skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
IANAL but definitions of espionage are typically broader than that - if the information isn't published with the intention for it to become public knowledge, or at least somehow knowingly divulged (e.g. EULA/contractual), then it's private, and collecting (i.e. recording) the data which is private to a company or society is espionage.
CDC gets list of forbidden words
It's natural and sometimes correct to assume that "Them" have an inferior epistemology, or even no explicit and coherent epistemology at all. But far too often I've been appalled by the disregard for optimal procedure that's displayed by people who are most of the time "Us" for me, who can talk meta-epistemology with the same ease "Them" tend to discuss first-order personal conflicts.
It's called compartmentalization, I guess. Teaching cognitive biases to offenders only makes them more annoying, in my experience; gives them better weapons to arm their argument-soldiers with.

Mapping epistemology to tribal grouping only holds as long as the questions separating tribes appear the most important and one tribe is factually correct. Throw in another set of dividing issues, and you observe redistribution of irrationality.

«Isolated demands for rigor, half-sincere yearning for truth: it would seem we're all far too eager to preach virtues we can abuse.» Just a little rhyme Reddit inspired me to the other day.
Unsolved mathematics? Can you elaborate what you mean?
The fiasco that was the appointment of the acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the absurd ping-pong policies of the Federal Labor Bureau (FLB), FCC, and (presumably) the CFPB exemplify why in the United States civil suits are the better enforcement mechanism, especially in the modern era. They typically lead to more stable regulatory policies.

Heck, even the behavior of zoning boards exemplifies this. The civil actions are being used by YIMBYs precisely because the regulators--the zoning board--are neither obeying the spirit nor letter of the law, having become puppets of the elected officials or worse--wagging the dog.

A system of centralized regulators only works when you have a strong and independent technocratic bureaucracy. Because of the extreme divisiveness of modern politics, especially at the federal level where regulatory agencies have become turf for epic policy battles, that simply doesn't exist in the U.S. Indeed, the use of civil actions for enforcement is often chosen precisely to try to deflect criticism aimed at proponents of a regulatory framework, and protect the framework from interference by opponents. This is common at both the federal and state levels, and used by both parties.

Sure, civil actions are more costly. But much like democracy you pay a price for a certain amount of stability. Because of the size, diversity, and peculiar politics of the U.S., we often must resort to such approaches where, e.g., Norway, Japan or the EU would not.
Sam Altman was headed in the right direction but his point is completely malformed.

He shouldn’t have used the term “Political Correctness.” He also shouldn’t have provided the examples he used because they distracted from what he was trying to say.

I am sad that he took an opportunity to have this conversation (finally) and gave the people who are actually ruining Silicon Valley more ammunition to push their agenda.

What Sam is talking about is the insane level of unidirectional groupthink that has invaded Silicon Valley and turned everyone against one another under the guise of protecting minorities and other victims.

Proponents of this approach - which, frankly, overwhelmingly demonizes and targets white men - will point to the endless list of infractions that keep surfacing in the media.

They have a great point. There is abundant evidence that minorities and women are being unfairly treated in Silicon Valley.

Unfortunately, the constant warring against this unfairness has gutted Silicon Valley and now no one trusts one another. Everyone looks at white people as the enemy and the level of discourse has become so toxic that everyone is fleeing the state.

I have experienced this myself in interacting with my Bay Area colleagues. I feel that every word I say is being policed for content, that I have to walk on eggshells constantly with certain people or risk getting drawn and quartered on Twitter the next day.

So Liberals can have this version of safety. People focused on building things aren’t willing to live in a cultural police state.

The biggest problem in attempting to argue against this trend is that it is an argument of degree. These are the hardest Arguments to have because your opppnent automatically rounds everything up to the “nearest Hitler.”

Example:

You: Hey we shouldn’t focus so much attention on gender diversity.

Them: you hate women.

You: Maybe your theories on diversity and privilege re not entirely true or accurate.

Them: You hate minorities.

You: Maybe we shouldn’t excommunicate this person because he tried to hit on someone at a company party while drunk, men do stupid things and are motivated by sex genetically.

Them: You hate women. Don’t give bad men a pass, you are enabling rape culture.

You: I am really sick of having 80% of conferences focus exclusively on diversity topics, I can’t stand being lectured to constantly.

Them:You are Hitler.

So I don’t see a resolution. It is impossible to push back on what has happened to Silicon Valley’s culture without being labeled a bigot.

Arguments of degree are the hardest to have, and at this point I think only a severe economic downturn and reset is going to fix it.

The culture of the Bay Area is dead, it was caused by having the culture of our educational institutes teach these ways of viewing the world.

I have no hope that will change. We are living in the most privileged country in the world but we have taught all our kids that they are oppressed. It’s a lie.
Each block does not replay the entire state of the system. There could be an unspent output in a block from a year ago, that is then spent in a transaction tomorrow. You need to track all of the valid inputs that might go into a transaction. You don't need the full history (i.e. you don't need spent outputs), but you certainly need a lot more than just the most recent N blocks.
So when do we finally get to say, "You're too slimy to be a company anymore."
Maybe the best response is not to stay silent, but rather to craft a non-opinion that looks like an opinion of agreement no matter who comes across it. But maybe not.
>2. I'm... guessing that gcc/clang are too dumb to be able to >be taught this and get the balance right.

No, actually, you could model this and other things exactly.
It's just not worth the cost ;)
For all I know, this is better than other frameworks like volt, camping, monkrb and the like. So much better simply because it has a loyal maintainer that does not abandon his work and actively maintains it for a very long time, he said that it has the worst code ever, but that doesn’t stop him for it’s continued support. I’m OK with adapting and building on top of a unpopular framework, as long as it is an active project and actively maintained.
The big Kahuna of medical taxonomies is UMLS

https://www.nlm.nih.gov/research/umls/

There is a lot of activity on knowledge graphs in medicine, including both clinical notes and support for research (ex. drug discovery)

RDF and OWL are well known as a platform for ontologies, but really ontologies are implicit in the work of the OMG, UML, WSDL, database schemas, object-oriented design, etc. Many different people are working on this from different angles in different communities and they don't talk as much as they could so the state of the art is actually better than most people (especially those involved) think.

I would love to talk more. Click on my HN profile link and send me an email.
Anyone else having troulbe connecting to ICQ?
I agree with you and with the general thrust of Sam's essay. This kind of knee-jerk heretic-branding of anyone who questions the status quo is toxic. But Sam should've used something like the Node dev as an example, rather than the less salient one he provided:

>This is uncomfortable, but it’s possible we have to allow people to say disparaging things about gay people if we want them to be able to say novel things about physics. [1] Of course we can and should say that ideas are mistaken, but we can’t just call the person a heretic. We need to debate the actual idea.

>[1] I am less worried that letting some people on the internet say things like “gay people are evil” is going to convince reasonable people that such a statement is true than I fear losing the opposite—we needed people to be free to say "gay people are ok" to make the progress we've made, even though it was not a generally acceptable thought several decades ago.

Of course Sam doesn't actually think it's acceptable for people to say these things (he's gay himself, but even if he weren't I'm sure he still wouldn't find it acceptable). But this leaves a lot of questions. If you're gay and in a work environment where your boss incessantly makes disparaging comments gay people and homosexuality - even if none of them are directed at you or anyone else there - you could still feel very uncomfortable and hurt. Does this boss really deserve a debate and an exchange of open ideas? If you tell them you disagree and they just continue mocking gay people, what are you supposed to say or do? In a scenario like this, it kind of makes sense to brand this boss as a heretic.

This kind of situation is far away from your example (discussing potential downsides of CoC). There's a spectrum of hurtful speech and ideas, and while most Americans would agree these things should be legal to say, many would also agree that the worst of them should result in ostracization (in a very extreme example: self-identifying as a neo-Nazi). So should we really "allow" people to make disparaging remarks about gay people beyond physically letting them say it? Do we also need to allow them into our social circles and workplaces?
> why not parts of a state? Why not...

Because they won't want to. Breaking down at that granular level would be too inconvenient to be worth it, even before considering the issues you laid out yourself.

If we all believe that government requires consent of the governed, why structurally require violence to achieve that state? That's the status quo you're defending.

Meta: this is how a real-life slippery slope argument and response should go. It's not a fallacy, it's just not always applicable, just like every other concept
Anil's argument was that tolerating hatred of groups emboldens those who would be violent against those groups. In that, I agree violent speech threatens the lives of those who it is is violent against.

There also degrees to this. There are certainly instances of people being drunk on their own self righteousness.

- If I were a non-christian and you were to wish me "Merry Christmas", if I took the interpretation that you were threatening my life that would be unreasonable.

- If you were to announce "I'm not killing anybody, but I pray that all the gays are killed" I think my understanding of that as endangering my life (as a gay person) is totally reasonable.

This is a nuanced conversation, it helps to remember that different people have different things at stake, and it's difficult to say things that apply to every level.
My point was that its currency features are the only thing that make it potentially valuable. It being a "distributed computer" like some people envision is doomed to failure. Programmable money is useful, but not to the tune of multi-billions. The majority of value is in the trustless money aspect, not the trustless programmability. Most people will have no problem trusting sites for short periods with smallish amounts.

That's not to say there wont be any use-cases, or even many. There could be very many use cases for eth in fact, but it still not be multi-billion market cap valuable.
Pass has QTPass, if you want to use it with a GUI!
how is the need to be in contact with the node different than the need to be in contact with venmo’s servers?
It looks pretty nice.

If I could get a work PC with an unlimited budget I would want something water cooled. An advantage of a PC build would it being easy to change the graphics card a few years down the road.
As Warren Buffett wrote in his 1985 letter to the shareholders of Berkshire Hathaway: "What could be more advantageous in an intellectual contest—whether it be bridge, chess, or stock selection—than to have opponents who have been taught that thinking is a waste of energy?"
It's my observation that Uber deserves this response with each revelation
I’ve tested a few tablets with this chipset
I think you're right, he seems like a super nice dude in his interviews :)
>"I don’t see how this is any more insidious than the ‘no internet’ dinosaur jumping game built in to chrome."

You don't see the difference between a built-in game (included in the installation of Chrome) vs. Mozilla pushing an add-on to a Firefox installation using a channel meant for helping to improve the browser?
Well, the problem with that is that we ought to be doing the filtering anyways, prior to dumping our excrement to the environment. So, if we are going to get serious about that, creating a viable business model seems like the obvious first step.

The alternative is to keep replenishing organic matter in the soil with non-renewables; keep trying and failing, at great financial cost, to clean up our waste before dumping it back to the environment; and end up with damaged farmland and screwed waterways anyways.
Perhaps those other people can share their opinion that they feel harrassed and alienated and we can have a discussion on the matter (in some other form than branding the opposing party as a heretic)?
The difference is that you have to look at the attributes of each coin and see which one most likely reflects the white paper that satoshi himself wrote. He is talking about a P2P cash system, not a P2P gold system.

Just because the first generation of bitcoin was the beginning doesn't mean it still reflects the original vision.
Is this for Bitcoin or for Ethereum? I thought the former has UTXOs and the latter has accounts.

So the issue is, if you want to validate a transaction, I would have to find the block in which the input was made, and confirm all the blocks from that one to the current block?
* “You’re fired” isn’t free speech. “You are not allowed to attend a Python conference because of your political views” isn’t free speech. It’s not guaranteed by the First Amendment that people can’t be fired or blacklisted for their opinions, but when Communists were blacklisted from the film industry, that was seen as a disgrace—despite the fact that, in the 1950’s, the activities of the Communist Party were a much greater threat to American (and, in general, Western) society and values than the kinds of things people get in trouble for saying now.

* The entire point of civil liberties and human rights is that we, as a liberal society, have deemed some freedoms so important that the damage done by allowing them to be restricted almost always outweighs the damage done by their free exercise. There are exceptions, but these tend to be very severe in nature—ones freedom to travel around and associate with others might be restricted if they are infected with Ebola, or one’s freedom to keep the police from breaking down their door might be restricted if the police see and hear someone in the window yelling and screaming for help.

Along that vein, there are some obvious limits to freedom of expression: you can’t literally yell “fire” in a crowded theater, you can’t lie under oath, and so forth. But it stretches things too far when you make up categories like “blasphemy” or “sedition” or “hate speech” to block out actual ideas, regardless of the danger you think their free expression presents to society. The infamous “shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theater” analogy was used in a Supreme Court case that upheld the conviction of a man who advocated resisting the draft during World War I. That decision was later, and rightly in my view, superseded by a different ruling.

So let’s break that down a bit. If you use your freedom of speech to convince people to resist the draft, you impair the ability of the country to win the war, which only extends the war, which causes real suffering and death for a large number of people. And ultimately, that wasn’t considered enough “damage” to outweigh restricting free speech.
Is there now a cheaper alternative towards wiring money?
True. We are lacking a dev who knows how to do some good UI design stuff. We do plan to add more details to the site soon, and have stuff on different pages instead of one dump. We hope that some day we will find some dev who knows some web site stuff!
Though I wouldn't put it past the current FCC to deem the attitude you describe as "stifling to growth and innovation"
If someone could make a version of this report that weighted toxicants for TD50 per km², it would be interesting to see the data plotted against epidemiology rates in the same areas.
This is dumb.

Facebook should grant $10M to a neutral third party - a research facility - and let them conduct an unbiased study on the effect of social media. Then report the results no matter what.

It will never happen, for two reasons.

1) Facebook should well know that social media is bad for us (how much bad, I'm not sure), and therefore would never fund anything like this.

2) Even if an anonymous Bitcoin millionaire funds the research, it's hard to find a research institute / entity / team that would gladly take some money, only to know that any chance of receiving future grants from FB/Google/Microsoft/Amazon just went to zero.

I think these two FB researchers are well intentioned. But I would never trust anything like this.
Oh, please. You and the other replier knew what I meant by "implemented."
Heh, I spend enough time on Reddit that this guy's reply just sounds like a normal mode of discussion these days...
Sure, some damage might have been done. But this feels pretty orthogonal, more of a problem of newspaper interests or simply the difficulty of cutting down text into smaller pieces.

We all should be making sure we're hearing stuff properly. I don't think many of these things are _really_ about misunderstanding, but it has happened.

Inversely, just because the speaker says "I meant X, but I didn't mean for it to offend" doesn't completely absolve the person. The words have meanings, and if you want to share you ideas, it's important to do it properly (just like you should know how to drive before going out there with your car).
Don't forget that the same game also ran beautifully on the PS3. Not 60fps, but fluid and pleasant.
You said the keyword - "filter".

When you're talking in person, you have an implied fixed amount of time for interaction. Therefore, both parties only touch on things that are important given that time restraint. With social media, we lose this natural content policing since its "always on".

And the monologues... Speech is about speaking in gaps, or waiting turns, or as you said - "talk about as much as they talk."

When you have seconds, minutes, or days to respond on social media... we start adding exhausting fluff.
Such a physicist would hold tenure and would not summarily be fired for simply holding that opinion. From a random school somewhere on the web:

> gross professional misconduct or serious failure of a faculty member to discharge his or her obligations
"Fatal units" might be more useful.
Yeah we already did, it is called bitcoin cash lol and it works. The hell with bitcoin's high fees, never again.
I feel that I take tv less personally.
Yes, sigh, there is a constitutional right to freedom of speech. That is not the only meaning of freedom of speech. "Try to make sure that they never say something like that again." Do you agree that this would restrict that person's freedom of speech? Again, we're not talking about whether First Amendment rights are being violated. We're talking about whether you are restricting that person's freedom of speech.

If you're OK with your self-appointed right to restrict others' freedom of speech, then you also have to be OK with me suppressing your speech. And you'd better believe that this will be speech you care about. You have to be OK with the 1950s version of me ostracizing you for saying the positive things you believe about the protected groups you enumerate in your post.

It does you no good to claim that you're one of the good guys. Freedom of speech means everyone is a good guy when it comes to expression of ideas. You don't get to pick which speech is free.

Do you honestly want to live in a society where ideas you disagree with are withheld from expression because those who hold them are "so socially embarrassed and isolated"? Is that really your idea of a free society? Again, assume that the person being ostracized is you because of what you believe today.

If you do want a genuinely free society, don't ostracize the bigots. Instead, respect them. Debate them. Change their minds if you're right. Nobody is saying you have to have them over for dinner or be friends; ignoring them is perfectly fine, as well. The price -- and in the long term the benefit -- of a free society is that people get to live normal, ordinary lives even if they have despicable, reprehensible, even dangerous beliefs.
When another company employs more people than them
> What if your "controversial opinion" harasses and alienates other people?

So then, as the victim, are you cleared to harass and smear whoever you please?

> he's only thought from the perspective of some innovator he's perceived to have been unfairly branded a heretic

Ah, so his identity as a wealthy man invalidates his opinion, and his writing should be disregarded?
Like I said, "That people don't seem to want to do this is perhaps a lesson in human nature that crypto-anarchists and other aficionados of 'trustless completely-distributed systems' should perhaps heed." The people commenting in this sub-thread don't actually believe in the trustless utopia that initial Bitcoin aficionados did, we just have enough familiarity with the original Bitcoin technical paper to comment on the irony here. That may be why you're not seeing particularly compelling answers.

"I trust coinbase not to run off with my money just like I trust vanguard not to run off with my money."

As someone with both a CoinBase account and a Vanguard account...your money is much, much safer in Vanguard. And that's the irony. When Bitcoin was distributed, people could at least point to the lack of a centralized institution as an advantage. Now that it has centralized institutions, they're inferior to the centralized institutions in the mainstream financial world.

And I certainly hope your mom isn't putting $10M into bitcoin on CoinBase. Regardless of security issues, that's a very good way to lose $10M.

(On second thought, yes, yes, she should absolutely put her life savings into Bitcoin, so I can take the other side of the trade and sell into this bubble. ;-))