skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I would say it is not about private vs government, it is a question of legal Vs illegal. IANAL, If my recollection is correct, all speech, except those containing immediate/imminent threat/ incitement of violence is legal. That is the protection that Constitution affords the citizens.
If companies are placing further restrictions on what can be said at the threat of people loosing their jobs, then they are not affording the same kind of protection that citizens enjoy viz the government, to be applied regarding the employees to themselves.
> Sure, people can hold animosity toward Trump, just like most trump supporters hold animosity towards Secretary Clinton. But you shouldn't extend this animosity towards the people that support that candidate, and you shouldn't convince yourself that there aren't two sides to every issue, because there are.

Sure, every issue has at least two sides...but aren't there issues where one side is so wrong that it is reasonable to conclude that those who take that side have something wrong with them?

For example, at the risk of having someone who doesn't understand the nuances of Godwin's law trying to incorrectly apply it here, take the issue of whether or not the Nazi attempt to implement an answer to their perceived problems with Jews was a good solution. If someone says the Nazi solution was a good one, am I supposed to just say "Oh well...two sides to every issue! We'll have to agree to disagree!" and just ignore that they support genocide?

Or how about someone who believes that the Earth is flat? They dismiss evidence such as the curvature you can see from a high altitude plane, photos from space, and everything else that says it is not as fake that a vast conspiracy of government and academia is forcing upon us. Two sides to every issue, right, so I should not infer that the person is an idiot and so hold their opinion on other matters lower than I normally would?

Yes, there may be two sides to every issue, but what side you take does say something about you. On issues of fact, it says something about your ability to understand facts and the reason from them. On more subjective issues which position says something about your morals and ethics.
I think this is going in the right direction. You take a bunch of tamper-proof hardware devices from different manufacturers and then model attack costs to compromise them as part of a proof-of-stake scheme. Now you can build consensus algorithms on top of them that are highly secure and scalable compared to anything that exists today.

I'm not convinced that Stellar consensus here is the right algorithm for doing this, but I think SGX is promising technology that has been somewhat overlooked in the blockchain space (not by everyone.) SGX has a lot of potential. You can use SGX as a way to expand the consensus rules of any blockchain by using it as a blackbox obfuscation construct. Everything and more that Vitalik wrote in his article about Indistinguishability Obfuscation is possible with SGX today.

Want to create a specialized oracle that only signs certain transaction formats, even on untrusted hosts? Yep - use SGX. Now you can have agents that run in a cluster that will only move assets between blockchains based on a user's prior agreements, allowing for more complex cross-blockchain smart contracts to be written in high-level languages. What about having a nice way to do transaction commitments to scale any blockchain without having GB zero-knowledge proofs? SGX again. It could be used for privacy preserving protocols... It could be used for solving data availability problems in sharding / decentralized storage systems. The list goes on.

Some of the biggest trust problems are solvable with this technology - but like others have already said - you still have to trust the hardware manufacturer. In this case, my thoughts are that you already have to trust the hardware manufacturer anyway (nobody is going to inspect every chip with an electron microscope...) My bet is that a non-trivial portion of full nodes today are already running chips with backdoors like the Intel Management Engine anyway...

The point here is that you can't fully remove trust from any system without introducing vast inefficiencies, but you can at least formalize the risks in a system and design so that a compromise is too expensive to be worthwhile, and for me I think that's where the potential lies with this tech. Cryptoeconomic systems based on tamper-proof hardware where individually a component may be compromised, but where it is simply infeasible to compromise each and every device. You build a network out of these components and you have yourself the first on-chain scalable blockchain bound by physical hardware encumberments instead of computational difficulty.
No, but those people get to have a say in our government. So in some ways yes, they are equal. If you want that to change, be a missionary and convince them, but to deny them representation is violence upon a class.
So still an American.
No no no. Fuck is not censored by the US Government. TV and Movie studios censor words themselves with their own Standard and Practices. The idea that there are seven dirty words is a total myth.

There are some FCC standards around TV programming before prime time and safe harbour laws, but in general the reason we don't see tits and hear 'fuck' is more to do with the industry than the government.
Autonomous helicopter completes Marine resupply simulation
> We're talking about "is race X smarter than race Y", "is gender X smarter than Y". Bigoted ideas.

Let's hypothetically say that a sapient alien species, with the full range of emotions and thoughts a human being can have, was discovered that was also demonstrably not as smart as human beings after centuries of scientific study. Would saying "humans are smarter than these aliens" be bigoted?

Flip it around. If different sapient aliens were demonstrated to be more intelligent than human beings by an order of magnitude, would it be bigoted to say "These other aliens are smarter than humans."?

In other words, can facts be bigoted?

> The Paradox of Tolerance shows we must be intolerant of such bigotry.

Must we? If you've studied the paradox of tolerance, you should know that it has no universally agreed upon answer.
That's a completely insane counterargument.

Care to bet what the historical trend has been for the percentage of the population that claim the earth is flat? If evidence didn't work it would be flat or random.
I'm in London, and the day after the US elections we needed to name an internal project, so we just named it Trump. One of the team members also had for a while a red Trump hat on his desk (if he was alt-right in any way, I couldn't detect it). None of us was a US citizen.

I'm genuinely curious if such things would be accepted in a SV software company.
1) I don't see people getting arrested for having ideas in the bay area. At worst they don't get funding, but that doesn't seem to be the topic here. Perhaps Sam needs to widen his social and professional circle a bit- there are 7.5 million people here, and I can't imagine I'm the only one who has found open minded ones. If anything he should be encouraging more diversity if he wants to bring in more ideas, not arguing for policies that will drive people away.

2) It is entirely anecdotal, and it completely skips over the fact that China does not have free speech. You know those NFL protests that are happening here? In china that would get you three years in prison[1]. Being an American in China alone is enough to grant privileges that don't exist to the people born there. Shoppinglifting is an offense that carries a minimum sentence of three years, maximum of ten, and the American college students caught there were let go.[2] It's naive to think that his experience was typical in any way.

3) If speech didn't have consequences we wouldn't be having this discussion. If the "anti gay" physicist wasn't hurt by the words directed at him then he would just ignore them and keep doing his thing. If the founders working on life extension weren't upset at being told there are environmental consequences to this then maybe the blog post would never have been written.

If someone who is gay walks into a company and is told by another employee that they are deviants in the eyes of god then the gay person is likely to leave. If a woman is told to "go make us sandwiches", even in a joking way, she's not going to feel respected. Bigots who are given free reign drive away the minorities they target.

4) The simple fact that this blog did not discuss any of the consequences of the hate speech shows that he doesn't think they are legitimate. He argues that we need to be more lenient in allowing bigotry if it means that we also get more innovation.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/04/china-disrespe...
[2] https://newsone.com/3757629/china-shoplifting-laws-liangelo-...
Silicon Valley is not silencing the voices that claim that the round earth conspiracy is brought to you by the lizardoids that rule the Earth because their spaceships are spraying you with radioactive toxins in the contrails. Silicon Valley is silencing the voices that are saying things that literally billions of people on planet Earth believe, and on the order of half of the country that Silicon Valley happens to be located in believes. In some cases quite a bit more than half, if some surveys are to be believed.

I'm seeing this line a lot on HN today, but I think it's a dangerous rationalization of why it's OK to take away their free speech rights, and absolutely, positively nothing more. There is no other philosophical virtue to this position.

I think it's a reasonable line to say that if Silicon Valley is outright silencing something a billion people believe, and doing it quite frequently, there is quite likely a problem. You are welcome to deplore the fact that a billion people believe it, and will probably find another billion people standing with you on whatever matter you are deploring, because that's how this goes.

"When people walk around loudly complaining about how they can't say anything anymore without being specific as to what they want to say, it suggests that perhaps they know that those positions are not really defensible."

No, it's because they're avoiding an obvious trap. You trick someone into naming the list of censurable thoughts, then you immediately grab a big ol' mob of censorious folk anxious to score some political points (and they are readily available and hot to trot) and start censoring them because they said the bad things. It is impossible to name the topics being censored without the conversation immediately becoming exactly the one you are trying to turn it to, about how the censored topics really deserve it, and so it's not really censorship, right?

First commit to not censoring the topics, then perhaps you can get some discussion going. In the meantime, you are being deprived of that discussion, and perhaps should be less confident that you understand the issues than you think you do, because... how would you know? You probably don't actually know what your opposition thinks. What you know is almost certainly (statistically speaking, based on my interactions with the ever-more-doctrinaire and ever-more-insular HN) what your side wants you to think the opposition thinks, which is very, very far from the same thing.

Further, I acknowledge that ender7 may not personally have the power to censor very much. However, Silicon Valley as a whole does, and it is actively using it, and it is not only not ashamed, it has used faulty logic like this to convince itself it is being positively virtuous in the process of statistically removing the opinions it doesn't like from the Internet.
It's hard for me to get worked up over this when the injustices suffered by those who are now being heard were many times worse.
They listed cities by square mile, why don't they do the same for states. It's a glaring omission. When we hear that Alaska has released the most toxins of any state and Rhode Island has released the least, it's reasonable to conclude that's because of the area of the two states.
Probably not; they are probably worried more about the taxes but terrorism usually gets things done faster.

Most exchanges and cc/bank based fiat<>crypto were doing this kind of KYC already anyway and can you force foreign exchanges to comply?
The Unifi controller is a configuration front end for Unifi devices -- data on the network shouldn't be going through it. It might be a little slower to use, though I've never compared it with the cloud key, but for a home setup, that won't matter too much.
The specifics of the difficulty adjustment algorithm are not critical to the original vision, but way to deflect (from the original scaling plan) to a different point.

>>If you don't run a node, or you can't run a node because of resource requirements, you're not a peer.

We had this discussion before:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15883911
>"[T]here is a growing wariness among the BRICS countries that when their data traffic goes through hubs in Europe or the United States, it incurs a greater 'risk of potential interception...'"

I don't know how they square that given it goes though Russia, China, India etc... as if those three neither had snooping capability nor wanted to be able to snoop.
Surely this is a transparently motte-and-bailey argument. Obviously no-one would dispute that it's good for government agencies to use clear language, and avoiding certain words might serve that purpose in certain cases. Those points are completely orthogonal to the fact that it's patently terrible for an administration to attempt to tell its own subject matter experts which words they can use.
short of the 10pm news and taxpayer-funded hockey, there is basically nothing on the CBC that isn't utterly derivative...and most of the dramas literally air to zero viewers...just admit it, it's all awful and you don't watch it either
Here's the problem with cryptonote: if I play 10 hands of poker at an online casino, with money I bought on an exchange, I have very little privacy. Anyone who can coerce or compel the casino and exchange's cooperation can get my real identity simply by looking at intersections amongst potential ancestor payments. This is because in cryptonote, each payment only has e.g. 4 potential ancestors. While each of those themselves have the same property, you can still look at intersections and deduce linkages with very high probability.
ummm ... uhhh ... here's the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3H-886XkN4
This feels like a personal attack against someone who agrees with you.
> You may disagree that it's the real Bitcoin, but it's undoubtedly open to interpretation

It really isn't open to interpretation. And that is why people have been disparagingly calling it a different name; because the insistence that it's "the real Bitcoin" lessens it's credibility.

Why is Bitcoin Gold not the real Bitcoin? It's got a more ASIC-resistant proof of work, that's surely also in line with Satoshi's original vision? IMO, that's a much better reason, if adherence to the original whitepaper is what we're measuring by, since it reduces mining centralization. (Heck, if BCH adopted an ASCI-resistant PoW, I'll view in a new light!).

But you have to let things evolve. Software is rarely perfect out of the gate. Massive p2p software in particular is such a very new thing, there's going to be all kinds of bugs and dead ends. There may be ways to optimize and polish those dead ends to make them the best they can be, but it won't change the fundamentals of them.

And there's tons of levers and settings inside bitcoin. I don't think they're all set right (BCH's new difficulty algorithm seems like an interesting idea, in fact). But one thing that seems to be clear across the biggest coins... a worldwide distributed blockchain ledger just takes too darn long to handle p2p payments worldwide at a reasonable KiB/s. Even ETH, as fast as it is, was brought down by cryptokitties.

The coin that succeeds is going to have to solve that in some fashion. And running all the world's transactions through every node, upping the blocksize as needed, isn't going to solve the problem.
Legend tells of a time before modern electronics, when humans would ride horses in a vigorous manner, towards similar ends.

This sounds more like re-exploration of a cultural maximum than learned repetition.
> All of these are typical responses to articles with a large heat-to-substance ratio.

To save others from having to look it up themselves: according to [0], it took 13 hours for Sam's article to fall off the front page, while this article fell off after about 1 hour.

dang didn't say it was ONLY heat-to-substance ratio causing the downmod. Clearly, there are other factors than heat-to-substance ratio causing it though. It's hard to dismiss the suspicion that either "embarrasses YC president" could be a factor in downmodding this article or that Sam's article was not downmodded in order to avoid embarassing Sam :(

HN is tremendously influential in tech culture, so even a tiny difference in moderation of similar articles reflecting opposing points of view could compound to a very destructive effect.

[0] http://hhn.domador.net/
I've never once felt like I didn't have enough access to American content or that the regulation was impeding my enjoyment of media in Canada.

But I bet it has played a role in the existence of some of the great Canadian shows of the last generation.
H1B programs at the top tech companies aren't the problem, they're hiring the best they can and paying them well. It's the H1B mills and other abusers of the program (like Disney) that are dragging it into the political limelight. Reform is needed but ending it would be a terrible loss.
F# and OCaml are different languages with different goals. It should come as no surprise there are different sacrifices between the languages.

Breaking compatibility with .NET, which is F#'s biggest benefit is counter productive.
>"is race X smarter than race Y"

That is one way to phrase the question. Another way to phrase the question is "what are the average IQs of the races in the USA and why are they different?" This question can be used as a starting point to help change things so that those who are below average can be helped.

The above is a question that I would not bring up in my workplace for fear of being fired. That is why there is an article called "Stuff You Can't Say in Silicon Valley."
The whole "dog whistle" thing is a part of the problem.
US prosecutors move to cash in on $8.5M in seized Bitcoin
One thing Canadians miss in the “CanCon means shitty TV” meme is that CanCon rules mean Canadian creative talent is cultivated. You don’t just become a great TV writer overnight. You write a lot of shitty TV until you get good at it. This is not unlike programming. Why do you think there are so many successful Canadians in Hollywood? A bunch got their start in productions that wouldn’t be around if not for CanCon. I mean for crying out loud, Drake, who is possibly one of the greatest cultural entrepreneurs of our time got his start on Degrassi. It’s not perfect by any means but Canadians tend to forget this aspect of the system whereby Canadian talent is cultivated, they go to the US to learn even more, then return to help educate the next generation of Canadian talent (eg Norman Jewison and the Canadian Film Centre)
http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/365036-the-...
Would you mind expanding on why the article has been flagged and removed from HN? The number of comments and upvotes suggests that the community is interested in discussing, so I am trying to understand better what is and is not acceptable at HN these days. I am sure others would appreciate transparency on this subject as well.
I use cover letters to share a short brief on myself, why I am interested and ask questions about position. Asking questions is important. Think of this process as both sides negotiating what works for each, instead of one sided application for a position.
>Someone tell me why, apart from the principles and precedents of it all, any of this matters?

Like you, I feel I might not understand this in its entirety, but I think the answer is...face saving. It’s counterintuitive but I believe these words are being banned from the budget to allow both parties to pass a maximum CDC budget which may be controversial politically for the GOP to pass and they might otherwise not support.

For example, if these words were not censored than you would have an electorate/media (more importantly tea party/primary opponents) that would be able to point at the elected GOP and question why they would pass a budget that includes research for transgender issues, research on fetuses, supporting science based research (rather than faith based), etc...

My understanding is the money would still be allocated and budgeted to support all the same issues (which is good). If my interpretation is correct, it might not be so far off from a budget to combat extreme Islam (drones, intelligence, secret courts, etc...) but censoring that phrase publicly because it allows some face saving for political purpose.
Could you rephrase your point? I have trouble understanding what you said and how it relates to what the person you were responding to said.
>Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 1464, prohibits the utterance of any obscene, indecent or profane language by means of radio communication. Consistent with a subsequent statute and court case, the Commission's rules prohibit the broadcast of indecent material during the period of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. FCC decisions also prohibit the broadcast of profane material between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. Civil enforcement of these requirements rests with the FCC, and is an important part of the FCC's overall responsibilities. At the same time, the FCC must be mindful of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 326 of the Communications Act, which prohibit the FCC from censoring program material, or interfering with broadcasters' free speech rights.

>Obscene speech is not protected by the First Amendment and broadcasters are prohibited, by statute and regulation, from airing obscene programming at any time.

>The safe harbor refers to the time period between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m., local time. During this time period, a station may air indecent and/or profane material. In contrast, there is no safe harbor for the broadcast of obscene material. Obscene material is entitled to no First Amendment protection, and may not be broadcast at any time.

To your point:

>Are there certain words that are always unlawful? No.

https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/guides/obscenity-indece...