let alone CrowdStrike). There does not appear to be any indication that information from CrowdStrike's analysis or any information from DNC servers at all was used to generate the IC assessment.
Like to see Alternatives to electron as well - even super optimized electron on code Atom and Google Chrome are quite heavy on a MacBook Air
Let's say you're right.

I'd think that isolating this group is a poor strategy.

Look at terrorist camps in Pakistan where children are indoctrinated from a young age with radical ideas.

Is the solution here to build a wall or to improve education and spread new ideas?

The truth is that you can never build a high enough wall.

"We often meet our destiny on the road we take to avoid it."
This is just the latest in a string of examples like this.

The Christian bakers / gay wedding cakes is one example.

But people being booted off services like YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and Patreon are others.

We ought to have the right to exclude people from our own private spaces, our own private clubs, and our own private businesses (freedom of association).

However, at what point (and at what scale) does our private club become so large it is a de facto public space?

There does not seem to be any real precedent for discussions like this. The Internet has created an entirely new wrinkle in the debate around free speech and public places.
It does make sense, not a lot of people seem to be interested though - https://github.com/pojala/electrino
> > It's because everybody knows that this has nothing to do with free speech.

> I believe this is called the "Appeal to Authority" fallacy.

Appeal to popularity; different fallacy.

> It's also a tautology, "everybody knows" plus <insert my premise here>. If everybody knew that, we wouldn't be here

A tautology is something true by definition. You seem to be suggesting, however, that the statement is false, and refuted by the existence of the debate on which it is offered. That's not a tautalogy, even were it true, and also, in this specific case, flawed logic of it's own, since it is possible for a dishonest debater to knowingly use a false premise, so the claim that everyone knows that this is not about free speech is not disproven by the existence of a debate in which some claim it is about free speech.
> claims that 90% of miners will split are completely unverified

The best available evidence is mined blocks, as they are unforgeable. Despite being under no obligation to do so, >90% of miners are currently explicitly endorsing the 2x agreement in their blocks[1]. Any claim that miners will fail to do what they continue to explicitly say they will do should be met with skepticism.

[1] See "Segwit2x (intention)" here: https://coin.dance/blocks
> Criminality isn't the only thing people look at for this stuff.

Legally, it is when someone decides to sue or prosecute you for assisting a criminal enterprise.
As much as apps paying people to stay in front of resturants:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2017/08/1...
My name is Ryan Mandelbaum and I'm a science writer at Gizmodo, AMA
No. The 1st amendment is specific to the government, but free speech is a much broader normative concept. It is about cordoning off the market place of ideas from reprisals in meatspace. A canonical defense is John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty" (available free online).
> The Internet has created an entirely new wrinkle in the debate around free speech and public places.

No, absolutely nothing has changed. What has changed is that the internet has given every idiot out there a megaphone and a way to link up with other idiots at a moments notice and groups like the Neo Nazis love like minded company because there is safety for them in a crowd, a way to be part of the monster without having to stand up to scrutiny.
Downvoted for citing UN data. Unbelievable.
Which part isn't true? The miners and many companies were quite explicit about their conditional support for Segwit with the New York Agreement. This is not a surprise move for anyone following the scaling debate.
Much of those tests were done over deserts or islands surrounded by water. A key part of the nuclear winter prediction is predicated on large scale fires.
So this product is still priced in Euros, though you can pay in BTC.

Are there major products out there priced in Bitcoin yet?
I think there should be two tests:

1) Does the reason for terminating a customer violate law that protects certain classes of people/orgs? If so, you can't do it.

Obviously there are jurisdictional concerns here, but let's assume we can navigate them successfully, at least most of the time, without a messy court battle.

2) For any content, regardless of #1, does the customer have other choices besides you? If not, you can't do it.

For the second point, I think that should be there to protect from a company arbitrarily imposing its values. My feeling is that if there's enough healthy competition (I won't define what "enough" is because I don't know, but hope that it could be definable), someone will host your content. And if no one wants to, that should be a pretty clear signal that you're so unbelievably far away from what the vast majority (or even the near unanimity) would consider acceptable that you really will want to rethink some things.

If you are the only option, then likely you are a legally-regulated monopoly anyway and have some rules around needing to offer service blindly (rules imposed in exchange for that monopoly status).
In fact private corporations already have the right to censor or refuse service to any of their customers.
If he doesn't like your site, he may not allow you to use his service, which is something the TOS already cover.

Over time, such capricious terminations could lead to the Board seeking action against the CEO, depending on the impact to the business.
Who's talking about suing or prosecuting?
Full Code – Emergency Room Simulator
> Trump is going to run Cloudflare? What?

The debate is a wider cultural one, which ends in political action. That's how powerful changes to government are put into place. See: 1970s, or see: post 9/11.

The issue isn't whether Cloudflare should be able to control the content on its network, that's a small, narrow, mostly settled debate.

The very large issue is: is the culture shifting toward ending freedom of speech as we know it, in favor of controlled speech. That is the only debate that matters here, and it is occurring throughout this thread.

The consequence of any further limitations put onto speech eg in regards to the Internet medium, is that the next version of Trump will use his FCC in horrific ways to silence counter speech.

How do all the people here not understand this is the core issue? We just lived through a terrifying expansion of power post 9/11 because the culture became unduly scared, in which all the reasoning was fraudulent and solely used as a means to expand power. Now we have dozens of new power levers, increasingly abused by each administration.

The single most important bastion of freedom to protect, is speech + press.
> How would you describe those?

Premeditated violent acts designed to strike fear into the local populace. Far different then an angry protestor getting in his car to hit other protestors. I would even go so far as to say that most people will continue to think they're safe as long as they're not at a protest (whereas Islamic terrorists in Europe want everyone to feel unsafe everywhere, all the time).

The act in question was rage plain and simple, not an act designed to spread fear. Terrorism, by definition, is a violent act designed to express and spread terror in a populace, therefore I don't believe it warrants that definition.
This is reasonable decision. If you say something bad about my company then "no soup for you" [1].

It seems like there is no free speech on internet: because free speech is controlled by corporations and the loudest people on social media. So there will be no ISIS websites, no Daily Stormer websites, etc.

That is how it is.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svSGKJFSl-8
According to Blind, at least 40% of Silicon Valley workers support what Trump said regarding this incident. Probably less than 1% support the ideas of Neo-nazis or the Daily Stormer. You're making a false assumption and dehumanizing those who disagree with you.
AT&T had common carrier status which indemnifies them against what subscribers did but that came at the cost of a lot of government oversight on what they could do in return.

Lots of private companies wouldn't want that (and AT&T butted heads over it).

Personally I think Facebook is already over that line, when you have the eyeballs of about 1/7th of the planet you are already a potential threat that should have government level oversight, in a democracy, you control the eyeballs you control the politicians.
Hey Ryan,

I see this question asked very often in the last year or two. I am not an expert on deep learning, nor have I taken the deeplearning.ai track, but am currently learning about the topic.

Some of the resources out there have nice primers. I think you need to be somewhat comfortable with understanding the usual log/exp functions for the very base, understand calculus, with partial derivatives, and be used to linear algebra and matrix operations. Some good understanding of statistics could be useful as well when learning about ML. I don't think that a good background in CS is necessary for this stuff. This has not much to do with programming languages, operating systems, Turing completeness. Maybe having a good base in algorithms could be useful for _implementing_ the libraries to make sure they are optimal.

I was wondering why do people ask this question (or ask about resources on learning about this topic in general), when answers on this are so easily findable online.
@dang/mods, it might be appropriate to re-title this as:

Controversial Bitcoin Upgrade Attempt Planned for November 2017 at Block 494,784

This "upgrade" has not been agreed to nor has it been ratified by the majority of the community.

edit: adding a source, https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support which has a column for Segwit2x
No, but I can give you a subscription that charges you a random amount each month, which is pretty close.
If it's not a parody, it's one of the most unintentionally hilarious things involving data I have ever seen presented.

To anyone who takes this seriously: I have a price of butter in Bangladesh indicator which works REALLY WELL on the S&P500.
I don't know the USA geography very well as I'm not a native, but isn't Portland in Oregon? Or are there more than one Portland cities?
Attendance at theaters is also reaching new lows, though. So it's not just about production quality.
Yea...I thought that was gaining a second life. :(
Entrepreneurship Is the Epitome of Vulnerability
We're using a room acoustics model that captures early and late reflections based on the acoustic properties (dimensions and materials) of the room. :)
My mistake, I was under the impression Segwit2x was approved by Core.

I still think this is a good thing. The Bitcoin Core developers have restricted the Bitcoin network for too long. Perhaps this will serve as a wake up call.

Personally I still think Bitcoin Cash was the right move. Segwit adds a lot of complexity and technical debt, bigger blocks were really all that's needed as evidenced by how quickly BCC dealt with the transaction backlogs. Unfortunately the market didn't agree.
I think this is key. We're in new territory with the internet.

Will we ever be at a point where a VoIP call is filtered because the service doesn't want to transmit what you're saying?
Can you expound on what you see as the differences?
Some new college grads setup interviews with 5 or so companies right around graduation plus previous internships that convert. That's the only time bar someone known in the industry who becomes available.
To be fair to the GP, I've, for example, seen/heard my friends and acquaintances call people Nazis for condemning vigilante violence (e.g. "punching Nazis"), the Berkeley riots, and Antifa protests.

I think the sentiment GP is trying to communicate is that many seem to throw the label out there without any further investigation as to whether its justified.

As for the downvotes, it might be because your comment came across very hostile.

Also, I agree that it's easy to see that the Daily Stormer is neo-Nazi type stuff.
For those not following this closely: Aurenheimer == weev.
If you didn't agree to the terms of the GPL then you simply have no right to use the code in the first place, no?
Most right wing politicians in the west have been called Nazis at one time or another.
The Christian bakers were sued and then forced to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple because sexual orientation is a protected class. "Alt-right" or whatever Daily Stormer is, is not a protected class. "Political party" is a protected class, which puts Daily Stormer in a possibly fuzzy territory (I have never read Daily Stormer so I don't know if they count as a political publication).
Well, in the US, copyright exists "To promote the progress of science and useful arts" I can argue that being able to be able to get movies in one place is certainly useful. Or that it seems reasonable that in exchange for the unnatural monopoly of copyright, strings can be attached.
> at what point (and at what scale)

The internet giants are monopolies and should be regulated as such, or broken up. But the government has basically abandoned monopoly enforcement over the last couple decades. The irony is that it is because of right-wing, anti-regulation, libertarian politics that the government has become so reluctant to enforce monopoly laws.
Have you guys tried Mr and Mrs Misscellenaous ?
Organizations get what you reward.

Tech Debt is rewarded.

Doing something for the first time, almost by definition, means one does not really know what one is doing and is going to do it somewhat wrong.

Hiring less skilled labor (cheap coder camps for example) to implement buzzword bingo solutions gets you into a place where all the software contains large chunks of it's substance coming from people doing it for the first time... and not 100% right.

As we never go back to fix the tech debt we end up building stills for the borked and less than great. When that structure topples over we start over with a new bingo sheet listing the hot new technologies that will fix our problems this time round for sure.

I'd think that a good fraction of the current language expansion is that the older languages are too complex and filled with broken. Green fields allow one to reimplement printf, feel great about it, and get rewarded as a luminary in the smaller pond.

.....

oh... and well the cynic in me would argue planed obsolescence at the gross level. No one buys the new stuff unless there's new stuff.
On the flip side of that you can only run your cake making business because you benefit from access to a stable monetary system (hah, I live in the UK), a safe and civil society and an educated populace with money to buy over priced sugar.

Given that does society not have a right to say that "If you want to earn money providing a service then you should do so by providing that service equally to all people who aren't breaking the law"?

Not saying which side I fall, I'm not sure but I think the question is interesting.

Far to often we focus on our rights and forget that other people have rights and that society has a duty to us and we have a duty to society.
2017 - when people are comparing illegal downloads to Nazis, but not in a way you'd expect to. (Does this count as Godwin's law?)
Private companies certainly have the right to kick you of their service if they don't like you. However, everything that is legal is not right. And we should point it out and criticize such actions. Today it's Nazis, tomorrow it could be you.
There's enormous precedent around the whole scale from public discrimination to privately owned public (government) forums to private discrimination in special critical circumstances (common carriers, employment, and housing), to private discrimination in businesses that are public accommodations generally, and mountains of statute and case law specific to each.

And, in each of the major categories, the law has already been applied on the internet.

While the specific scenarios may have some novelty, the general issues are not new with the internet.
How does google profit from serving these pages opposed to original content creator?
So that guy who drove the car ran the website mentioned? That seems like new news for all of us. I would love a citation.
"Great cases like hard cases make bad law. For great cases are called great, not by reason of their importance... but because of some accident of immediate overwhelming interest which appeals to the feelings and distorts the judgment." --Oliver Wendell Holmes, Northern Secs. case. (1904).
Happy 24th Birthday, Debian
That is not the primary issue being debated here.

The issue is: once all the big platforms are aggressively enforcing speech controls, supported by a wider shift in the culture that backs that, how likely is it that the government will take the opportunity to become a speech regulator as it pertains to the Internet just as they are with broadcast & radio today.

I say: it's guaranteed as an inevitable outcome, if the platforms & wider culture keep moving the direction things are going now.

The consequence: the next Trump will do horrific things with those new speech control powers. It's extremely obvious this is where we're heading. The fear people are using as an excuse to argue in favor of controlled speech today, is identical to the fear that was taken advantage of by the government to implement dozens of new abusive post 9/11 powers on the basis of a constantly terrified (eg the Bush terror color codes) citizenship.

The platforms are putting the levers into place, that a future government will use at their pleasure to silence opposition. We have a very, very aggressive, power hungry government; we have a very consolidated power base politically, with only two major parties. You can't see what's going to come out of that?
Yes, without a third option, the question is, which is more important, freedom of speech and expression, or the freedom for business to choose who they serve?

If it were a protected group like LGBTQ, Cloudflare could not discriminate against them (the gay wedding cake is an example of this). So we've already decided, as a society (or rather our politicians have), that businesses must service protected groups. How far of a slippery slope is it to extend that protection to everyone?

The difference between this and the wedding cake example, is the couple could have easily gone to another bakery. With the internet controlled by a small group of companies in a particular region, and SV's bias towards liberalism (in a capitalist sort of way), it makes it harder to just find another bakery.

I can see the frustration. Imagine if the roles were reversed and the US internet was controlled by a conservative group in Texas (as it almost was) and those companies decided they didn't want to host packets or register LGBTQ type websites; we'd be livid. I mean we have to treat all speech equally, don't we?

It's an interesting dilemma.
Woah!!! This is perfect for a project I'd like to do....
Here are the results for MI, PA, and WI:
https://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/michigan
https://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/wisconsin
https://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/pennsylvania

In all three cases, the difference between Hillary and Trump was less than what the 3rd party candidates got and what Jill Stein alone got. Given what I've said before, and what happened in 2000 in FL, trying to convince people of actually voting for their 2nd preference (Hillary) or vote trading in such states makes almost as much sense as blaming the Clinton campaign itself (definitely deserves the most blame), Russia, and any number of other reasons why Hillary lost.

It's a part of the puzzle, again, given that this is the 2nd time this happened.
The original title is fine. This upgrade has been agreed to by >90% of Bitcoin miners as well as many prominent Bitcoin-using businesses including Coinbase (YC S12).

There is opposition, yes, led by another company, Blockstream, which employs the most vocal contributors to the Bitcoin Core project. However as for "the community", there is no good evidence to support a majority opinion on either side.
One would assume that the White House would meet with corporate leaders, who undoubtedly have interests with regards to taxes and offshore money or labor laws, to find the intersection of interests.
Very few of those folks held up torches in public chanting an English version of a Nazi slogan. Even fewer still walk in public rallies waving Nazi flags, or hop in cars and run down counter-protesters.

So maybe I this case the general public can distinguish between literal and figurative fascism. The Daily Stormer supported acts of violence committed by the former, not the later.
> A baker refused to make a cake for a gay couple due to religious beliefs. Supreme Court will rule on the case in fall

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court-gays-religio...

> And what's "critical speech infrastructure"?

That's the joke. If the government can force a cake baker to make a cake for a gay couple, why not force (excuse me, regulate) internet companies to provide services to those they don't want to provide service for? Surely, if your sexual orientation is a protected class as a consumer, your first amendment rights are moreso protected.

"No federal law requires businesses to serve all customers without regard to their sexual orientation, but 21 states have “public accommodations” laws that prohibit discrimination against gays and lesbians.

In 2012, he said he politely declined to make a wedding cake for Charles Craig and David Mullins, who had planned to marry in Massachusetts but then have a reception in their home state of Colorado. They lodged a complaint with the state civil rights commission.

The commission ruled that Phillips’ refusal to make the wedding cake violated the provision in the state’s anti-discrimination law that says businesses open to the public may not deny service to customers based on their race, religion, gender or sexual orientation. The panel ordered him to provide wedding cakes on an equal basis for same-sex couples.

Phillips appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing he deserved a religious exemption based on the 1st Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech and free exercise of religion. His lawyers say he refused to comply with the commission ruling while his appeal proceeded."
Tutorial for Adding Redux to a React App
PayPal suspends accounts associated with Charlottesville organizers