skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Just off the top of my head in the last year or so:

Social scientist Charles Murray was censored then physically assaulted at Middlebury because he wrote a book about the correlation between intelligence and success [https://youtu.be/a6EASuhefeI?t=19m25s]

Biology professor Bret Weinstein at Evergreen State College had himself and his family physically threatened because he refused to participate in a protest that asked all white people to leave campus for a day [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xq4Y87idawk]

A professor at Diablo Valley College smashed a dude with a bike lock just because he was on the different side of the political spectrum as he was. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ug34vogS3Fw]

Everything that Jordan Peterson had to go through at University of Toronto because he publicly opposed a draconian bill to forces professors to use specific pronouns when referring to students [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsG71YrB_Nw]

Lindsay Shepard at Laurier University had to face a star chamber from a 'diversity committee' because she showed a video clip of Jordan Peterson in class [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpFUvfAvKs4&t=1m18s]

And then there were the psychos that literally lit University of Berkeley on fire when Milo Yiannopoulos went to give a talk there [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pi_vX0tknJM&t=4m45s]

etc...

etc...
Value for the user: no ads and the site gets supported for "free" (the user is very unlikely to care about or even be aware of the electric use and device wear)

Value for the webmaster: the value of the mined coins, obviously.

Is there a certain definition of value you're using that these don't fall under? Why should all people in the world participate in the distributed process of counting out the correct amount of cash in person to each other?

Why doesn't every company just invest directly in finance instead of doing what they do? I don't really have an answer to that, but if user-end mining generated more revenue than ads then website hosts would just switch over to it. Imagining a future where people make content in order to be miners, or indirectly they make content to make money, seems fine, I already support some creators on patreon.

I think the power/cpu requirements for lower end devices could be worked out in time.
But your work for hire laws suck. Do something on the side while you have a main job, and guess what. By default your current employer owns the code that you wrote!

Been there, done that. Never again.
> Self-selected polls, on the other hand, pretty much mean nothing.

Isn't our democracy built upon "self selected polling" , people who chose to go excesrice their right to vote. Its all meaningless?
I can't be both heavy handed regulation and something that when removed, won't change industry behavior. Also, the commitments provided are not eternal and unchangeable. They committed to treat all content equally when it was the law of the land. Now that it's not, they can easily change that stance.
Limiting bandwidth is one thing. My local Cable company is proish-NN (they have publicly stated that they have no plans to implement prioritization even if the FCC passed this vote), they still impose data caps and network management practices on consumer plans. While I hate these practices (hence paying extra for a business connection), that's not what the NN issue is about.

Comcast refused to upgrade their peering connections to the networks used by Netflix (Level3 I believe was one of them?) to extort money from them. Netflix doesn't get service from Comcast, yet Comcast decided it could charge them to get access to their customers.

The internet is built upon no-fee exchanges between Tier 1 providers, but since Comcast (and some others like CenturyLink, Verizon, AT&T) is both a consumer ISP AND a major transit provider they try to make arguments like "you're sending us more traffic than we send you, this isn't fair" even though their customers are the ones requesting the data. It's total bullshit, and they will milk this for everything it's worth.
because no one wants that. the overhead of those guarantees makes no sense given the diversity of protocols the "internet" is meant to create. people would just use faster protocols for their intended purposes. the beauty is that the degree of Net Neutrality that we do have was created with minimal regulation before 2015. Risking further regulatory capture now, given the issues with local isp monopolies, makes no sense.
Not sure how you can still have this "it doesn't matter" view after the 2016 election. If there was any proof at all that the masses had the power to give away their power, it was given November 10, 2016.
While I mostly agree, it's not about picking a perfect candidate... It's about moving the bar of acceptance over a little bit at a time. You elect the people that represent your values and, eventually, those values become the norm. I fear that America just doesn't agree with the same values as I do.
Logician and Philosopher Raymond Smullyan had a story about this in one of his books. He had gone on a trip with a woman with a little girl. The adults wanted to eat at colorful local cafes, while the girl wanted to eat at McDonalds. He suggested that they vote, and the little girl replied, "That's no fair. I'd lose!"

Our republic isn't designed just to do what the people want. It's intentionally designed so that good people can sometimes do something unpopular in the public interest. For this to work, it's incumbent on the voting public to elect good people.
FB's business model will eventually clash with its value proposition to users.

The hedge fund and institutional investing world has fallen in love with facebook because it obviously is growing like crazy and scale and in a profitable manner, but also because it is viewed by many as a modern-day "value investment" (strange as that sounds), in the sense it has a powerful competitive moat and compounding returns on investment. but ultimately this thesis comes down to placing more paid ads in front of users. facebook will have to choose between cramming more and increasingly intrusive ads into its platform or dealing with a falling stock price. when it happens who knows, but it will at some point

the regulatory risk is real but vague. out of curiousity, i wonder how many people thought the regulatory risk for microsoft in the late 90s was real
Actually it's going 2018.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_in_the_United_States

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime#Victims_in_the_Unit...
Couldn't agree more. They are too busy having a great life down there. I definitely miss a lot of aspects of that culture.
I wish I wasn't correct.

Early on, in some twisted way, I was hoping that Trump was going to be immune to money effects. I didn't particularly care for Clinton. I was hoping Trump would start telling companies to "Fuck off" - you can't pay off a billionaire...

The opposite happened. Someone who has love of money only further seeks love of money. I completely expect that monied interests will further their agenda. I think it's pretty clear where that leads.

As for us, I'm looking at technologies to mitigate that. IPFS works well, as long as you can populate the cache and not delete it. Tor is a good way to anonymize and privatize content the monied interests don't like (or will soon discriminate against).

I also live in a trailer park. We have the density. It's certainly doable to create a small network between all of us, combined with something like Freifunk for automatic handling of routing.
Except due to regulatory capture and lobbying of enough municipalities this has become harder

Selling a plain service and doing it well for a fair price should have won most consumers but they will switch companies for minor discounts or the shiniest cellphone then complain they get shafter
I am aware of a few southern states where the statute assumes the intruder intends to harm you. UncleEntity is likely correct.
Access to information like you describe would be very useful in a free market, but the ISP market is not.

If I get a report from my ISP outlining how they throttled me, how am I supposed to act on that information?
Alabama's race was "Democrat or pedophile" and going into the race, _everybody thought Moore was going to win because a Democrat was considered more unelectable than a pedophile in Alamabama_. It's easy to say "Well the republican candidate was uniquely terrible, and that's why the Democrat won". But if Moore had won, nobody would have been surprised. Plenty of people would have been disappointed, sure, but nobody would have said "Well, I for sure thought Alabama would go for the D over the R in this case".

Yes, there's definitely some unusual factors that went into this race, and the Republican party made a lot of unforced errors that let the race be competitive. But the fact that it was even possible for it to be competitive seems like evidence of a wave to me, especially when you pair it with the recent Democratic wave in Virginia.
We just had an election in Alabama that proved this view incorrect. Even in seemingly "safe" districts your vote can matter. That's how safe districts become safe.

Howard Dean pursued an explicit "fifty-state strategy" as chairman of the Democratic National Committee in the mid-2000s, putting resources into building a Democratic Party presence even where Democrats had been thought unlikely to win federal positions, in hopes that getting Democrats elected to local and state positions, and increasing awareness of Democrats in previously conceded areas, would result in growing successes in future elections.

The strategy was gradually abandoned after Dean stepped down from the DNC, and I believe that a large part of the Democrats' losses since then is exactly a result of your mindset, since abandoning red states or districts as lost causes only allowed the Republican Party to grow even stronger in areas where it was unchallenged, resulting in lopsided losses for Democrats in even more races and killing any ability to lay the groundwork for future victories.
He's talking about "discussing controversial ideas" with people around you which is a very different think than challenging authority through public broadcast channels. This partisan stance that China is all bad and US is all good is ridiculous.
"The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work, and then they get elected and prove it."

- P.J. O'Rourke in Parliament of Whores (1991)
Wow, typical response from an ignorant Republican. Read about net neutrality so you can comment on it intelligently.
How so? Stating your thoughts with conviction ends any hope of a reasonable discussion? Maybe if you're afraid of confrontation. For me it's an invitation to debate.
> Net neutrality is a fiction. Hire Akamai (et al.) to mirror your servers worldwide to speed content to your users.

- David Autor

this is an infuriating argument. distributing your content throughout a network of servers to decrease rtt and increase cache hits is how the internet is supposed to work. giving priority to powerful corporations in an already congested network infrastructure, on the other hand, is anti-consumer and promotes monopolization.
You're just saying your democracy isn't working properly, just for different reasons.

Most Trump supporters did not elect trump "knowing ... he would end Net Neutrality", and a statement from 2014 does not disprove that (a cursory glance at r/TrumpCriticizesTrump/ kinda makes the point).

The US public is atrociously misinformed as a whole, either due to lack of education or bad media incentives or both. In order to function, a democracy requires an informed public.
I've never read Journey to The End of The Night in French but it's my absolute favorite novel. I wonder about that as well. I am always quite specific about recommending the Ralph Mannheim translation.

Similarly, I had a copy of Rimbaud's works which I was completely in love with. I moved back to the US and for the life of me cannot find the same translation. The ones I have found are somewhat limp in comparison.

One day I would like to learn both French and Spanish well enough to read Borges and Celine in their original, if for no other reason than to see if the Journey I know is that much different than the original.
Yes but any Republican would have taken this action. Pai was appointed because by convention (or possibly requirement) the commission is composed of two Democrats and two Republicans, and is chaired by a commissioner of the President's choosing.

Saying Pai is Obama's fault is disingenuous, because he had to appointment a Republican, and any Republican chair would implement Republican policy.
Microsoft considers adding Python support to Excel
The onus is on you to propose a solution the “average person” may implement.
There's a fallacy in there somewhere. It's like telling me that calling something gambling is a meaningless term because I can't tell you exactly when you will lose your money playing craps. I don't know exactly when. There's a random factor involved. There's even a chance you might come out ahead.

The fact that you don't know when it will burst is just one problem with bubbles. You don't know if it will be 2152 or now. If you know it is a bubble because of a strong irrationally motivated valuation but still buy in, then you are gambling on not "if" but "when" the bottom will fall out.
One of the joyous things about political messaging lately!

Other dual-meaning phrases that have been abused of late:

* Fake news

* voter fraud

* Election rigging

* Collusion

* Corruption

What else do we have?
Pai was recommended by the Republican party; the FCC has two commissioners for each party, plus the chairman who decides split votes. Obama's chairman was in favor of NN, Trump's was solidly against, and that's all that matters.
The worst part of all of this Bitcoin speculation is that you have someone like the person you're replying to get on and talk out of their ass. Literally. And then they are the ones getting upvoted cause all the haters love to talk to trash with zero intellectual honesty.

This is actually bubble #4.
Here's an analysis of the previous 3:
https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@huku/bitcoin-bubbles-a-brief-hi...
"Security compliance" is about how you use a given database, not which one you happen to use. You can securely (but inefficiently) store credentials in a plain text file.

WRT some defences becoming outdated by time, well, it probably would not be two-decades behind, but a couple years or so at most. Even then, ensuring that is better then nothing.

People need tools to judge if they can safely use some product, and that's why standards exist. Otherwise companies are going to continue to screw us until they drop the balls.
Google Maps contextual departure times for transit notifications roll out
None of those countries have equivalent ISP rules either.
People want a re-release of the unaltered OT.
Session's former Alabama senate seat is up in 2020.
But the argument isn't fallacious and it's not an ad hom...

Extending life expectancy will increase human population and harm our environment and that harm to the environment will harm future generations so individuals working towards extending life expectancy are hurting future generations and that's unethical which makes them unethical. You can disagree with the argument but it's not fallacious.
Obviously a joke, but probably not terribly inaccurate from what we can expect in the future.
Nice work. It should be three blog posts/chapters however.
They are also in favour of letting people starve, on environmental externalities to be ignored and to nickel and dime people for short term profit ignoring long term consequences
I work with people like that all the time. I don't give a shit. As long as they aren't doing anything to directly harm me, then let them have their stupid opinion. It's better than the alternative of social oppression, because I'm sure I have some stupid opinions as well.
Mrs. Claus Saves Christmas
I'm naturally sympathetic to the sentiment, but this post fails to acknowledge, much less address, the major societal changes that have precipitated our current situation. Censorship is a reaction to our society's increasing inability to combat misinformation. Over the last 20 years, a huge, extremely influential right wing media establishment has sprung up. It has clearly demonstrated its ability to convince millions of people of things that are factually untrue, with less logic than repetition. (Ask Barack Obama, the Kenyan Muslim, about the utility of reasoning). I am worried about someone who makes an argument that gay people are evil, because it probably now means that a group of commentators have adopted that simple statement as a talking point. Furthermore, they've tacked on preposterous arguments, logical fallacies, and agreed to engage in Ad Hominem warfare against anyone who argues differently. It's been an extremely effective formula for persuading a huge portion, if not most of our society, into believing falsehoods.

Unfortunately, the John Stuart Mill marketplace of ideas is failing to distribute value as obviously as our economic marketplaces. The openness of communication made possible via technology has turned us all into Sophists. Efforts to confront and address this reality is peripheral at best. As long as this is true, censorship will be an appealing option to keep bad ideas from spreading. Is censorship worth the cost? I don't know, but I'd lean toward saying yes, while fully acknowledging that the cost is huge.
Yes, I think the biggest take away of this is to push the fact that republican legislators did not listen to their constituents. At all. They did not put their constituents first. At all. The chairman actually talked about consumers working with the FCC to enforce regulations as a bad thing.
> I believe the reason it does not happen by default is that binaries go to /usr/bin, and no .so files should appear there. Also it breaks when hardlinks are involved.

I other words, nobody uses it. So many conflicts could be easily solved if applications dropped this retarded insistence on spreading files over the hierarchy by type, but they just keep doing it because they mistake tradition for wisdom.
You only had to walk 5-10 blocks south into Spanish Harlem to get a ~13 dollar haircut but totally agree on the taxes for purchases.

I always found NYC specific travel funny. For example, it can take an hour an a half to get from the Upper West Side to Brooklyn but a bus ride from NYC to somewhere like Philly is often under 2 hours.
Reading comprehension is hard. I know.

(No where did I say Tulips)
Have you seen the internet recently? They have been making this clear for months.
Doug Jones's seat is not up for re-election until the 2020 elections.
It does not, on its own, make him wrong in this case.

I don't feel like putting in the effort to figure out if this presentation of "strawman" is meta-ironic in that it is itself a strawman, but I can't tell that it isn't.
That's called fraud and you will go to prison for it.
I'm going to bite- aside from AT&T and Time Warner, when is the last time the FTC has taken a pro-consumer action related to trusts?
I can assure you that like all academics, economists are thoroughly reliant on the internet.
> Is wireless a disaster?

Uhh yes. You must not own a cell phone or use a wireless data plan in the USA.
Unless of course you mean innovative new ways of rent-seeking.
The FCC is an absolute disgrace. Fuck you Pai...
I'm surprised I haven't heard anything along the lines of Ajit being hacked or receiving death threats.

My only hope from this is that as soon as cable companies start their bullshit, people become aware of how this all happened and maybe we can reverse the damage in the long run. I'm also hoping things like Google Fiber get more aggressive or Musk keeps his promise of launching his internet satellite.
Has the death of the OS already begun?
Comparing two financial instruments during their lifetimes is now a false comparison apparently.
I totally empathize with this perspective. It would never be appropriate for coworkers to criticize (directly or indirectly) your lifestyle, identity, or personal decisions.

With regards to your statement "I would have an incredibly hard time believing that that person was taking me seriously, really wanted to work with me, wasn't going to undercut me, or trusted me.", in many ways I totally respect that concern.

But I also think it may be symptomatic of how our approach to these topics has become non-constructive. We've too closely tied support for a person with support for everything they do/believe. To my thinking, whether I take you seriously or want to work with you has nothing to do with the aforementioned topics, and entirely with how you behave/execute at work. And if I'm going to undercut you at work because I disagree with your beliefs, the issue isn't that I disagree with you, it's that I'd be willing to undercut anyone I work with.
Having a good memory is the singularly best way to combat the money corrupting politics.

The people just proved with the Alabama special election that they can change the establishment if they feel strongly enough about it.

Sadly I think the effects of repealing Net Neutrality will be felt more like a frog in a slowly heating pot of water, and no single change is going to entice the majority of the population to vote. It's not the tech industry that needs to be convinced that repealing neutrality is bad, it's the general non-tech population that needs to be convinced to care.
Do you have links to the IGM polls showing that?
We're discussing the situation in present-day tech culture, mostly with regards to Silicon Valley and the Bay Area as compared to China.
Exactly. For example, if you believe very strongly in Second Amendment rights, most Democratic candidates are not an option on election day. Additionally, Hillary Clinton was a very polarizing candidate even among registered Democrats.
> did anything.

...except maybe tacitly agreeing with people who posited that talking about something was a bad thing, because, you know, in this particular case freedom of speech is trumped by more important considerations.

This is, of course, not limited to liberals, or any other political affiliation.
>What if the ideas are unethical?

Propositional claims, in and of themselves, cannot be unethical. It's just a category error.

Now, if you're talking about the propositional claim, "black people are genetically inferior", well, as far as I know, it's contradicted by reams of available evidence and supported by little to none. You might as well claim the moon landings were faked, and, I suppose, many racists probably also do claim that one.

I do think there's a difference, so to speak, between heresy and quackery, and if we're treating racism as heresy, we've arrived to a very worrying place. The problem is, we treat ideas as heresy when we don't think we can actually provide evidence against them. That's why the whole notion originates with the unprovable realm of religion.

Claims like the supposed "inferiority" of some groups of people, on the other hand, were, at least as I was taught, quackery. They're just wrong, and all you have to do is point at the contradictory state of affairs in the real world.

A quack you ignore because you can prove they're wrong. A heretic you burn because you're secretly worried they're right.

Which makes me wonder how many secret racists we have around those pyres burning racists and sexists.

>Maybe we need to decide if being ultra-wealthy is moral when people are in need and there is a system in place that generates people in need.

This sorta idea? https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/06/its-basically-just-im...
What about walking up to someone's door and knocking to see whos home? What if there is a picket fence around the yard with a latched gate that you have to open to get to the front door?
Yeah that makes sense for developers who clock in and out for a large conglomerate. It's not the same for devs who work for a startup.