skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
What? The entire article is couched in terms of "people saying controversial things."

> I'm a straight white man so I have no clue really

OK, stop and have a think about what you're saying. Because "you're a [sexual preference][skin colour][gender]" you "have no clue really"? Do you honestly have an issue with the original article and yet somehow think that saying stuff like this is OK? Or worse, that it's OK if you're talking about a specific preference, skin colour, or gender?

Edit: Updated parent post is much less incendiary and so I retract my vitriol. Leaving my original response here for reference.
The article discusses two things:

> Sesame Credit, controlled by a private organization (Alipay)

> The government's List of Dishonest People, a blacklist of people who haven't paid fines.

(The article conflates them because the Sesame Credit scores are downgraded based on whether the person has unpaid fines. However, Sesame Credit doesn't affect the government list)

The "credit" list has no impact on trains/flying; nonpaying of government fines does. This isn't too dissimilar from other countries, where failing to pay government-issued fines results in disciplinary measures.
Exactly. But to be clear, I actually am completely against e.g. Hate Speech laws and while I might support students deciding that they do not want a holocaust denier on their campus I am against handing that decision over to the university corporation.
Any critique of Islam.
One favorable interpretation is that he’s trying to say something similar to what Richard Muller said here

https://www.quora.com/What-is-your-opinion-on-the-UC-Berkele...

In the 60s and 70s UC Berkeley used to let controversial speakers present. The audience would listen patiently. And then take turns asking questions trying to catch the racist / bigot / Nazi / homophobe / whatever in the midst of logical failures. Now we just protest and shut down ideas via claims of political correctness. It’s not nearly as effective.
When the network is deep or big enough, local minimums tend to have loss close to global optimum. There is theoretical and empirical evidence for this. Global minimum is usually overfitting so what is needed is getting close enough.

In practice algorithms like stochastic gradient descent have problems distinguishing between saddle points and local minima. There is hypothesis that in many/most cases local minima where algorithms get stuck are actually saddle points with long plateau.
nice comment! how does enforcing type system help improve the performance? is there any article that sheds more light? also, did you mean static typing instead of strong?
That's assuming no cost for parking which is a correct assumption if you are commuting from a suburban house to a suburban office park. But if you are commuting from a SF/NYC apartment to a SF/NYC downtown office and you want parking in both places then its safe to add a cost of $150 per month for each which is about $3600 for parking. Its all about context.
I sure appreciate the good faith here, especially where we disagree.

Re yesterday: if we didn't moderate HN like this the front page would consist mostly of repetitive stuff. There's no doubt in my mind that the community wouldn't like that, and certainly it would make HN a different place. Intellectual curiosity shrivels under repetition.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1412.0233
The GDPR allows suing of any organisation, whether from the EU or not, as long as they process data from people in the EU.

But for that, you need Mozilla to actually violate privacy or for them to perform a contract with another company and then not ensuring enough that the data is handled correctly by that contractee. The pure speculation that on a technological level, it would be possible for your privacy to be infringed by Mozilla or through their use of Pocket, Cliqz, Google Analytics or indeed this extension (though I still don't understand how it's supposed to be privacy infringing in the first place), does not suffice to successfully sue them.

Mozilla ensures legally towards its users that their privacy is not infringed upon in their Privacy Statement and just as well has legal contracts ensuring that Read It Later Inc. (former developer of Pocket, now owned by Mozilla), Cliqz GmbH or Google Inc. don't infringe upon this user privacy either. So, legally Mozilla is not touchable here.

If you can prove that they do not comply with their Privacy Statement or the GDPR, or do not do enough to ensure that their contracted companies comply with those, then you can again sue them. But you are were already perfectly able to sue them for violating their own Privacy Statement for as long as they've existed.
No, my intention was to learn why you believe what you believe and then perhaps challenge those beliefs. You know... a debate.
I never said my viewpoints were progressive. I was asking the question: is it possible to, through the application of reason, distinguish between progressive and regressive ideas?

Unless we can reason our way through ideas, what hope is there that we can find our way out of a paper bag?
It's fine to use civil fraud for that when the torts can be litigated by the entities involved.

The fact that the government had to come in, and the taxpayer took the hit, materially changes things in my view. That's when the bar needed to shift from civil to criminal.

I'd be happy if laws sat on the book and weren't enforced until just this sort of occasion arose, than the opposite, where we didn't have the laws and can't retrospectively enforce them.
See my other comment. (Pretty much all rights in general negatively affect some other people, so this should not be surprising.)
This is pretty much the perfect example of what is considered wrongthink today, but I have confidence, will be common knowledge in 50 years. This is the example people should be using more instead of the one Altman used (disparaging comments about gay people).
Noone can hate with more fierceness than someone that once loved. If you depend on your users to love you, be careful with their trust.
My guess is that HN banned PIA's shared VPN gateway IP address(es) by mistake. A large number of users making requests from the same IP(s) can look like abuse.

There's an unban feature, visit:

https://news.ycombinator.com/unban?ip=<your public IP>

You can search "ip" to see what your current public IP is.
Oh, sorry I misread your comment. Yes, I agree that mileage costs are probably larger than time costs.
Well the situation does seem quite bad when you see people who leave fake reviews become brazen enough to actually advertise their services on Amazon itself [1]. I reported this review about 10 days ago and it's still up. The email address provided appears on hundreds of product listings [2]. When they can't even filter out nonsense like this I can only assume they put zero effort into tackling fake reviews.

[1] https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/customer-reviews/R7J38CTD1MNT0

[2] https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site:amazon.co.uk+sohant85...
I’m sorry, but it’s not clear to me what you’re saying here. Let me restate my point more succinctly: people are generally intolerant of others once those others are sufficiently different from themselves. But they are not typically intolerant of people who are only slightly or moderately in opposition to their views.

I would like the parent commenter to consider how much comfortability they are willing to sacrifice in order to get along with someone who is extremely useful. This is a scenario with real world applicability which is not as easy or convenient to say, “I’ll simply not work with them.”

I’m not attempting to invalidate their stated position, I’m trying to understand how they react when it becomes messier.
smart man goes to china, sees something he likes . comes back and apologizes for liking it to appease his crowd.

not a very smart man.
The problem is that "forward" is ambiguous. You can measure it relative to your direction of travel, or perpendicular to the gravitational vector. For small gradients these are more or less the same, but the steeper the slope the more these two measures diverge.
There is so much more to our culture than Youtube comments, though.
MSF are treating wounded refugees, so there is definitely proof of violence. There are 800,000 Rohingya refugees living in Bangladesh [1]. They must be running from something, right? I don't understand why you go to such an extent doubting the stories of these refugees.

[1]. http://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/rngs/MYANMAR-ROHINGYA/0...
TRIADOR: Homebrew ternary computer
Someone stated:

>Voices that call for repression of rights for certain parties should be silenced.

This is going to sound unbelievably pedantic and frustrating, but... What about the right to free speech?

This comment was deleted, but I wrote a response I feel should be heard anyway. So here it is:

1. Vulnerable groups should be protected. If my speech has historically led to The Right To Life of others being violated, then their right to life is much more important than the freedom or protection of my speech.

2. The right to free speech is a legal device to protect you from the government coming into your home and taking you to a gulag for stating certain things. In no cases are your rights to speak being violated, you can speak these things privately within your home. However, when in public and on private land, we need different rules. Just as public indecency violates your right to wear or not wear whatever you wish when out and about, so do hate speech, libel, slander, and defamation laws also restrict what you can state in public.

3. I wonder why people only bring this up with respect to social justice discourse. A couple of months ago, a person was taken to court by someone in government for laughing at them during a speech. Just this week the CDC was banned by the government from saying "evidence-based" and "science-based". And yet the social groups (on 4chan, twitter, facebook, HN, etc.) that frequently claim for freedom of speech with respect to social justice is curiously silent about examples of actual government repression of speech. This leads me to believe that there is a certain disingenuity when this is used as a rebuttal.
This may seem off topic but what do we do when bots catch up to our state of the art for keeping them out?

Do we milk the concept of captchas until they turn into some kind of Turing test? Can we even automate a Turing test in a way that machines can't bypass?

Do we basically ditch the concept of privacy and require some kind of systematic provable identity in most places?

Or do we accept the fact that consensus can be faked by bots and try to mitigate the noise by removing the spam as it appears?
This is basically how GIF works. If you have a GIF viewer that can pause and advance frame by frame, you could use GIF without the canvas needs.
> IMO the latter is not ok.

Edit suggestion: I think you meant that the first is not ok.
The author really gets the underlying issue, and it's an issue that is extremely common amongst software, hardware, and vendors, tech and non-tech alike: trust. Almost every major issue with software boils down to trust. Do I trust this browser, or more specifically, the people that develop it? Do I trust this database / people that develop it? Do I trust technology X? These are the types of decisions we have to make everyday and that the tech world is forcing upon billions of people, most of whom are simply not informed enough to make them. Free software is about trust. Open source is about trust.

So many "tech" issues boil down to trust, that I'd say trust is the primary issue in tech and has been for quite awhile. Therefore, it's interesting to see that companies simply ignore this issue, don't care about it, and openly violate the trust of their customers, employees, partners, etc. I see very few organizations that consider the implications of lost trust to their business. Just like car mechanics who lie and say they fixed something they didn't, companies break users' trust by hiding malware in their products, spying on them, collecting data without their knowledge, releasing bad products etc.

In the end, it doesn't matter how trust is broken because once it's broken, it's extremely difficult, if not impossible to reestablish. That's something a lot of companies don't think about with the philosophy being that lost customers will be replaced by new waves of ignorant customers who don't know any better and don't know who to trust. Then they wonder why their market share slips when the company's main purpose is to scam people.
Yes, they are intolerant of those people, regardless of how useful they can otherwise be to society. I think we both understand what the parent was saying, and it seems pretty reasonable to me.
"I don't believe that your friends and loved ones deserve the same rights I have" is not a point of view I am particularly worried about learning about. It is prima facie unacceptable and should be rejected by organizations that care about being decent; digging into the disaster represented by that hidebound bigotry (and it is an insult in the company of decent parts of humanity) just cements it.
What is the (purpose of / value in) defending regressive ideas?
Advocacy is not violence, but advocacy of violence is close enough.

There is a distinction to be made between advocacy in general and advocacy of harm (such as deportation or the denial of civil or human rights and of course including violence) or the spreading of slander/libel (e.g. [1]).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of...
> when I implemented the SMTP/IMAP spec

Link to the code?

> I spent a few hours first writing my own parser combinator framework (to be 100% clear: from scratch, with no reference)

I am sure you did. Like when you rolled out your own crypto in 5 minutes. Or the time you rewrote FB in a weekend.
Especially as a company with over $440M in assets, $330M of which is invested, with less than $60M/year in accounts payable and liabilities, that received $500M in royalties last year.
Well, yeah, it's mostly used as some sort of cross between self-help and Malcolm Gladwell. I think a lot of people like it because, you know, if "grit" is all that matters, then perhaps we do, Candide-like, live in the best of all possible worlds, and nothing has to be changed.
DataAlign 24/7 Online cloud backup solutions
Choosing the right backup solution can seem tricky, as there's a lot to consider. How much storage space do you really need, for instance? Security is important, too. What sort of encryption options do you get? How is access to your data managed? What options are there for managing your users, seeing what they're doing, making sure they're complying with your policies and procedures? Cloud Backup To make it easy, DataAlign will cater to all the pressing needs and will give you complete satisfaction. DataAlign has been delivering easy, cheap backup services to consumers for several years, so it's no surprise that its business products deliver simplicity and value. We not only keep your valuable data and assets safe, secure and easily accessible but our priority also stays in providing cost effective solution to save you money in the long run. Costly IT resources such as on-premise and overpriced storage equipment’s are need of the past. Online Cloud Backup

Get More information >>>===>>>https://www.dataalign.com/
But what are rights to begin with? Take this as purely a devil's argument and not something I am advocating, please.

Let's take a 30 year old and a 15 year old. We accept in a society that two 15 year olds can consent to sex to each other. We do not accept that a 30 year old and a 15 year old can consent to sex.

But for a person with a sexual preference for teens, their attraction is

(a) something they can't control

and

(b) something that doesn't harm anyone if there is consent between both parties.

There is a lot of room for argument here. Take a 15 year old and 19 year old. Is that okay? What about 17 and 19? Where's the line? How can it possibly be the case that age difference necessarily indicates a power differential that inhibits consent in all circumstances?

So we are in a pickle now. Either this similar argument is wrong, and hence the original argument can be questioned, or this argument is good, and hence the majority cultural belief about such relationships needs to be drastically questioned.

Either way, we should allow people to voice their arguments.
>It doesn't take a genius to figure out which voices should be silent.

We live in a political environment where you can be labeled a fascist for not wholeheartedly supporting an array of ideas that have been determined to be so obvious that they don't warrant discussion (large scale immigration, white culture as toxic, transgenderism as normal and desirable, just to name a few).

Given that context, you'll excuse me if the idea that we can easily figure out who deserves to be silenced is implausible.
> It's if course never gonna happen. It's too convenient for Amazon and most users probably don't even understand that they aren't buying from Amazon.

Out of curiosity, why do you assume people don't realize they aren't buying from Amazon?
Please ignore the overly literal pendants who can’t be bothered to look past the word “physical” in the first of several dictionary entries defining the word “violence”. Words can cause harm, and whether you call it violent or not doesn’t make it any more morally justifiable.
> home ownership goes away

Home ownership is the only practical way in which the general public can access leveraged asset price inflation. There has to be big transformation in the economy before home ownership is seen as a cost centre rather than the most profitable investment most people will ever make.
Iridium seems far better maintained in AUR [Arch Linux User Repo]. I shall give it a spin. Thanks for the reminder.

https://iridiumbrowser.de/
The way Paypal works is pretty awesome but unfortunately the company is pretty shitty (at least in my experience).
It feels like cargo-cult computer usage.

The description states: "Running Clang in a container has the advantage that it is light on resources and won’t mess with your underlying OS.". Containers aren't really light on resources if the host kernel is not Linux and not messing with OS is easily attainable by installing the binaries in a custom prefix directory (e.g. ~/bin). This is especially true for compilers which have minimal or zero dependencies.
Who is the party who is imposing zero-tolerance here? The band leader disclosed the problem and also decided the "punishment," such as it was. I understand that you're just one person and are not representing this finding as the maximally bad situation. But I would say that if this is the worst that can be found, it's clear to me that we're in no immediate danger of jump-the-gun, zero-tolerance situations becoming common.
If you can summon the willpower to go to one of those, I'd say you already have more than the average person.
This looks to be the paper behind the press release:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.04389
Only in the same sense that Renaissance-era scientists wanted to "express horrible things" about the nature of our solar system.
I highly recommend the 2017 Massey Lecture that deals with genocide and the history of human rights. It's called In Search of a Better World by human rights lawyer Payam Akhavan.

Listen to the whole thing for free[1] or check out the book[2].

[1] http://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/lecture-1-in-search-of-a-bette...

[2] https://houseofanansi.com/products/in-search-of-a-better-wor...
Solving the fake review problem might be possible if Amazon takes steps to make it economically unfeasible for the bad actors to do it at scale.

For example, let's say that each product is shipped with a unique review_id and that review_id is tied to the product. When posting reviews about said product, you need to provide a picture of the card that contains the review_id. This would need to be verified server-side before the review is accepted.

IMO this would make it too difficult for vendors to buy fake reviews at volume, since each fake review now must go through the extra step of taking a picture of the review_id card and uploading it along with the review. Since that step would take place in the analog world it would defeat most automated review posting methods.
Are you just arguing strict semantics here? If I'm Jewish and someone advocates for killing all the Jews, to me that is clearly a physical threat and potentiality assault.

There is also a very real normalization that goes with online threats. If 100 people talk about running over liberals in a chat room, and then one of them does it; the other 99 facilitated that violence.
The fundamental problem is that the software that serves the user needs to be paid for. If every FF user would chip in a small sum, that might work, but people would rather switch to chrome.
Advocating for genocide is a form of violence. If I ask Bob to punch you, I am responsible for the harm that falls on you, even if I did not throw a punch. Limiting “violence” to only obvious physical contact is disingenuous.

Verbal violence is a real thing that has real impact on people. Ask anybody who was in an abusive relationship, even if they were not physically beaten. Or consider that Trump has not physically thrown a punch, but most reasonable people would agree he has caused a lot of harm to minorities and immigrants’ safety and ability to share their brilliance with the world.
This does not answer the "who" question.
So that's in the past and now we have a cryptocurrencies bubble coming up.
Who should be punished and why?
Here there is no intermediary, just the greed of the people and their stupidity.
Let the markets punish or reward them.
They probably are, desperate.

The phone project has been a pretty bad hit for them.

They so seemed to be able to be successful again with FF 57... I guess it was luck.
I may get downvoted for saying this but, anecdotally, people today seem way more sensitive and emotional about other people's viewpoints and actions, especially when they disagree with them.

Growing up, it was much easier to have conversations of differing opinions because people not only listened more, but they also listened better. (Perhaps that's in part due to the unique sense of curiosity that kids have.)

Today, it commonly feels like conversations involve hearing aids that have been turned off completely.

Einstein is quoted as half-jokingly saying that the greatest force in the universe is compound interest.

I think it's emotions.
For me RPN is just the way a calculator should function. But I'm not shure I could explain why. Some of the explanation is

".. it gives you more insight into your calculations than using the ‘algebraic’ systems used by other calculators and it keeps you and not your calculator (see Appendix D) in command of what is calculated."

from here: https://hansklav.home.xs4all.nl/rpn/index.html
Vivaldi is Chromium but without google, a ton of cool power user features, and closed source. It's fast if Chrome is fast.
I'd find that helpful. If a lot of people have negative opinion about you, you have no place in my life, sorry. I don't want to deal with some society outsider
Haha, I was writing a reply, too!

In Sam's case, it sounds like all of his social discomfort is happening entirely within free speech principles?

From what I can gather, Sam sometimes freely-speaks an idea that other people find harmful. Others then freely-speak back to him that he should stop, because it's harmful.

But it sounds like Sam's arguing not just for the right to free speech, but the right to have everyone listen to you. That right is limited by others' rights to live peacefully, and not be regularly subjected to words that harm them.
> people are generally intolerant of others once those others are sufficiently different from themselves

Eh. I don’t see how this statement is justified without heavy qualification.