skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
More than just them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRICS_Cable
This post has 195 points in an hour, and it is currently #20 on the front page.

Why isn't it higher?
The article argues that these factors have plateaued recently, not that they have reached any theoretical limit and couldn't increase due to future tech. The study authors seem bizarrely biased, claiming that it's very important for societies to make all people as tall as possible, as though that is good for something.
It's protecting the public that doesn't want to be protected. With the exception of a few Canadian shows and movies, Canadians can't get enough of US media.
That's a fair point and a good example of why an outright ban is bad. I don't know if the administration intended to impact the term evidence-based medicine or if it's just collateral damage from a perceived abuse of the prefix evidence-based, but it's only the latter that I would stylistically discourage.
I couldn't agree more. In a town like SV where almost everyone is liberal, the problem is conservatives.

Oh, do I need to state that was sarcasm?

> This is like walking into a megachurch in Mississippi and complaining that no one wants to listen to your opinions on reproductive health care.

How can you not see the irony in this? Your example is a bad outcome. SV doing the reverse is bad. Not there are ideas that are OK and ideas that are bad, contextually, and alienating people is all good and fine, where my badness is OK if it is proportional and opposite to your badness. Intolerance ITSELF is the problem, fullstop, no matter the "rightness" of the idea.

We live in a diverse world, and finding ways to get along is the key. How can we do that when any form of alienation is defended?
> Society decides what's valid by responding to what you say.

Is that really the heuristic you want to advocate?

- If, a millennium ago, an individual had questioned the divine right of kings to rule, s/he would have been called an asshole.

- If, 750 years ago, an individual had called into question the primacy of the dominant religion for his/her region, s/he would have been called an asshole.

- If, 500 years ago, an individual had suggested women's suffrage, s/he would have been called an asshole.

...etc...

In short, all your heuristic says is that the opinions that are "valid" are whatever the current status quo for your local societal norms happens to be. Forgive me for saying this, but that seems more like a conservative viewpoint than a liberal one.
are you really comparing a title of a post on hacker news to official policy of the united states of america?
How can someone derive publisher's intent from the content alone? If data is left on a publicly accessible URL, how do I know it's because a dev forgot to enable s3 bucket encryption?
If I understand this well, and it's likely I don't, but for the sake of argument assume I do? Then the most important thing to know about this story is that it's about the President's budget document (which is assembled with input from all the Executive Branch departments).

That budget is one of the more elaborate charades in Washington. Congress controls the budget by passing laws allocating funds to departments. The President can't not spend money allocated to those departments. Moreover, the overwhelming majority of the budget goes to stuff that is effectively non-discretionary; for instance, to Medicare and Social Security entitlements spending.

Banning words, and these words in particular, is batshit. I'm probably not alarming many people on HN when I say this is a batshit administration.

But this is about the words the administration is soliciting from a department for an elaborate marketing document. Someone tell me why, apart from the principles and precedents of it all, any of this matters?
and more:

"wikimedia has plenty of money"

"Mozilla is institutionally focused on supporting left wing views exclusively"

"all of the rich people who speak out against guns have bodyguards who carry guns. they basically don't want poor people owning guns"

"fwd.us is against Trump's wall but Mark Zuckerberg wanted to buy a city block in Palo Alto to keep the masses out"
As a doctor, it seems to me that at one time (maybe 10 years ago) it had a very specific meaning, but unfortunately the usage has degraded to the point where everything is "evidence based medicine" now, just like everything in business now is a "disruptor" or a "pivot".
>
On the contrary, silencing voices is a necessary thing. All societies have to determine what speech is allowed and what isn't. There are lots of things you can say in general American society that will get you censured. Claiming that black people are biologically inferior to white people, for example. Claiming that women are biologically inferior to men, though? Some still seem fond of that one.

It is unclear that either of those notions are false. It is also unclear that either of their opposites is false. An environment that squelches debate of interesting, but sensitive questions is not a healthy one. The question of whether men are inferior to women (or vice versa) is definitely an interesting one, though perhaps poorly posed. Men and women are different in various ways, some of those differences may adapt each better to different tasks. Boiling that down to 'inferior' and 'superior' is facile. But the enterprise of elucidating those distinctions should not be taboo. It should be treated carefully, because the knowledge that may come from its investigation can lead people down dark paths, but that does not mean the question shouldn't be asked.
It would, unfortunately that doesn't work. If it did, no one would believe that the Earth is flat.
If political opinions can impact your career, then there's a massive potential for abuse. What happens if your boss fires you for supporting a measure that would damage your employer? Even worse, what if some corporate interest issue got programmed in to people by a PR campaign, and then your boss fired you for resisting that? You'd be torn apart by the public. There would be nowhere to turn.
Suppose I were to grant that transgenderism is a mental illness. Why would we ban the word? The CDC's job is to deal with dissease, so this would put transgenderism squarely in the purview of what they should be talking about.

The reason to ban them from using the word is because you do not like what they say when they do talk about it.
Cards Against Humanity gives out $1,000 checks to their poorest players
̶T̶̶̶h̶̶̶e̶̶̶y̶̶̶ ̶̶̶a̶̶̶r̶̶̶e̶̶̶ ̶̶̶c̶̶̶u̶̶̶r̶̶̶r̶̶̶e̶̶̶n̶̶̶t̶̶̶l̶̶̶y̶̶̶ ̶̶̶f̶̶̶r̶̶̶e̶̶̶e̶̶̶,̶̶̶ ̶̶̶s̶̶̶o̶̶̶ ̶̶̶i̶̶̶t̶̶̶'̶̶̶s̶̶̶ ̶̶̶n̶̶̶o̶̶̶t̶̶̶ ̶̶̶j̶̶̶u̶̶̶s̶̶̶t̶̶̶ ̶̶̶a̶̶̶ ̶̶̶m̶̶̶a̶̶̶t̶̶̶t̶̶̶e̶̶̶r̶̶̶ ̶̶̶o̶̶̶f̶̶̶ ̶̶̶a̶̶̶d̶̶̶j̶̶̶u̶̶̶s̶̶̶t̶̶̶i̶̶̶n̶̶̶g̶̶̶ ̶̶̶a̶̶̶ ̶̶̶p̶̶̶r̶̶̶i̶̶̶c̶̶̶e̶̶̶.̶̶̶
Capacity. It doesn't do Tesla any good if they charge commercial users, they pay and block all the super chargers 24/7.
I see your point, but somebody losing their job in the blink of an eye for expressing their thoughts on a sensitive subject in good faith just because other people are trying to hijack the English language seems like an overreaction, no? That's what the OP, Jessica Livingston, Sam Altman, Tim Ferriss, and many HN posters here are pointing out.
I think there should be a difference between having a thought and doing something illegal based on that thought.

Someone can talk about selling illegal or unproven drugs and have opinions on how illegal drugs should be legal even if they are dangerous. That should all be allowed even if in practice it would be negative to society at large.

On the other hand if they acted on that belief then that should not be accepted by society and should be punishable.

Likewise, someone could have the opinion that whites are inferior racquetball players, so long as when selecting racquetball players in a professional team they do not select based on that opinion (given discrimination/selection based on race/skin is illegal).
Uber employee letter says competitor networks illegally wiretapped
The problem with Us vs. Them thinking isn't that there is a group of people that you fundamentally disagree with, but rather that you've constructed a somewhat nebulous "them" which you've ascribed all negative qualities about "them".

The way to recognise this is to ask yourself if you can actually name any particular example of the "them" you're arguing against. Because if not, you risk arguing against a straw man you yourself created.

We're at the point where whole communities are being erected to argue against a "them", usually with an opposing community arguing against a similarly distorted image of the "us".
I'm not sure using Stellar is wise as the majority is owned by a small group of people, much smaller than Bitcoin, which creates conflict of interest and not future SEC proof.

on a side rant: So...many...coins...I too have something called BrowserCoin.com but still haven't figured out what problems to solve. Too many people just go implement a pseudo-academic blockchain tech with fancy dials without vetting the problem....virtually zero adoption other than from pumpers and owner...that is something I'd like to avoid altogether, for once some cryptocurrency based business that delivers and benefits people who don't need to expensive rigs to mine or jack resources (browser based blockchains etc).
That's what's happening: bad ideas are being defeated. But if those bad ideas are still near and dear to you even while society moves on, it feels bad.

Not everyone has to be persuaded. Some will have to be left behind.
"you shouldn't convince yourself that there aren't two sides to every issue, because there are"

wrong. plain and simple. im anti-murder, i dont need to listen to pro-murder people. im anti-rape, i dont need to listen to pro-rape people. there are issues that have a wrong and a right side, unless you really want to go down some dumb freshman philosophy major rabbit hole. the earth is not flat, yet there is a flat earth society. the list is endless.
Long term memory is a key aspect of learning. We often consciously remember things that are similar to current experience. So being near baby triggers recall of memories of childhood.
Yeah, seriously. Anyone who's ever driven in SF should know this city is not going to be underwater (well, mostly). There are hills smack in the middle of SF that are > 200 ft (~60 m) high[1].

Meanwhile, to pick a random example, "Much of Florida has an elevation of less than 12 feet (3.7 m), including many populated areas such as Miami which are located on the coast."[2]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hills_in_San_Francisco

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Florida
I'm downvoting you anyway, not for supporting him, but for the faux martyrdom that contributes nothing to the discussion. We actually really need to hear from thoughtful people who support Trump if they're out there, because 99% of the vocal supporters I hear are batshit crazy. That could just be my bias, of course :)

Also, "majority"? He lost the popular vote and I believe he has the lowest 1-year approval rating of any modern President? What majority are you referring to?
Personally, I wouldn't start worrying about "Liberal McCarthyism" in the United States until liberals have control of the presidency, the congress, and at least a fair majority of the states.
Yes, his political views, which ran counter to the Foundation’s views. His actions hurt the brand and undermined the mission.
Why does Seoul routinely low-ball North Korea’s missile range?
I don't get the impression that the political right in the United States even pretends to be concerned with free speech.
what about apple bananas? what about intersex people? do you consider them "mentally ill". if someone feels happier to transition, why does that bother you?
You are also apparently being downvoted for daring to mention that you were yelled at for your mother voting for Trump when she didn't. The communication shut-down knows no bounds anymore.
But the article explains that is only for Thermal effects, and that there is no correlation with cancer risk.

And that any power level below 7 Watt (eg any mobile phone) is completely exempt.
> That’s not a good thing.

It really depends on the context. For example, I think there's a certain kind of racist, sexist, and homophobic talk which simply adds nothing good to the world. I don't think it should be illegal necessarily, but I'm fine if people are ostracized for holding such views. I certainly don't want to be exposed to that kind of shit.

And there are many situations which require learning and understanding to participate. A software developer would be appalled if they had to continue to have debates at work about software development with someone who had no idea how computers work -- especially if that person was adamant that their views much be heard and listened to. "Why is my opinion that we should write our iOS app in ActiveX being SILENCED?" Again, that dumb opinion shouldn't be made illegal. But maybe that person doesn't need to be invited to developer meetings any more.

You get my point.

Lots of subtlety when it comes to free speech.

Not all controversial opinions are the same.
Let's be clear here. We're not talking about where to eat lunch or controversial scientific theories, a la Galileo or Darwin. We're talking about "is race X smarter than race Y", "is gender X smarter than Y". Bigoted ideas.

Some have been comfortable espousing bigoted views. Now they are forced to think about what they say and how they say it. As a white man, this has affected my own behavior (for the better IMO): I've been forced to be more thoughtful of others.

The Paradox of Tolerance shows we must be intolerant of such bigotry.
There are some things you're not allowed to say.
Just my speculation, but from the article and Tesla's announcement, it looks like this is an availability thing given Tesla's current scale, not a cost thing per se. Ie., they're not worried that commercial users are consuming too much electricity or anything like that, rather the limited resource in question is the actual number of physical spots at a supercharger area, which is a hard thing to scale quickly. Eventually we can expect that electrical car infrastructure will become sufficiently ubiquitous that it won't be an issue, but for now in a still relatively early bootstrapping stage of things I presume that Tesla is concerned that their customers feel as little anxiety or charging irritation as possible. Tesla is most interested in raw numbers of customers (necessary for efficiencies of scale) rather then how hard each customer is using the car, so they want superchargers build out optimized for serving the maximum number of customers regardless of price.

You're right that maybe long term they could set up more to serve commercial capacity on the back of higher commercial prices, but particularly in metro areas acquiring land, permits, and so forth and building physical infrastructure isn't quick.
> Diversity of thought often comes with diversity of skin color

I definitely agree (ethnical?) diversity is desirable, but the idea that differences in race correlate highly enough with differences in thought to justify largely using race to locate thought diversity is the very racist idea itself; that people who look like this think one way, and people who look like that think another way. It's a low-resolution view of the world; in reality, the variance between individuals within a given race is greater than that of individuals between races.
That's pretty much exactly how the EtherDelta smart contract works. The contract can only move coins you've signed an order for, and only when it's properly paired with a matching counter-order.

I think the mainly catch would be scaling the speed (etherdelta is limited to the ETH network block rate). I don't know too much about lightning's details, but given that they've demonstrated atomic cross-chain swaps, I bet it's set up to handle something exactly like what's needed.

Which is quite exciting... I just always moderate my enthusiasm because for all complex software projects, the devil (and 80% of the work) is in the details :)
Exactly. The highest point in San Francisco, Mount Davidson is 928 ft above sea level and is close to three times as high as the highest point in the entire state of Florida, Britton Hill at 345 ft...
I think fact that you get fired if you bring up biology at your company's brown bag on diversity (a la Damore), means, just maybe, that you can't actually say some of those things.
Skewer Hyperboloids
You're going to be downvoted either way, because a post that just complains about theoretical downvotes gets downvoted on this site. So you might as well take the opportunity to explain.

It's also worth mentioning that the question GP is asking isn't really "how can people support the administration", as there's many, many answers to it. The real question is "how can people support this?".

And frankly, enlighten me. Do you support this?

Edit: I should also remind you that Trump is not supported by a "silent majority". Quite the opposite: Trump is supported and was elected by a vocal minority. His approval rating today is the lowest it's ever been according to 538's aggregations. It's time americans get their head out of the sand on this topic.
Saying things has consequences. All these articles seem to be complaining about the sudden realization that you can't say something without suffering from consequences in SV.

I don't generally care about SV and I think it has its fair share of problems but being accountable for sharing your (mostly ill-informed) beliefs, especially when you have the social reach to influence millions is not "oppression". It's the simple fact of there being consequences of what you say and do.
The White Nationalist march on Charlotte is actually an example of voices being silenced. Photos of people there were distributed, their names were found (sometimes incorrectly), and their places of work contacted. Then they were fired.

If people see that people who share the same views are losing their livelihoods, they are more likely to be silent. Only the independently wealthy wouldn't consider losing their job risky.

And just to be clear, I in no way support their views, desires, or actions. But claiming the goal isn't to silence them is disingenuous.
I don’t know about all that, but what I do know is that claiming you will be made a victim of without any specifics of your support certainly doesn’t help your cause. God forbid someone on the internet calls you “deplorable”.
For the usual reasons: user flags, software, and a moderation penalty. The latter can vary in weight but at the moment is a small downweight applied to follow-up discussions that don't contain significant new information. The software involved is HN's flamewar detector a.k.a. overheated discussion detector. All of these are typical responses to articles with a large heat-to-substance ratio.
So Stanford Medical School should retract this article about the overwhelming evidence of the biologically based cognitive differences between men and women then? http://stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-mens-and-womens-b...

Science Denialism is just the new community norm, I guess.
I see that a new poster was quickly downvoted into oblivion for writing "Clearly you can say this stuff. It's just that the speakers seek to demand no consequences from their speech," but...I think that's largely true. I'm not making a moral judgement about that, per se, but it's worth engaging with the sometimes uncomfortable truth that free speech entails both what you say and how people react to it.

Furthermore, this isn't a new thing. One of the other things "you can't say in Silicon Valley" is that black people are only fit to be slaves to white people, but if anyone's out there shaking their heads and clucking their tongues about how great it'd be to be able to say that if it weren't for those terrible lefty PC liberals always SJWing up the place, do you wanna be associated with them? It turns out that being openly racist in that way is, to most people in most parts of the country, really unacceptable.

Also, I've noticed that when these discussions come up, nobody ever talks about the "stuff you can't say" in more conservative parts of the country. Perhaps part of the reason people out here in the Bay Area are so "intolerant" is because so many of us have suffered consequences for what we say--or even what we don't say, but just what we are--when we've lived in other parts of the country. Try putting a "Black Lives Matter" bumper sticker on your Prius, drive to rural Alabama, and strike up conversations about your strong support for Obamacare, abortion rights, and gun control. Then get back to me about how gosh-darn friendly everyone was to you.
Do you know anything about H1B ? Have you checked the average H1 pay in SV for H1 before making an asinine observation that H1 is used to enslave mid range IT talent. Disclosure: I am on H1 and I know alleast a 100 people on H1
Too bad you are having this issue. But since you are airing it here on HN then my own anecdotal experience is I went through the same signup as you did. Forgot about it for three years. Found my multi-word password. Loaded it into the website. Received a message I'd been upgraded to the new system. I downloaded a stellar desktop client, transferred the coins to my desktop wallet, all problem free.

I think it is easy for nearly all of us to agree the most likely cause of your own issues is operator error. Now that the price is shooting up on these coins, it's not rational to expect STR to chase down every 6K STR givaway grievance that they receive.
Your hypothetical scenario sounds like they just aren't charging enough.
This story is not on HN front page anymore...
> is to say something with a secondary meaning that escapes some part of the audience.

> nobody is against "family values" in a superficial sense, and half of the population understands that "family values" is really code for "christian values."

If half the population is christian the other half is probably also not completely oblivious to what that other half understands by family values.

I think the best way to overcome this "dog whistle" problem is to appropriate it and steal it. "Family values" -- "good, we want to have gay, transgender, happy and safe families and we love our family values".

"Diversity of thought is more important?" - "Yes it is, and we find that people of different ages, races, genders, nationalities, educational, social and economic background end up with the best diversity of thoughts and ideas so we go out and actively recruit accordingly". What I see tech companies doing is being very vocal about diversity then turning around and recruiting young white men from a few top universities. Or saying women should be equal but then paying them less. Or covering up harassment and abuse (thinking of Uber here).
I think you can say those things. You won’t get many takers but they aren’t as radioactive as LGBT issues, race issues, gender issues. Nobody’s going to call your boss and demand you be fired for saying those things.
Nothing wrong with updating an app often IMO. There are dozens of teams working on the app concurrently (didn't they compain about the 65,535 class limit in objc due to their iPhone app?) so no surprise they have a regular release cadence.