skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Humans progress involves consigning some models to the trashcan of history.
Context matters and specifics matter. There aren't a lot of useful conclusions we can come to from willfully abstract discussions of messy realities.
I usually refer to Stross's summary- "The iron law of bureaucracy states that for all organizations, most of their activity will be devoted to the perpetuation of the organization, not to the pursuit of its ostensible objective."

see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9106983
Interesting, thanks. Still, it takes at least a bit of initial grit to do that one pushup - especially every day.
Freedom of speech hasn't been weakened, though.
Voices that call for repression of rights for certain parties should be silenced.

Gay people are a subset of people who have been harassed because of something that a) they cannot control, b) harms nobody (As long as it is between two consenting adults, but that's the same for heterosexual relations).

Fascists are a subset of people who have been harassed because a) they call for non-whites to be exterminated, b) previous fascist movements have put into practice that goal.

The difference is: If I speak about death to gay people, historically this has led to gay people dying -- even if a gay person sat still, they would be attacked. If I speak about death to fascists, historically this has led to fascists dying -- but only after they have mobilized to take power andor spread their beliefs.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out which voices should be silent. That is, if one values equality among fellow humans, and keeps a gentle eye on history.
It would have been much more interesting to read a former Facebook employee’s story about leaving the company rather than one of their billion users deciding to move on.
Yeah it does. But you're totally right about the complexity. Figuring out the right values to generate the srcset at felt insanely complicated for what you get out of it in data saving, but images were so blurry on chrome when downscaling them even a little bit that srcset almost seemed mandatory :(
Advocating genocide is violence, I think most people would agree. Talking about "ideas" is so abstract and antiseptic; clearly there are things beyond the pale.
But this race to the bottom for tax rates is clearly bad. Luxembourg could next make their rate 1%. Then Eire could come back with 0.5%. There's no good that comes of this - even the countries with the low rates are hurting their ability to raise enough money from tax. It only works in the short term when you have companies that cheat and book revenue from outside into that country. It's wrong and I would strongly support both (1) trying to stop the low rates, and (2) book money in other countries than you earn it. It's all just a bs tax dodge.
Huge deals from chinese companies means government backing, which is a Bad Thing unless you enjoy being tracked
I actually don't have any in mind. I just find it less helpful to focus on the easier examples.

In general, I'm more interested in the underlying dynamics, as well as the processes we use to determine what is morally acceptable or not. I think that looking at the more complex issues and at the ways in which the different viewpoints evolve over time shines more light on these important fundamental aspects.
No, he took action to bring pain and suffering to a group of people because of their sexual orientation
How so? Physical violence? Criminal charges?
> In this scenario, the profit fed and the banks made are coming from today's and future investors.

I think you mean today's and future taxpaying workers, which, sure, some of whom are/will be retail investors. But retail investors are the subset of victims with the best relative outcome, because at least they have something invested.
I don’t think he was part of Top Gear at the time of the crash
Advocating genocide is not violence. You can have someone on the internet yelling to kill all the muslims but if they never actually throw a punch, they are not committing violence.
Sure, you can use science for evil things, like you could use a hammer to hit somebody on the head and a car to run somebody over. The problem here is not hammers and cars. If Damore were challenged on scientific grounds and refuted as such, it'd be fine (tbh, many people did exactly that and stopped there, and they were doing it right). But he was chased out as a heretic, not as someone who wrote scientific paper that was less than solid. He was chased out because him questioning this particular dogma is incompatible with being employed at this place, and because the culture we have now does not allow Google to be perceived as tolerating heretics.
>”...largely funded at the request of Harry Reid...”

>”Most of the money went to an aerospace research company run by a billionaire entrepreneur and longtime friend of Mr. Reid’s”

I don’t know who these people are beyond the fact that one of them was apparently a US senator, but this comes across as capable of being perceived as a conflict of interest (whether true or not). And not necessarily a monetary conflict if the recipient was indeed a billionaire.
Explore Two Montreal Transit Maps, 70 Years Apart
IANAL nor am I the parent you replied to but that seems more like a discrimination suit against a business, not the individual.
You're missing the point he's trying to make. He obviously understands this. He's just saying that freedom of speech should actually exist. As soon as you start adding subjective exceptions, you've killed it.
> There are a couple of papers over the past few years arguing/proving under various models that the local optima in deep models either are or are within epsilon of the global optima

I don't care so much for the “arguing” part, but the “proving” part got me interested. ML methods reliably being able to get epsilon-close to global optima is a BFD. What mathematical technology was used to establish these results? Could you provide links to those papers?
So you established a “Socratic baseline”, so to speak. You’ve made it clear that for views that are extremely different from yours, you’re unwilling to tolerate even a brilliant individual for any amount of productivity.

Now can you tell me what amount of difference in views you are willing to tolerate for the sake of working with someone brilliant and productive? If you eat meat and one of the most accomplished physicists in the world is militantly opposed to eating meat, would you work with them? What if they refuse to eat lunch with you if you eat meat? What if their views on abortion are diametrically opposed to yours, and they actively vote against your ideals? What if they believe all human beings with mental defects should be aborted in the womb?

In other words, I want you to haggle with your position a bit so I can understand how you react in the more real world scenario, in which an otherwise useful individual’s views are very different, but not cartoonishly different from your own.
I’m starting to think that amazon might be in trouble, because of

A. Fake reviews, see above

B. Fake products [1]

C. A growing organization, which will be slower and less like on “day 1” [2]

So far, all of this has not affected their top line, but maybe will change soon.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12743316

[2] https://www.geekwire.com/2017/amazon-soars-340k-employees-ad...
No, you are missing the point. The moral history of the world does not terminate in the present. You are basically arguing that the modern consensus is the only acceptable opinion to hold. 50 years ago the modern consensus was that gays should not have rights. The person filling your shoes then would have said "It's unacceptable to discuss giving Gay's rights, we all know it's wrong and abominable, anyone with that opinion should be driven from their post".
> Instead, we should be considering what impact our statements have on other people.

But only people? Not animals? How do you feel about thinking, feeling beings being raised through a life of torture only to be slaughtered so that people can experience some mouth pleasure for a few moments?

How about consideration for people whose ideas don't completely align with yours?

Are you really so certain that the mainstream beliefs are, for the first time in history, unassailable?

Engage the point rather than saying he misses it.
Reading source code of existing learning/real chains. Then trial and error - the usual :)
1) Cars are accessible for wheelchair users (obviously they are modified for this purpose, which is less than you'd think) [1] [2] [3]

2) public transport is not wheelchair accessible. We have trains from the 70s on the track, and aside from multiple steps and a gap, there are no places for wheelchairs. Buses are a little better, but not really usable either. When push comes to shove, this requires people to lift the wheelchair and put it on the train/bus, then help you on the bus as well. If bystanders don't do this, I guarantee out here the driver won't either. For trains, you are supremely unlikely to find anyone of the public transport companies in the station, and nobody helping wheelchair bound people on the bus. Plus, you never, ever see wheelchairs on the train.

Note that if you look at the videos below you see that in most cases, disabled people need (much) more time to get aboard a vehicle. This is not available in public transport and is available in private cars.

Furthermore, wheelchair users (as visible in the second video) (and obviously only up to a certain level of disability) are not just able to use cars, but are able to carry and move heavy loads using them, like groceries.

So once again, an argument in favor of cars once a good look at reality is added to it.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0usQ1LksSA

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTuMw6rtsxA

[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMvvQOeBDfY
It forces me to create an account with them (even though people say it doesn't), and has repugnant policies.
A really popular (or rather unpopular) one is that women and men are differently capable.

Even with all the caveats in the world (that different means neither better nor worse, that this doesn’t make hiring or salary discrimination ok, etc etc), you’re likely to get in trouble because of it.
Thanks for sharing. That's awesome that you gained a better awareness of what works for you. Cheers to that.
In my opinion, denoting your personal viewpoint as "progressive" (in the sense of 'my politics = progress = good') is egotistical at best and pure hubris at worst. And reading both TFA in question and the post linked from it, and all I got from the author was the sentiment that "hey maybe we shouldn't bring out the torches and pitchforks at the merest suggestion that someone may not always genuflect before the current Doctrine of Rightthink."
The business model of the Internet is surveillance and advertising. It's incredibly hard to resist. It seems like there's an infinite amount of money available if you're willing to surveil and sell out your users.
Thanks! Changed from https://papers.nips.cc/paper/7181-attention-is-all-you-need.....
So, fascists should not be allowed the privilege of free speech?

This gets kind of dicey to implement in a place like SF, where it seems like half the people my age think that all registered Republicans are, ipso facto, literally fascists.
There's an underlying issue here, which is that people come at these statements with different fundamental ideas of what is true and what are the likely consequences of an action. Few people would actively support denying rights to other people for zero reason. Most of the time, when they believe that rights should be denied, it's because they believe that allowing those rights would trample on the rights of other people in a significant way.

A significant fraction of America believes that allowing gay people to marry means that God will deny them entrance to the kingdom of Heaven when they die. I think this belief isn't just false, it's ridiculous - there is no God, there is no Heaven, and even if there were, He wouldn't be so petty as to deny entrance just because you supported other people having the same rights as you to get married.

But if you take this premise as given, then homophobia and all of the backlash against LGBTQ people makes a lot more sense. Which would you rather have, eternal damnation for your entire society or a few deviants being able to live their lives with each other? And I certainly can't prove that God doesn't exist and he doesn't hate gay people - I may think the ideas are ridiculous, but people who hold those ideas think that my heresy is ridiculous (and worse, dangerous - I'm certainly going to bring damnation upon myself, and probably upon those people who tolerate me). I've been told that I'm going to hell by certain more devout relatives, after all.

I think that this is the sense in which Sam thinks we should be tolerant. We need to be open to other conceptions of what is true, not necessarily what is good (and we need to learn to separate the two of them in our minds so that we can entertain different possible ideas of what is true without automatically endorsing or condemning them). Less than a century ago, it was taken as given within the Western world that God exists and the Bible is His literal word. Ideas that have challenged anything in it - like the idea that the earth revolves around the sun, or that it's more than 6000 years old - have met a violent reaction throughout history. What other ridiculous things do we believe today will be reexamined tomorrow, and how will we ever examine them if we can't countenance the idea that we might be wrong?
I love the idea of more regular people (especially non-lawyers) running for office, I'm just more pessimistic than you about the wisdom of throwing more money into the campaign finance machine.
Indexing with Postgres: When Less Is More
Its just a small icon in the Address Bar and it can be removed with a right click on the icon and selecting "Remove from Address Bar".
Norway votes to decriminalise drugs and offer treatment instead of jail time
Why Wide Area Surveillance Is a Big Deal
Modern flat Earth societies – Wikipedia
Show me a committee of people who you think should be trusted to decide what speech is not allowed.

And I will show you a group of fallen men, like the rest of us, who will abuse their power for political gain.

And where do you draw the line? Maybe you could get everyone to agree on "kill all gays" being irredeemably intolerant. But what about conservatives who think that children benefit from having a mother and a father and so believe that only adoption by married heterosexual couples should be allowed[1]? According to you, is that just wrong or is it worthy of censorship? And what of the many religions who believe that wives should obey their husbands? And what of discussions of multiculturalism and its potential threats to social cohesion? You give only easy examples, but the trouble is never with the easy examples.

[1] And the for the record, I'm in favor of allowing adoption by gay couples.
I assume incompetent marketing focusing on EPIC MEMES du jour instead of focusing on what users want, but these PR deals when your browser is at ~6% usage worldwide really smell like corporate agreements.
My own design, no schematics as of yet.

If it means anything to you it is based around a TEA5767 FM-receiver module, an ESP8266 device for controlling it (wemos mini d1), an 4x20 LCD display for output and a small opamp for driving speakers.

Most of the project is in the software, the hardware bits are essentially plugged-together with no specific design - except for the opamp.
>>Following independence in 1948, the newly formed union government of the predominantly-Buddhist country denied citizenship to the Rohingyas, subjecting them to extensive systematic discrimination in the country.

From the Wikipedia article you posted.
It literally is not.
As a Christian, I would say, in general, no they should not be punished or fired for it. Occasionally people say things I find offensive, but its usually unintentional or, at the least, impersonal. A lot of engineers are very secular and have quite negative views of traditional religion, views they're more than willing to express at the drop of a hat, not realizing that religious folk live and work among them.

If things are said in an aggressive or confrontational and personal way, or, worse, specific actions are taken (being overlooked for a promotion, humiliated by a superior, forced to take part in objectionable behavior, etc), then that crosses the line, and seems much more objectionable, but even then, its not really the content of the speech so much, but the purpose and motivation behind it.

To be honest I would probably not make a complaint, just put up with it, or simply find a new job.

In general, I think we should aim to avoid offending people needlessly, but also to avoid taking offense. I've put my foot in my mouth all too often, so showing others a bit of grace seems appropriate.
His opinion wasn't the issue. It was his action, he donated money to take rights away from others, including his employees.
> You’ve made it clear that for views that are extremely different from yours, you’re unwilling to tolerate even a brilliant individual for any amount of productivity.

What they actually said was "people who condone or advocate either violence or the denial of rights towards myself or people I care about"
Statement: "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."

Clarification: "I didn’t mean that we need to tolerate brilliant homophobic jerks in the lab so that we can have scientific progress."

I can see how people might have misunderstood.
> with no option to remove it

I just try to remove it after seeing your comment. You can simply right click the pocket icon and choose to remove it.
Your subtext presumably being that if I cannot, off the top of my head, come up with examples of such arguments, my point is invalid.

I do not need any such examples. The point is that any opinion should be up for debate. Otherwise you'll never have your answer.
>"This was a marketing stunt probably thrown together by a single intern, and greenlighted by an out-of-touch marketing department."

Doesn't the fact that that's even allowed to happen point to a larger problem?
In the US, like most countries, the justice system is pay to play.
That's rather sad. I was one of the children that he inspired with his remarkable works. I shall off to Youtube to re-watch some.
A really interesting look at a slice of consumer consumption culture. It neither castigates nor apologizes for consumers and our purchasing habits, but manages to provoke thoughtful comtemplation about both directions. Just a very good read.
Even the good reviews can be bad. "5 stars..looks great can't wait to actually use it"
fake review is relative. the primary problem for consumers now is fake products from commingled inventory.
Perhaps. But does it incorporate the recent improvements that make Firefox fast again (this is an important part of what I mean under "reasonably up-to-date")? I don't think so.
It's the same Bigelow creating inflatable space habitats: https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/17/16488646/bigelow-aerospa...
Are you so incapable of taking an individual situation on it's merits that you can't even handle to possibility that others might not have set in stone rules or mathematically model-able behaviors?

Yes situational ethics is messy, no they are not invalid because they are messy.
on a lot of products you will have 50 five star reviews all done in the same month and year by people with "verified purchase" with an obvious mandarin broken english style of writing, followed by a bunch of one star reviews saying not to trust all the broken english one line five star reviews... i hope it ends soon. i think amazons change where they require you to have at least $50 in prior purchases before writing a review will help.
As a legal right, no. As a culture, it absolutely has. YouTube has demonetized benign conservative content while still having a ton of creepy pedo shit, for example.
> Advocating genocide is violence, I think most people would agree.

I disagree. I do not consider peaceful advocation of an extremely controversial or violent activity to be violence in of itself.

Moreover, I think it is important to be able to express why advocation of a thing can be bad without resorting to conflating the advocation with the thing itself. You lose a lot of nuance in discussion (and charitability for opposing views) with this kind of hyperbole in the general case.

> Talking about "ideas" is so abstract and antiseptic; clearly there are things beyond the pale.

I disagree with this as well. In my opinion, things are only beyond the pale if there is nothing new to contribute to the discussion, not because we are born with a heuristic that refutes it automatically.

For example, we should consider advocating genocide bad because every critical, completely informed examination of genocide comes to the conclusion that it is a net loss for society, and there is no novel information to lead us to a different conclusion. We should not consider advocating genocide to be bad because we believe genocide is bad a priori; this is in fact untrue.

Note that I disagree with dialectic methodology, not overall conclusion. It is important to use rational methods for deriving conclusions instead of subjective dismissals. It is bad to beat a dead horse when we know the result is bad for society, but we can’t begin from a position that is unwilling to examine certain subjects because others consider them “beyond the pale”. Rational dialectics generalize to other topics and arguments; subjective heuristics do not.
I've seen firefox running on computers everywhere during meetings and presentations which I haven't seen for a long time.
Saying they shouldn't have rights (what rights?) is different from plenty of derogatory things you could say about gays or the gay community, or trans people.

And LGBT "rights" by some people's definitions do negatively hurt straight people. For example, some want to force hospitals to perform operations on people, and others want to make rules about bathroom use on private or public property. The right of gays to engage in sexual activities has greatly increased promiscuous straight people's STD risk.

Your statement is both untrue and it's an idea that hurts straight people. I guess I'm supposed to think you should be ostracized from society for expressing it.
They ask for donations more often than gutterpunks in front of supermarket

They get money from Google, eBay, Yahoo to sponsor their search engines
The whole discussion is bogged down because no one knows exactly what everyone else means by "voices being silenced". It seems incredibly unproductive to discuss in this vague, confusing manner.
"Social networks", which I've quoted because I don't mean the modern sort.

Normal humans will, in fact, stop associating with unpleasant people just as a matter of course.
Because they were literally the enemy in WWII. The line right above what you posted, but conveniently didn't quote.
Well I'm trying to build something but it's tough since there aren't a lot of english resources. Most of the articles or tutorials out there are chinese.

Right now for example I'd like to to use the iOS simulator with hot reload and can't get it to work.
But yeah the basics work, so if you haven't got anything too fancy you can give it a try. If you need some special modules or something it's gonna be difficult compared to react native where you have a wealth of addons.

You could take a look at Nativescript as well. Though it's more in the early stages and of course backed by Telerik (who probably want you to sell you components or something at some point) which kinda steered me away from it.