skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
If I was preparing a locked-down environment, I would probably turn off just about every single feature of the browser which could lead to uncommanded. No automatic updates, no telemetry, no "safesearch", no plugins, no history saving... basically almost how browsers used to be configured by default, actually.

It's actually quite disturbing and creepy, to think that a lot of the software today is silently doing lots of things "behind your back", most of which users are not aware of, but some things which users would definitely not want to happen if they knew it was happening.
It's slick, privileged, socially-adept tech bros who are calling the shots here. The actual misfits and nerds are just the cogs in their machines.
I was going to suggest to switch back to Firefox 57 and give it another chance, but I guess the timing couldn't be worst.
I'm convinced that it can get smaller but this is what I've got so far.
While this may be it in some instances, it could be a lot of things I think.

For the same reason (geeks/nerds/rejects etc) may feel they cannot by definition be oppressive because they too were oppressed before by the popular ones. Of course, anyone is capable of oppression and discrimination, to varying degrees of efficacy, but that tends to get lost when you feel pretty beat up from others and suddenly are confronted with the fact that they are doing that very thing.

The headline is sensational, though, as it's not all techies, no. But at the same time, there are quite a few who, as the article's opening illustration shows, are happy to put their head in the sand and just tell themselves "It's not me doing it, I know what it's like to be oppressed/discriminated against, I did x/y/z action, so I'm a good guy", all as their colleagues have to put up with such non-sense.

I would suspect that is where a lot of the frustration and backlash against a lot of tech folk during these issues over the past few years has come from; the eschewing of any responsibility with mantras and "not all of us do that, some of us were the ones that got picked on in high school!". I don't mean to say that there is a concrete hierarchy of suffering and only those with the most suffering may complain; I don't subscribe to the War Orphans in Darfur clause. What I would say is that suffering is suffering and if we can help, the world is better for it. And I think that is the basis for the complaints against tech folk - there is a lot of potential to stop it or to help, but many do not. I get there may be some awkwardness and even professional risk to confronting bad behavior, and I respect that it's a hard decision for some.
What we often fail to realize -- esp. in our tech bubble -- is that science is now mistrusted by the mainstream in society.
Police are taught to put all rounds in center body massage. They are never trained to do 'headshots' pistols are not made for that kind of accuracy, especially in high stress/adrenaline situations.
> Not relevant. The intent is to kill people either way.

Exactly, when there was always intent to harm, it is easy to see how speech causes harm.

> The difference is the cause of injury. Does the speech itself produce the injury or does it manifest derivative responses that are injurious, such as a fist punch?

You are contradicting yourself. The word "FIRE" isn't causing direct injury, it manifests derivative responses that involve people getting hurt.

> Mill's writing absolutely disagrees with this. Read chapter 4. He provides specific examples.

Okay, I re-read chapter 4. None of the examples justify this reading. Mill is far more focused on private behavior than public speech in that chapter. He thinks polygamy is bad because it subjugates women, but at the time Mormons literally fled the country to the Utah desert, so he has a hard time justifying why an American would call for interference with the ostensibly consensual polygamy of the early Mormon Church.

Nowhere does Mill suggest that speech can't cause harm.
I thought that SOAP was great, in that the library handed remote executions without extra work.

There are HA microservice and REST model libraries/clients that do it much easier and without XML :D

You have to give it up to Colfer protobufs on zeromq and kafka :D

edit: stray click

GRPC is fun too. I miss my fiber interconnected compute though.
Tim Ferris mentioned this recently when asked why he moved to Austin, Texas (from SF) during his reddit AMA.

His term was “fair-weather entrepreneurs”. Essentially guns for hires without vision who will go wherever easy capital funding is to be found.
Applying McLuhan’s Tetrad to the Smartphone (2016)
Because he was an alleged rapist, and he denied ger version of the events. You can't just blackball people over a single allegation.
Low contrast text is a downgrade. https://bestmotherfucking.website/ is a true upgrade.
> What if Ford decided it would force-push add a cool "Star Wars" tie in to its cars (no pun intended on "force push")?

FWIW, Tesla includes easter eggs in its cars. You need to go out of your way to use them, and they're pretty much hidden unless you go looking for them, and they keep adding more via OTA updates.

If your question is "Who are easter eggs made for?" then the answer is "the people that care to go looking for them." The difference between a Tesla easter egg (which are almost entirely regarded as delightful) and this easter egg is that this easter egg was poorly executed.

A Tesla easter egg is silly and whimsical. This easter egg parodied something that's potentially threatening. And hell, Firefox has had easter eggs since its first release; go visit `about:mozilla` in your address bar. Saying easter eggs are bad outright is silly, but they should be done in a way that isn't concerning to users.
I had this realization the other day.

I was buying something that's currently out of stock most places.

I looked on Amazon, saw some "3rd party" sellers that said they would have it on stock various dates about 1 week in the future, and I didn't believe them.

Some sellers had hundreds of positive reviews, others had only a few, most were an "appropriate" price (not to high or low), and all of them had the prime designation, but I still didn't believe them.

Amazon has lost my trust here, completely. And I don't know if they will be able to get it back. I just can't trust that they will get me what I bought in a reasonable time frame.

I got it from a previous years unheard of (by me) retailer online. Reviews of the company elsewhere on the internet seemed trustworthy, and I took a leap on them, and it paid off.

I trusted an unknown website more than I trusted Amazon.
Nice place to live to have visits and hang out. I hear you can even save more if you live under a bridge.

Of course the TL is cheaper. Its not safe and its a terrible experience on all regards.
Isn't Tim Ferris a good reminder of everything that's been going wrong with the web for a while?
By the same graph, drug deaths are even lower in Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary than in Portugal.

And among the worst offenders are the liberal states of Sweden, Norway, Denmark etc..

So - having extreme anti-drug laws combined with nationalist/patriotic crazy authoritarian government is the policy to go with?

I'm kidding .. but you see that it's hard to look at that chart and make out more than Apples to Oranges.

It's also worth pondering how Eastern Europe has a tiny fraction of the problem that West seems to have, except for Estonia, which seems of the charts. It really is a tricky graph.
Did you mean 'dissent'?
This is one of the fundamental problems of our democracy. Within our current legal framework, there really isn't any good way to prosecute these people.

Our current system distributes almost all the benefits to those at the top without distributing the liablility in the same way. A system which was designed to hold the people at the top of our system directly legally accountable for fraudulent and damaging activities within their organizations is one thing which I think would have a chance of making a meaningful change in our society.
Governments across the world are DEPENDENT on Banks.
This article's final words, say it all.
In Japan, small children take the subway and run errands alone (2015)
For one data point, I saw it yesterday, and I don't see it today, and I didn't uninstall it. I suspect Mozilla remotely removed it after the backlash.
It sounds like your reasoning is "if you're going to have your leg broken, better your left than your right!"

I would have gone for the more short term painful but long term better option of letting them fail. What would have replaced it would not have been as fragile in this regard. (The replacement would have had other weaknesses.. but not these.)
The author has some points --like Netflix and its creepy disclosures that it knows of people's predilections.

But, I wish the author were more self aware of their own industry and how it is complicit in what the author is complaining about (the I scratch your back you scratch mine --i.e., I give you juicy scoops, you give me positive words) but also their industry at large --pretending to be agendaless when they all have agendas and biases and use their position of trusted source to push their slants.

And what's with the swipe at Bodega, as if is it a sacred cow. Few people outside New York City know what a bodega is. Next thing "deli" or "Danish" is frowned upon cuz... ??? someone saw someone seeing an idea and running with it?
That numbers is not a justification for silencing dissent.
> If American cities are infested with shootings, it's not because gun control doesn't work. It's because the American government is bought out by NRA lobbyists so they don't try hard enough.

Yes you're so right. I mean Chicago is literally a war zone and has some of the strictest gun control laws in the land. Clearly this is the NRA's fault.

What bugs me is that this kind of thinking comes from watching/reading CNN, NYT, WaPo push the anti-gun agenda and people just gobbling it up with no actual experience with gun handling/ownership. In general the state of the news media in this country has reached a new low. I try to watch all the news channels to get a broad set of opinions on things in general. What I get instead is, either the president is brilliant, or the president needs to be institutionalized. Or that guns should be banned outright, or that kids should be taught to shoot before their 1st birthday. There's absolutely no objectivity these days. Maybe it's always been that way but it sure didn't feel like that 25 years ago.
Well, having a 9 month winter will make anyone take drugs.
the timing is interesting, coming several days after the end of net neutrality
That's certainly true. While hiding complexity is the largest benefit, and some might say is the aim, of technology; it also opens the door to this type of abuse. Technology is a tool, and good tools do not hurt their users. However, the more complex the tool, the harder it is to verify that, in all cases, the user is not hurt (what does it mean to hurt someone's privacy?). This is one of the largest challenges we're facing now -- making sure our tools work for us and only us. In this case, open source is only the first step; policy must also adapt and Mozilla needs to take a good hard look at what permitted this to happen.
> Like it or not, people against gun control are more likely to vote on that issue in the US than people for gun control.

This is why I voted for Trump. Hillary was guaranteed to shit all over my gun rights. Trump is proving me right - he's been largely ineffective and despite all the bellyaching, isn't really doing much harm (oh boy, I know I'm going to set off a shitstorm now.) But net-neutrality! But LGBT rights! If you look at what he's said and the practical effect of what he's done...it's basically a no-op.
I'm not sure if the title has been editorialized or changed. The current title is "The Other Tech Bubble".
I for one hope that Silicon Valley's immortality efforts succeed.

Notifications induce enough anxiety as they are--I don't need more reminders that, as things stand, I am likely going to die.
According to Wikipedia [1] it is on the 10th place, not 2nd.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_r...
I don't believe we are discussing the fact of women's equality, but the attitudes towards it. You wrote:

>The OP said women were perceived as property. It doesn't take all men to believe that, it just takes most men.

And that's the sentiment I'm responding to. I don't believe it's true that most men, or even a large minority of men, believe that women are rapable property. That view strikes me as perverse and pernicious and I'd like to correct it for you if possible. I think the survey I already cited does directly refute this idea - most men believe that it is very important for men and women to have equal rights as men, which is surely incompatible with the "most men think women are rapable property" view.

I can understand being outraged about rape, but in order to act effectively against it, or about anything, you must first realize what is true, and it just is not true that any sizable portion of men think of women as rapable property in the United States.

Let's take a look at that CDC study you referenced, because I think it will actually offer illuminating insight that proves my point.

https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-...

That's the 2010 version, although other years are similar. If you look on page 18 table 2.1 on the right hand column labeled "12 Month" you can see the percentage of women who were raped in the past 12 months - 1.1% of women. Shocking and horrifying, I agree. However, scroll on down to page 19 and see table 2.2 the same column, listed under the row for "Other Sexual Violence" you can see that 1.1% of US Men were "Made to penetrate" other people in the past 12 months.

Now, I'm not equating the two crimes exactly - I'd rather be forced to penetrate someone than be forcibly penetrated by them, but they are conceptually similar and both involve a sexual act being forced upon the victim. My point here is that men, using the "Past 12 Month" metric are victims of "Forced to penetrate" in the same proportion as women are "Forced to be penetrated" and yet, I doubt anyone would suggest that we live in a culture where men are rapable property.

The CDC study you reference, by the way, has a figure that is about an order of magnitude higher than what's seen in national crime surveys (that cover unreported rapes too) and has been criticized for conflating rape with sex while intoxicated. You can see the same language the CDC survey used in questions on page 17 of the PDF I linked above where they write that rape "includes times when the victim was drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent" - one reading of which could be that rape includes both "Times you were drunk" and "Times you were unable to consent". If you answered that "Yes" that you have had sex in the past 12 months to a question with that language, and you meant that you had had sex while drunk in the past 12 months, the CDC would have counted that as rape - interpreting your answer as being "Drunk and unable to consent."
I think that comparing that case and the McDonald's coffee case is ridiculous.

You're correct, we weren't in the courtroom, but that doesn't make juries infallible.
I can see where you might think I was asserting one way or the other whether Robert Bigelow was qualified for this work, and that's my fault. I have no opinion about this man specifically. I am just saying that I think this problem is worth further study by the organizations which exist for the purpose of knowing these kinds of things. That being said, according to the article, "Mr. Bigelow said he was 'absolutely convinced' that aliens exist and that U.F.O.s have visited Earth." And while on the surface that might seem to reveal his having an agenda and disqualify any of his analyses, do we feel the same way about physicists that believe God created the universe? Or do we just feel that way about people with out-group beliefs? I suppose a better analogy here would be the business owner of a company doing physics research, since he's not a scientist.

But beyond that, I think we can agree that the conversation elsewhere in this thread demonstrates there is a whole lot of negative context which serves to drive people away from taking it seriously.
Do ants have nuclear weapons?
This too shall pass
This is very different issue. Amazon, unlike eBay, has single product page for product. And multiple sellers can sell under that page. Including sellers of counterfeit. This does not make original product bad (so reviews are incorrect) - but rather seller should be reported.

Granted - that concept is very complicated for typical amazon shopper and that's how you end up with bunch of "fake" 1-star reviews under brand-names products...
I never knew that HN was so full of people who might be spotted on reddits conspiracy subteddit.
There is no indication that they accessed the API improperly.

That link to the CFAA page on Wikipedia does not substantiate your claim.
Have people longing to sell out their team and vision for a get rich scheme and inspire others to do the same ever been qualified as "good guys"?
The EU governments could just stop taxing corporate income entirely, and only tax personal income, sales, and property. There's no reason in principle why corporations must be income taxed.
> For example, if we are self-aware in acknowledging that our bar for truth is lower than a court, can we find commonalities in reaction or public response that are generally unique to people who actually did do the things they’re accused of?

The underlying problem is how to calibrate your heuristic. To know if the heuristic is any good you would need to know which accusations are true to begin with, which is the original problem.

> I think that if you can find three unrelated accusations, that’s a reasonable degree of certainty for the public, especially when you consider that these accusers do not typically have an incentive to collude (they don’t get anything material from publicized accusations).

They get whatever motivates anyone to make a false accusation (revenge, blackmail, jealousy, attention), with the added incentive of knowing that a previous accusation provides false credibility.
The whole idea isn't broken, and it can be fixed pretty cheaply. I think the most fundamental problem is that Amazon hasn't realized that they're operating one of the worlds largest search engines yet. Ditto for other companies that offer results based on finding the best product to match customers "search criteria" (whether the criteria are explicit or not).

If you know how PageRank works, how it was gamed by blackhat SEO's until Google was forced to fix it, and what Google did to fix it, then you already know how to fix product reviews. You just need to recognize that reviews are links, in the sense that a link counts as a vote of "authoritativeness." Since we also have negative reviews we can easily implement TrustRank (or an Amazony version of it) and quickly identify bad "domains" (products or vendors).

I think it could be implemented poorly in a weekend or two with full access to the complete set of review and product data.
They way I was taught was like learning how to do long-form multiplication without mentioning that "the product of 5 and 6 is 5+5+5... 6 times".
Intel Optimized Tensorflow Wheel
Like take the charge of victim blaming

Sigh. This is perhaps a can of worms I shouldn't open. But here goes:

I was sexually abused as a child. So, in my youth, I very much had the mental model that men are predators and women are prey. It took me a long, long time to sort that out. I think that mental model is shared by quite a lot of people, often without realizing it.

So, if you have internalized this idea that all sex involves a victim and that the woman is probably the victim, well, that explains a lot of the dynamics of discussion that we see, where people implicitly assume that if anything goes wrong in a heterosexual encounter, clearly the man is the perp and the woman is the victim.

I think a lot of people cannot imagine women as having any kind of real power. And therein lies a real huge problem in these discussions, because if you suggest anything women can do differently, you are bad, evil and wrong. Or if you suggest women aren't all paragons of virtue and many would equally take advantage if given the opportunity, this just doesn't sit well with a lot of people.

Someone here mentioned intersectionality, a term I only know from an incredibly toxic environment full of SJWs who claim to want a better world, but mostly crapped all over me rather than being helpful with my problems and also very much are fine with the Lord of the Flies pecking order that is at the root of a lot of social problems. They don't really want to be rid of it. They just want to be at the top doing the shitting, rather than at the bottom getting shat upon.

So if that is your approach, well, duh, the well off white males currently in power aren't going to go along with your plans to make them the acceptable social toilet that everyone gets to crap all over. And when they resist becoming the new victim of our crappy social order, they get accused of all kinds of evil for clinging to the privilege they currently have.

The problems we currently have cannot be resolved by seeking revenge at the societal level. This is an incredibly hard thing to discuss, for a long list of reasons. But the angry, vengeful approach that so many women take helps entrench the problem. It doesn't resolve it.

I don't want revenge. I want constructive change that overall reduces how much people get victimized.

I have been speaking about subjects like rape and women's issues and female empowerment for a long time. It's just a hard, hard subject to have a good discussion on.

I think this one is going incredibly well -- or was. Perhaps this comment will be a thing I very much regret. But it is a thing we eventually need to discuss in the world, and Hacker News has turned out to be the least worst place for me to try to make constructive points on such subjects.

(crosses fingers, hits reply)
> I agree. The anti-car rhetoric in the US is simply ridiculous. The US is simply not built for any other lifestyle.

Er...yes. That's the reason there's anti-car rhetoric.

But you're also overstating the problem, which I wouldn't have thought was possible. Car culture is pervasive, but plenty of major American cities have decent-ish public transit.

Your whole argument is weird. It seems like you're saying "This problem is real, massive, and pervasive, therefore we need to stop trying to fix it and ignore it completely."
A Chrome extension to inspect the performance of React components
They started to care when their favourite candidate lost. They still don't care whether something is fake or not but rather if it supports their agenda or not. That's assuming we can even define what is fake information and what not.
Got curious. Could you share the brand and model? Thanks.
I completely agree with your assessment of Metafilter. The recent decision there to curtail the histrionic behavior in the political threads was a good step, but it’s probably not possible for them to restore the quality and quantity of comments now as too many good users have given up trying to contribute rather than face constant attacks from the same 50 or so users.
I don’t think they choose to live at a distance, I think they do it to avoid getting hurt.

This is purely anecdotal, but I remember a brilliant nerdy kid back in high school days dared to talk back to some bullies that were messing with him. He ended up getting beat the fuck up and they purposely broke his glasses. At the end of the day though, the bullies were still popular and accepted by everyone, and the nerd was still a nerd who should have known his place.

How does a life event like that affect someone’s world view later when the very thing that once made them an outcast is suddenly the source of all their power and wealth in this word?