skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
there’s a huge amount of increasing extremism on the left...

I'm not convinced this is really what's going on. At least, not precisely.

The United States has become more progressively politically polarized over the last two or three decades: the left has gotten more left and the right has gotten more right. But the polarization hasn't been symmetrical over that period; the right has moved much farther to the right overall.

https://www.google.com/search?q=asymmetrical+political+polar...

I think what's happening now may be the left catching up, so to speak. The lesson of the modern Conservative Movement, for better or worse (I would say worse), is that polarization works. Demonizing your opponents--not merely disagreeing with their policy positions--well, it works. The enemy isn't a political philosophy. It isn't even an ideology. It's your fellow countrymen. And there will be no peace unless they are driven out or utterly disenfranchised.

And, as much as I'd like to blame my fellow travelers on the Left, I can't. A lot of the folks who get real shrill about the (so far largely theoretical) threat of Antifa are curiously silent about how Trump has emboldened some of the absolute worst tendencies in far-right American politics. Antifa is, arguably, a reaction to that.

I don't think resistance to fascism is a bad thing, either. (That's not to say that I advocate "punching Nazis," per se, but I think conservatives are correct in finding a right to self-defense that extends, if necessary, to violence.) But we're definitely seeing a much greater polarization happening on the left, a movement akin to the Tea Party. I don't know where this ends, but it doesn't seem like a positive thing to me.

I don't think anyone should take away a diversity of political thought. But I think taking away polarization and demonization would be terrific for the country. And I admit that, right now, having the President himself spending more time encouraging that polarization and demonization than he does running the country strikes me as a grave problem. I wouldn't explicitly encourage Twitter to replace Trump's login with a placeholder page reading "Don't you think you could spend a bit more time healing rifts than creating them, Mr. President?"...but you know what? I wouldn't censure them for it, either.
Im just arguing that Twitter has a Code of Conduct [1] and Trump definitely falls across that line frequently, I could easily see how he should be banned but probably has special privilege as for he is solely responsible for saving the business from demise.

[1] https://support.twitter.com/articles/20175050#
I’m surprised they don’t do this anyway.

Whatever noteriety they get from Trump has to come with a cost. The words “twitter” and “Trump” become more and more associated every day.
I really like this. Mirrors Wittgenstein's "the meaning of a word is its use" maxim (see, e.g. http://www.maciejratajski.com/work/the-meaning-of-a-word-is-...) in philosophy of language.
What's that got to do with anything?

The comment was about the ability to vary power at all, not doing it efficiently.

Are you going to choose to crash into something because it's wasting fuel to vent part of the steam?
Thanks for sharing this place. I've visited Turkey and unfortunately was unaware of this site then.
It makes some sense to me. Conning officer instructs helmsman which direction to go. Helmsman then executes that and monitors/adjusts to stay on that heading without further attention. Same for speed. The officer is then free of the tasks of monitoring and adjusting speed and direction and can focus on what's happening outside of that.
> We have the technology to do a lot better than we are doing, but capital prefers to manufacture scarcity in the guise of abundance.

Yes, the tight coupling of progress to profits is becoming very counter-productive. Too many good ideas and products that get killed because they can’t make enough money (and the criteria for “enough” keeps rising unnecessarily and exponentially, i.e. something has to sell in tens of millions to be considered a “success” even if half a million would be profitable.)

We will need to rethink the role of money in human civilization if we don’t want it to become a corporate hell where every action is dictated by how much money it makes.
The language was designed as a testbed for future PL research. That was the primary goal.
They might not be around to buy a beer. I'm sure the Secret Service/FBI could trump up some kind of Federal charges for such a thing.
It should be possible, but be like Chrome Extensions where there's an entirely different flow to install a non-WebStore extension. Though perhaps Chrome's doesn't provide enough warning...
How do you know that you can trust the owner of any domain?

How can you trust anyone?

That's a deep philosophical question but doesn't really have anything to do with the technology you are using?
Most people I know have one, and are not looking at updating ever until it breaks. For browsing/email/facebook, you don't need the latest one. Even the iPad 2 is enough to do those tasks. I feel there's much less urgency to update than on the iPhones and the Mac.
I didn't say they were identical, but there are some important similarities:

To tulips and beanie babies: There were direct substitutes (other flowers and other stuffed animals) in terms of the actual utility, but tulip prices shot up in 1637- even investors bought tulip contracts not because they needed them, but because they were speculating on the value. Eventually demand leveled out, and the prices stopped going up. When the prices stopped going up, the speculators got out, and prices went down fast. The premium status of being the preferred flower or the preferred toy didn't help any more. How could this be like BTC? There are cryptocurrencies that are direct substitutes like LTC, but BTC is preferred and has a lot of investors purely for speculation. Once demand levels off (it must, there are a max of 7 billion people that can buy it), the speculators will get out, and prices will come down. Why hasn't it happened yet? BTC is artificially scarce due to block difficulty increases and fixed BTC being added for each block. The limited supply is maintaining price support for now, but like I said, once demand levels off, the fixed supply won't be as big of a price driver.

Similar to houses and .com stocks: Houses have real utility (you can use it for shelter). Stocks have real utility (you own a piece of a profit making entity). BTC has some real utility (you can transfer wealth outside of the regulation of governments and banks). However, these bubbles happened because instead of trading on a firm foundation value, people started expecting profits. The castle in the sky theory does work, but only if enough people believe in it. Once confidence faltered (either that people would continue to buy houses or that .com stocks would continue to print money), the castles in the sky fell, and prices fell back to their firm foundation value (a house in Las Vegas that I looked at went from $400k down to $100k- basically the price of raw materials and cheap labor). BTC's price right now is WAY over it's firm foundation utility of being a wealth transfer vehicle. It does have some value, but if enough people decide that a couple other cryptocoins can do the job with less risk than BTC, then prices for BTC will go down to it's intrinsic value- mostly related to the price of energy. It's hard to tell where this will settle, because ASICs are getting more efficient, and the block difficulty changes. But I guarantee you it will be way under $6k.

So these things aren't exactly the same, but there are lots of similarities with previous bubbles in the past. I'm not saying to stay away from BTC, but you had better be willing to lose your investment. There are a lot of people in the market that are only looking for a quick buck, and if they get out before you do then you are going to lose most of your investment. If you aren't desperate to make money off your investment, you will be happy with closing a position early instead of riding the crash into the ground. Closing early makes you the person with the quick buck and makes someone else the fool that lost their shirt.
Sure, but I think you're missing the bigger point. It's not about Twitter's business, it's about free speech and the fact that he is the fairly elected president of the United States. You can't pick and choose. I'm sure I'll continue to get downvoted though.
Modal editing was always the upsetting thing that I had to do when pico wasn't available on various servers. I don't remember what won me over, but it really doesn't take much to get a fairly large editing boost out of using VIM. A couple years in, I still barely use advanced features like macros and such but I still feel it's a big productivity boost.

I used a barebones atom install a few months ago for a livecoding presentation I did, and it drove me up the wall.
It's also bad that they don't encourage (or better, require) projects to release under free/libre/open terms. If the funding comes from patronage, then there's no justification to still be restrictive.

Also, Patreon themsleves are proprietary, have standard proprietary terms, and have VC-funders that expect a return which affects the potential future (unlikely to ever become a co-op or anything etc). And they strongly emphasize exclusive rewards which doesn't work well for fully free/libre/open projects (but at least they don't require such rewards).

It's unfortunate but understandable why Patreon became dominant. That said, they could easily be worse.

Key thing is that they aren't actually that good a solution to the inherent freerider problems in FLO works… it's still just unilateral donations after all, same as all membership support has been forever.
I'm not sure modern medicine has come that far [1,2,3]. Let me be clear, I am not advocating for alternative medicine, which is a step in the wrong direction. Rather, solid science is the answer and the combination of science and medicine has given us some of medicine's most amazing tools like antibiotics and vaccines.

1. https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/02/when-evid...

2. https://arstechnica.com/science/2014/12/when-the-doctors-awa...

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opioid_epidemic
No, that's sick. Civilized states like New York don't execute people, only the federal government can do so here (in an arguable violation of the "states' rights" that Republicans hold so dearly).
What would be the "correct onion address" for 3fyb44wdhnd2ghhl.onion?
Not sure how highly I would rate crystalinks.com as a source, given that they also talk about how viewing repeated digits 'activates' your DNA... http://www.crystalinks.com/11.11.html
It felt like a modern day scarlet letter, instead of a innovative new way to deliver cheaper loans. There are other techniques to deliver cheaper loans, which don't lead to social ostracism (and which don't violate any social network terms of services).
I'm arguing that one can ban someone from twitter without violating the spirit of free speech. It's not really relevant to my point whether Trump's behavior is abusive or not on account of the fact that I'm not trying to make philosophical points which only apply to him. The idea that a twitter ban is somehow a violation of free speech is farcical. It'd make almost as much sense to say a 140 char limit is a violation of free speech, and in practice, it's probably worse than a ban.
>> How much of the warming is down to CO2? Contentious,
>> again

>Sadly, not contentious at all.

Excellent, then you can give me the percentage of warming which is CO2 driven, with error bounds, and references to 3 authoritative sources for it. Inquiring minds want to know!
Heroku Private Space Peering for AWS
It is bad for the same reason that 100% interest loans are bad.

They are predatory on poor people, and they trick people into accepting something when they don't really understand the consequences or "believe" them.

A person may incorrectly accept a loan like this, while being under the mistaken assumption that they aren't at risk of the consequences. Sometimes people just make bad decisions.

It is really immoral to take advantage of someone like that.
What do you think Washington would do? What power do you think they hold over Twitter in this case?
Maybe you know the owner personally, and obtained the onion address in person.
The fundamental flaw in the argument in comparison to Visa or MasterCard is the fact they don’t take into account the energy consumption of the entire organization.

Visa/MasterCard employ tens of thousands of employees (maybe more). Each of those employees have to drive to work everyday, consuming energy. Then sit in brightly lit office buildings, each running a computer sucking down power.

Those buildings have to be built, using time energy and resources.

Without taking into account all of the energy overhead required for these organizations to function the argument is meaningless.

If cryptotocurrencies continue down this path, it’s quite likely these types of organizations could cease to exist. Resulting in a huge energy savings.

It’s also extremely likely crypto currencies will reduce energy consumption by moving to more efficient transaction validation methods like Proof of Stake
SVG icons:
https://feathericons.com/
His job is to command the military over twitter?
Err, this is literally the same link as my [0]?
Alternately, if you have multiple models that should normally give the same result, this can apparently be used to automatically find test cases where they differ:

DeepXplore: automated whitebox testing of deep learning systems
https://blog.acolyer.org/2017/11/01/deepxplore-automated-whi...
You're getting downvoted because your reply was a non sequitur. Nobody was making a claim as to whether he should have said what he said, just that it might have triggered some automatic controls in place at Twitter that might have contributed to this event.
No, you could see those ratios with net income or profit but revenue is simply numUnitsSold*avgSellingPrice. It doesn’t take unit costs into account.
Hiya. So the Chatbot is Oscar, Air New Zealand's chat bot. Here is a recent press release about him: https://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/press-release-2017-air-nz-ch...
That is the “correct onion address” for that hashcode, but you have to obtain the hashcode somehow.
Is there anyway to make chrome wait until the page loads?
> It's not about Twitter's business, it's about free speech

You're incorrect here, for Twitter it's 100% about business, money and relevancy.
I'm sorry we can disagree then, but if somebody ran over and killed one of my loved ones and seven other innocent people purely because they despise American's, I'd want the death penalty for that person.
I know a guy that used his bitcoin to buy a 3D printer, and eBike and some other bits of tech. Then Sold a huge chunk off to pay off his mortgage.

Does this not count as using bitcoin to buy things?
Let me add here that Ripple doesn't have a traditional blockchain, sending money is essentially free compared to Bitcoin, and can handle up to 1000 transactions per second (https://ripple.com/dev-blog/ripple-consensus-ledger-can-sust...).
To add to that, one useful application for hidden services is to enable SSH login on machines that are behind some impenetrable NATs/firewalls that you can't open up for inbound connections. Have a machine behind mobile, NAT only internet? Set up a tor hidden service and log in without any problems!
No, he is trying to convince the North Korean regime that we are willing to use military force to achieve our objectives. Making statements to that effect to his domestic audience is part of convincing the North Koreans that we will actually do it. If they think he is bluffing, then they won’t submit. This is basic diplomacy theory.
No. His job is not "applying military leverage". If Congress grants him the permission to go to war with a country, then he can apply the military. Otherwise, no. That is not his job.
thats ok since i made a backup for him here : http://TrumpTweets.io

https in the works!
As a South Australian who has read a lot about the energy price issues we're experiencing, there's a lot of history to the story.

The big Tesla battery is about 80% completed and is there to be essentially a UPS - it will bridge the gap between a sudden loss of 'normal' power supply and the bringing online of additional sources to make up for the emergency shortfall. Gas plants that have X turbines, but only Y are 'spinning' can fire up their remaining X-Y turbines and the battery will cover us until X-Y are online.

A large coal plant in Port Augusta was shut down because it was no longer economically viable to run. It was offered to the SA government for $1 (that's how commercially unviable it was, some people say the SA Govt should have purchased and run it - I disagree with these people).

Somewhat ironically, this gave more market power to the gas generators who, due to 15+ year-old electricity market rules (because our regulators had been asleep at the wheel) can game the market to make massive profits during the relatively infrequent times when alternative energy supplies aren't meeting demand.

It's these peaks of demand coinciding with low supply and the gaming of the old-rules market that's responsible for a good percentage of the high prices.

Another good percentage of the energy prices is also a regulatory issue where the owners of the 'poles and wires' were guaranteed a return on any spending they committed to infrastructure. SO they went wild and we've ended up with a gold-plated (not literally) infrastructure that's cost end-users thousands of dollars over the years, and has made the "networks" huge profits, despite it being over-engineered to the nth degree (see:
https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2014/july/1404136800/jes... - $45 billion Australia-wide on 'poles and wires')

Going way back, the SA government sold off its previously state-owned end-to-end power company, ETSA, to pay off a massive debt caused a huge government screw-up / scandal that bankrupted a local bank. Some say anbother part of the high power prices is due to privatisation, but this is murky territory, difficult to prove either way.

Nuclear takes too long to bring to market from scratch to be viable anymore.
pbs video...“Not available in your region due to right restriction”. He-he, so much to the freedom of speech!
Let's get real. They weren't large campaigns; Russian firms/orgs (RT, really) hardly spent anything! So far the disclosed numbers are less than a 1/4 million; as opposed to the roughly $6.8 spent domestically.

Billions and billions spent by U.S. actors as opposed to less than a million spent by Russian actors! Russian efforts are immaterial and likely were intended for commercial reasons rather than political ones. (RT wants views!)

I'm getting tired of this obtuseness. Russia had negligible impact and there's nothing out there showing they did. So far what we have is speculation and finger pointing like I've never witnessed post-election.

The disastrous 2016 election is just dragginggggggg outtttt foreverrrrr.
HHH.... is possible from a head fail fair coin, just improbable. If it happened, I would be astounded, but I wouldn’t feel like logic or the laws of the universe were being violated (I would look for a reality reset button though to pick out the improbable but not impossible occurrence).
Unfortunately, many engineers like to pretend their work is apolitical, but there is "No Neutral Ground in a Burning World"[1]. Everything is political, eventually; technology patently has political consequences that are large in scope, highly complex, and difficult to understand fully.

When you are implementing a new technology, please take some time to actively consider all of the potential consequences you can think of. Maybe your new tech just needs simple safety-considerations similar to power tools (dangerous, if misused). Maybe your new tech will disrupt existing structures that many people rely on; do you have a plan to handle that? Can someone easily use your new tech to undermine civil rights or basic freedoms?

Obviously we can't foresee everything, but we can at least try to consider the potential consequences to the world, society, and people outside of tech. I know it's hard to walk away from a cool idea. It's even harder to do the right thing when it risks your salary - or your safety. For better or worse, this kind of question needs to be part of the new-tech development process. As Dan Geer said[4][5] in a recent keynote, "You have not picked a career. You have picked a crusade."

[1] I strongly encourage everyone to watch this 30c3 talk[2] by Quinn Norton and Eleanor Saitta (or read the transcript[3]).

[2] https://media.ccc.de/v/30C3_-_5491_-_en_-_saal_1_-_201312272...

[3] http://opentranscripts.org/transcript/no-neutral-ground-burn...

[4] http://geer.tinho.net/geer.source.27iv17.txt

[5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcIiD4UUDE8
Reputation is a typical force in society. Businesses might want to do malicious things but the fear of destroying their identity helps to keep them in line.

Personally I trust something more when someone puts their reputation on the line for it.
What's the point of this subthread? Whether or not that particular tweet embodies an explicit or implicit threat is irrelevant. Implicit threats clearly fall under the umbrella of "abusive Twitter behavior" as well.
Yeah but it's their infrastructure, servers, their policy, their rules. As a company they might not give a crap about the ideal of free speech. Especially if they don't have any competitors in the market. They might bear the consequence of applying their rules or squashing some speech and not other, by people deleting their accounts, or press writing mean things about them. But they are free to make that trade-off.

The Constitution while talking about ideal, talked about them in the context of the relationship between the government and its people. It was mostly about protecting the people from the government.
The Mercedes-Benz S-class is a better car than the Model S in many ways (not all). A lot of people could afford either but buy the Model S because it is electric, not just that it happens to be electric.

Just a quick thought from someone that actually went shopping and drove both: The MB S-class beats the Model S in terms of luxury feel. Hands down. The Model S is faster. And quieter. But it does not feel as good as a MB at all. Before you ask, no, I ended up buying neither. I bought a Subaru Forester and an airplane for the same money.
You can want it, and say it, but not on Twitter and that was the point. He probably got temp banned for violating their Code of Conduct in regards to Hateful Conduct.
>If one of those persons was a loved one of your own, would you want him to get the death penalty?

Probably, but none of them were Trump's loved ones, so your appeal to emotion is irrelevant in his case.

As President, Trump is supposed to respect the rule of law and the rights of American citizens (all of them, even the mass-murdering terrorists) not call for their summary execution in all caps like a rageposting lunatic.
Sure, but the banks don’t thank us much for the pleasure. Money, gold, bitcoins aren’t themselves stores of value, merely IOUs. To really store value (I.e. production), you need things like grain silos.
And you might be obtaining a fake link from one of my phishing schemes that mimic the services you thought you were visiting...
I think their point is that when changing engine output is labor-intensive, it made perfect sense to have an officer giving orders and somebody else implementing them. Why the command structure hasn't shifted to accommodate modern technology is an interesting question
The only ESPN property I have an interest in is CricInfo, which has been a UX disaster ever since it became ESPNCricInfo.

But it has been an ever-evolving disaster, always finding ways to get worse.