skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
They already perform censorship of materials. Even if you don't take child porn/"Pirate Bay" type stuff into account, Google removes/blocks/filters out an enormous amount of content in the forms of images, videos, audio, and printed words.

Unfortunately for me, I am tied into their ecosystem in such a way that I can't remove myself, because too many work-required and other accounts use Google-provided solutions, and it is required by clients or whatnot. Even my tv and blu-ray player are powered by Android.
Is this how you have almost 600 positive karma in just six months, by complaining so much about downvotes? Three posts in just the last hour, in this thread and another thread:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15142269

Plus (in just the first few pages of your other comments that I looked at):

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15083862

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15059972

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15054815

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15048756

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15040389

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15030354
Rural America Is Building Its Own Internet Because No One Else Will
My Grep is faster than yours
That is the crux of the issue with Google being a monopoly.

If you work for a company, and speak out against that company, there is no reason for that company to be forced to keep you. They can kick you out, and if you are fired simply over disagreement, you can find another company. The very availability of that option is how you are free to speak against your corporation. You need not stay there.

If that company is a monopoly, however, you are left without that option, and therefore left without the liberty to speak freely against that company. You can still speak out against them, and get fired like before, but then you are left with no avenue of employment afterward; and since you are thus aware, you likely won't be speaking out after all.
For those who it matters:

He wasn't a case officer (AFAICT), he was not an agent (somebody an officer recruits to spy), he was an analyst.

The distinction is important.
Complaints about small sample sizes are practically a stock answer at this point. I've never seen a study posted that didn't have this complaint.

It would be much more useful to talk about the statistical significance in more quantitative terms.
Like this one[0]?

[0] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/is-amazon-getting-to...
I was always told that math is the most exact science.
Everything great in the world was once shitty.
Hypothetically, letting some anti-Google rhetoric through might legitimize an otherwise supportive stance.

Say I'm 80% evil and I fund a think tank. The think tank's reputation was 100, and now it's 60 with regard to statements about me because my funding it makes it seem biased. If it published a story that says I'm actually 4% evil, then it gets a reputation boost, I'm not looking as bad as I actually am, and I'm well positioned to let the organization do positive spin when I really need it.

I would say that Google and similar orgs actually usually do this. But Google and Amazon are getting really, really nervous when people talk about monopoly. If anti-trust comes back into vogue, and it could possibly, then it's an existential threat for these empires. They have to carefully manage their carrots and sticks on this issue, and with this one they went with the stick.
I recently caught up with an old acquaintance. We interned together many years ago. He was on the college football team then, and quite proud of it. It hasn't been that long; he isn't that old. Yet at the end of a lunch (at which we had nothing to drink) he forgot four times in a row that we had already paid the cheque. He complained of a recent lay-off. He believes he was targeted for forgetting appointments and missing details. This shocked me--he used to have a far better memory than I did.

Maybe I'm overfitting. But I can't help but imagine that if his school, one of the top in our country, hadn't let him destroy himself under their watch, we'd still have a sharp, productive young man with us.
Interesting, you sound very strange.
How about hobbies that don't even require electricity?
Like riding a bicycle or motorcycle on backroads, playing and listening to live music, dining outdoors, crosswords, and daypacking in the woods.
Even if there is no correlation of risks between the youth and professional levels of play (and I don't doubt that), parents steering their kids towards away from rugby, hockey, and football will eventually hemorrhage market share for those professional leagues in favor of safer sports.

We have flag football in the US for younger kids, sounds roughly analogous to ripper rugby.
I agree with jrowley, and here are some resources I can recommend. These are college textbooks, not websites.

First, some EE. Horowitz & Hill's "The Art of Electronics" is the gold standard.

https://artofelectronics.net/

Then, Hennessey and Patterson's "Computer Organization and Design: The Hardware/Software Interface (ARM edition)",

https://www.amazon.com/Computer-Organization-Design-ARM-Arch...

...or Tannenbaum's "Stuctured Computer Organization"

https://www.amazon.com/Structured-Computer-Organization-Andr...
If you click on the final link to thanks.rust-lang.org, you'll find it there!

There have been talks about moving it back, but it's complicated. You can do the "duplicate it" strategy, but that has downsides. You could do an iframe, but then you're using an iframe. You could use JavaScript, but then a whole different crew of people will Get Mad.
"one of the greatest individual contributors of all time".... oh really! cool.
> So what’s wrong with JavaSript Frameworks?

> Having separate codebases for the API, control panel and feedback interface seemed like a good idea, but in reality it just meant more software with more dependencies to keep updated, more tests to run, and a much more complicated deployment process.

Huh? What am I missing here? He made the mistake of creating separate code bases blames it on using a Javascript framework? He could have kept in in the same code base just like using Javascript without a framework.

He then complains about Ember and that's all the explanation we get for why Javascript frameworks are bad. That paragraph didn't even remotely answer the question.

> Even if I was a seasoned pro with Ember, it’s still a case of two frameworks vs one, two codebases vs one, two test suites, two deployments processes, you get the idea.

He makes the same argument again but even worse. Why do you need 2 codebases and 2 deployment processes? You don't. I still don't get how this has anything to do with Javascript frameworks. Sure, you need 2 test suites, but you also do without a Javascript framework.

I do agree that more code bases and deployment processes is more complicated, but has absolutely nothing to do with Javascript frameworks.
Loans for what? Some people in many fields should NOT get a loan. It will make matter worse...broke and indebted to a bank. Not everyone is gonna make a $1 million a year.
> And look, maybe this economist is wrong.

Even if the economist is right, there's still benefits to Iowa being there beyond economic development. Besides the fact that Apple is contributing money to a local infrastructure fund (even if it's just $20M instead of $100M), Iowa is in fact still taxing Apple, just at a much lower rate than they would have without the tax breaks.

> But I'm not sure why the knee-jerk reaction is that a datacenter is so good that who cares if a deal like this is made.

I think it's because this deal doesn't actually hurt Iowa. The only thing lost here is potential tax income if Iowa hadn't offered the tax break and Apple had chosen to build there anyway. It's not like Iowa is handing out cash to Apple.

> And if datacenters are so good for our society, why should Apple get the tax break and not everybody else?

Others do get tax breaks! Note here that the tax break offered to Apple is in fact the exact same one offered to farmers. The tax break here is just taxing Apple's data center at the same rate that Iowa taxes farmland.

> I'm quite sure there are other datacenters in Iowa provided the exact same benefits of this Datacenter while still paying the legal tax rate.

That's certainly possible. It's also quite likely that they negotiated their own tax breaks before building their data centers.

> I could also argue that this form of unfairness is itself a cost Iowa is paying when they make a deal like this.

How would you go about arguing that? "unfairness" isn't really something you can measure or put a cost on.
It is data-race free. That's one definition of "threadsafe", but there could be others; it's a pretty broad term.
Quantum is the project, not the engine. The resulting product is still Gecko.
> Isn't that what at-will employment is?

Yes, at anytime, and with our without reason. However, doing so can open you up to a lawsuit for wrongful termination.

You can't be fired because of sex (including orientation and pregnancy), race, religion, disability, age, or nation of origin.

Retaliation, refusal to commit a crime, and failure to follow your companies own termination process, are also grounds for wrongful termination claims.

Typically, HR departments have a firing manager start building a paper trail of evidence, usually by way of a PiP.
It's like you're intentionally trying to be uncomfortable by the fact that it mentions Jewish people. It's The Jewish Chronicle, for crying out loud.
>> Big businesses can threaten free speech when they accumulate too much power. For Google, that moment has come.

I agree, Google has enabled far more political free speech than it has suppressed.

On the often-misunderstood idea of freedom of all speech, Google certainly has the right to suppress the speech of its employees in certain scenarios.

That has nothing to do with freedom of political speech, the storied american ideal.

In this case, this man learned a very important lesson most of us should learn much younger than him:

freedom to speak does not include freedom from repercussions

(AKA don't bite the hand that feeds if you want to be fed, real basic stuff here)

Only political speech is a protected class, and it is only protected from government intrusion, not private.
Could you please explain that further? Isn't it standard practice at a lot of companies that you raise a support ticket instead?
BTW, the letter from RBI employees was about mismanagement rather than demonetization perse -
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/f...

That article that you linked seems to be intentionally ambiguous.
If you got neck problems from moving your head 15 degrees side to side every once in a while you have much bigger issues or your monitors are positioned incredibly strangely.
The idea is that sources are interested in funding BECAUSE they might be criticized. That's when they actually get something out of it. Not a lot of actual altruists in the world, and if they exist, they're funding NGOs that deal with clean water or hunger or something less abstract, at least in the aggregate.
In rugby, except for a couple of lines on the field, one inch doesn't strictly matter more than another, within the bounds of the rules.

In american football, one inch anywhere on the field can make the difference between four more downs or having to kick the ball away.
Still, a few amino acids are far far away from proteins, let alone all proteins that work together and makes a simple living cell. Or mechanisms like:
https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/mitochondria-14053...

it might still be possible "given enough time".
I've been having a little trouble using rust for a little project: I need a tree with uplinks (meaning there are cycles). I asked on IRC a couple times and I think what I need is a weak reference inside a refcell, but it's not very easy to make it work cleanly. For one thing, it doesn't look like refcell works well with traits (the nodes in the tree are traits, not plain structs).

I'm a bit frustrated because this is so easy in C. Is there any way this can be easier?

I am imagining a special way to construct cyclical structures where everything inside would have the same lifetime and be destructed at once. We may need to hide the references from destructors though, otherwise a destructor could see a dangling reference.
Let's do a thought experiment: Imagine if a company had enough power to inject money into all of the major media outlets, to the point where they depend on this company to stay alive. Now, if this company threatens to pull the money out if the media outlet says anything that goes against it, the company will effectively have control over the opinions of all major media channels. This is obviously not acceptable in a society that considers itself "free speech". It's free from legal consequences but when you shut opinions down due to "other consequences" you end up with the same result. A muted society.
Yes, testing along with strict linter settings goes a long way.
Normal people not familiar with tech wont know what that means. They'll see fcc.gov and think its safe.
Cuban US Diplomats Mysterious Symptoms Caused by Sonar Weapons That Exist
Including the interpreter, and then the JIT, made a native compiler pointless.

But that's all beside the point, which is people will often tell me what they want in a product, but don't actually want it.
well, they are "supposed" to be non-partisan with policy proposals based on objective research
Google might as well cancel all funding to think tanks now - because no-one will believe a single pro-Google word they say.
The X-Pod
>All think tanks are like this.

I don't necessarily disagree. But it is a good moment to remind everyone that those white papers have a man behind the curtain. It's also a nice cultural moment for anti-trust (admittedly my pet issue.)

>People don't tend to pay other people to tell them their baby is ugly.

Sure but if I have an ugly baby and I start funding a group called "The Baby Raters" and I watch and continue donating as they judge all of my friends babies to be ugly but then pull funding (or threaten to) when they judge my baby as ugly, I'd say that I've successfully undermined the institution. It's no longer what it says on the tin.
There's a little subtle tech behind wifi geolocation. Skyhook Wireless has some of this figured out, and their material even claims they are "defying standard OS limitations."

In other words, they're finding you even when you prefer not.
Well sorry, for that. Get a piece of paper and try it. The drake equation isn't too hard. It is just a bunch of probabilities multiplied by an amount of stars. You can even add your own terms if you don't like the one you have, but generally doing this takes yo further from the science...

Anyway, Here is a simple description I snagged from google search [1]:

> The Drake Equation is:
> N = R * fp * ne * fl * fi * fc * L
>
> where:
> N = The number of broadcasting civilizations.
> R = Average rate of formation of suitable stars (stars/year) in the Milky Way galaxy
> fp = Fraction of stars that form planets
> ne = Average number of habitable planets per star
> fl = Fraction of habitable planets (ne) where life emerges
> fi = Fraction of habitable planets with life where intelligent evolves
> fc = Fraction of planets with intelligent life capable of interstellar communication
> L = Years a civilization remains detectable

Now grab a pen and cocktail and make the math do whatever you want. I think that is you stick to realistic numbers you will get reasonably high values. But we might just disagree there.

[1] http://www.astrodigital.org/astronomy/drake_equation.html
That is why the problem is not corporations' ability to fire employees, but whether that corporation is a monopoly, i. e. that employee's only option for employment.

For a corporation with competition, the ability to fire someone over disagreement is clearly reasonable, since that employee may prefer work with another corporation in that sector.

To contrast: For a monopoly, the ability to fire someone over disagreement, and no other merit, is suddenly transformed into an abuse over free speech. The employee can't speak out against a monopoly, and expect to find work afterward, meaning that employee has poignant reason not to speak out in the first place.
Unfortunately this type of long term benefit for the large corporation doesn't affect the next quarterly report and is ignored in favor of more short term gains.
A morally defensible, if impractical, position. Kant would be proud.
>taking care to ensure that the experiments distinguish between the reality in which your theory holds, and the one where it doesn't.

I get the impression that you're thinking of specific domains within science. Many theories are contextualized within something (e.g a theory of why there's lightning might be more domain specific than a theory of electromagnetism).

I don't disagree that things are proved within mathematical systems and scientific claims / hypotheses are categorically different (and weaker, I suppose).

But the author made a claim, discovered an error in their claim, and alerted the community to his mistake and signaled their intention to address it. That's not behavior that's exclusive to mathematics. Many scientists have made claims that they think the evidence supports, and then they realize that something wasn't correct, and they make the correction.

Cartographers / mariners used to think that California was an island:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_of_California

They had solid evidence to think that's the case but then eventually they realized the mistake and they've corrected it.
Can you criticise Amazon or Jeff Bezos on wapost?
I was a little surprised that simple exercise isn't on this list; besides the health benefits, I think it has really good psychological benefits to people who work in conceptual fields. If your workday is spent figuring out how to solve problems and working through annoying bugs, there's something very satisfying about doing a task that can only be done one way. If you want to be able to lift heavier things, all you can do is lift heavy things! I guess this list tended more towards "other ways to engage problem-solving," but I think it's healthy to sometimes do things you just have to push through.
> Postmates support used to be great - call a number from within the app, talk to a real person, get your issue resolved while on the phone. Now their support is almost nonexistent.

Pretty much says that they are walking dead. As a service business, service is the only differentiation and it costs. That is why these businesses spend huge amounts of time on process to minimize service problems, monitoring and metrics to get to problems before they become service issues, and then maximizing the likelihood that a service call can be resolved satisfactorily in short order.

It does not sound like they have internalized any of those requirements.
A libertarian economist would say:

"Externalities are only bad when the island runs out of trees to chop down, canneries runs out of sardines to can and planet runs out of fossil fuels dig up."
> Football is America's gladiator sport

The analogy goes deeper. We exempt the NFL from antitrust law [1]. We let it keep its feedstock players, i.e. college athletes, people who come from disproportionately low-income backgrounds, so poorly they go hungry [2]. For many, a sports scholarship seems like the only chance they have at a better life.

A minority reach semi-stardom, with a vanishing fraction of those achieving fame and wealth. But for all, the cost society charges is literally their minds.

[1] https://sportslaw.uslegal.com/antitrust-and-labor-law-issues...

[2] http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/04/21/304196202/hun...
No, you are confusing charity with non-profit. Not every non-profit is a charity. Example: the NFL, a non-profit that serves its taxpaying members. A non-profit is an organization that exist not to generate revenue for its owners, so the owners don't pay tax -- the members or beneficaries do, under regular tax laws. Google pays taxes on its profits generated via the activity of the nonprofit.
Like that law that says you can't own more than x radio stations? But what if you don't "own" them, just fund them. I think we need to stretch the legal definition of ownership to influence.
Maths has proof. Science only has models that fit evidence collected so far
Nobody makes anyone give money to a nonprofit...
When I tried the client side version on the same image, it wasn't good compared to the server side. Are you using a different model on the client?
I don't think this is a black-and-white kind of area. Plenty of miners felt a lot of pride in their work and wouldn't have given it up if they didn't have to, but mining is inherently more dangerous than sitting at a desk.

So, while companies should have workers' comp and provide helmets on the job, it doesn't mean that the risk needs to be zero. Dangerous jobs tend to be well-compensated, so it either comes down to risk tolerance or cultural factors (something like "my father was a miner and I live in coal country") more than desperation.
I think your simplification misses an important distinction which you address later in your comment. The first amendment protects from reprisals from the government. If we are in a world where the government suppresses speech we are in a different kind of dystopia than one where corporations do the same thing.

The solution will be different because the way we interact with our government is different from the way we interact with corporations.
It's a funny one, because as has already been pointed out, science means more than one thing in English. There's "rigorous study" and there's "natural science". It's assumed that the latter is rigorous and our best philosophical model for this is Popper's falsifiability. And whereas pretty much everyone except string theorists now accepts this model, it's pretty recent. Many ancient Greeks, for instance, favoured thinking hard about a problem over experimental evidence, either before or after the fact.
They are just getting too big and have too much information. I wonder if a tax system could be created that discouraged companies to grow beyond a certain size and instead favored smaller ones. The potential for abuse by giant companies like Facebook and Google is just too much.
> think tanks are a euphemism for propaganda machine.

Yep and they go back in one form or another centuries possibly millenia, right back to when kings used to pay people to justify why they owed less money to the catholic church.
People say this because they are ignoring the 90% of the factors they agree upon and so the remaining fractional differences loom large. Also photos are no substitute for real life.
HISD students to receive three free meals a day for 2017-2018 school year
What's strange about what he wrote?
If you don't want to give your email for whitepaper, you can check the most of the reasons here: https://www.ready4s.com/blog/why-to-outsource-app-developmen...

For example best java developers according to HackerRank
Jeff Bezos and Amazon are not the same person. This is an important distinction.
Well, that's a good question for the think tanks. I imagine they always want more funding, so they reach out to corporations, and ultimately find themselves in conflict. I'm sure they'd argue that, without the corporate money, they wouldn't exist in the first place. Catch 22.
Think tanks should be funded by governments and they should liaise with industry in an impartial, academic way. Any corporation which tries to fund a think tank should be accused of bribery or corruption.
But if Google started giving money to New America and Eric Schmidt joined the board knowing that New America was funding an anti-monopoly group then I think that makes Google and Eric look a lot worse

Schmidt joined the board in 2008. Lynn says he has been doing this research since 1999.
This screed isn't good journalism, though. For the best that people get blocked by the paywall.