skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
This comment, and the response from Anil Dash, both think of free speech in a very limited way that only takes into account what the government is allowed to do to you. To my eyes, this way of thinking is America-centric. The extremely rigorous protections given by the US constitution make it easy to assume that the constitutionalist view of free speech is the only one that was ever believed in.

I believe something different: that free speech is open discourse between people, and that anything which prevents people from talking to each other openly and honestly stands in the way of free speech, be it bigotry or be it no-platforming. To say something and receive "mean words" or "consequences" can usually means that nobody is engaging your argument.

Sama gives the example of the controversial physicist, where someone has one good idea and some terrible ideas, and asks whether the good idea should be ignored because of the bad ideas. I don't think this means that the physicist has more important ideas as a whole, but rather that the ideas should be engaged in isolation to one another lest we throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Speaking of names, the vandalism detector is named "Belisarius" https://stackapps.com/questions/7473/belisarius-detecting-va....

(The other names have some back story behind them, mostly internal to the sobotics team)
When you talk about a "free" society you fail to acknowledge that some groups in a rule-less landscape are conferred natural advantages over others. For example, without societal shifts and rules protecting people who are LGBTQ, an entire group of people would be harassed and discriminated against, and be strictly less "free" than others in the society.

The idea that "safety and freedom are inversely related" is not true. You're saying we move along a curve. Why not push the curve instead? Here's a way: freedom strictly increases when you give it more equally to all people. Security doesn't decrease from that in actuality; people who were taking unfair advantage of their relative privilege are the only ones who feel "unsafe."

For example: in the current state of things women face disproportionate amounts of mental load when interacting at work. "Am I coming across as sexually interested via the way I dress or talk?" << This is something that actually has to cross womens' minds from forever ago to now.

Given today's societal landscape, many men claim "I feel unsafe" because now that same thought has to cross their mind -- society is shifting toward less tolerant toward bad male behavior so you have to be careful not to make mistakes.

But when men consider/improve how they communicate and how their words may make others feel, they really increase freedom and safety for all women. And in net we are all both more free and more safe.

If you argue that the man is now less safe than he was before, you have to ask yourself, is it fair that he was more safe than a corresponding woman to begin with? And is he really being deprived of anything at all, other than a gross privilege he had (to not be accountable for his actions toward others)?

It's all well and good to talk about maximizing freedom, but if that freedom is not equally distributed it becomes significantly less noble.
They will stay silent, and express their opinion in the voting booth
I think it's interesting that this post was flagged by the mods but Sam's original essay was not.
Because Netflix has to pay for their fast server, their fast internet, and now they also have to pay for my fast internet while I'm already paying for my fast internet.
Konami is using the Fox Engine in the upcoming Metal Gear Survive.
> The average movie in San Francisco costs about $12, nearly 50 percent higher than the national average.

the average is $8? seems hard to believe...
For me, the example of a physicist who dislikes gay people is particularly worrying, because it involves setting very arbitrary lines in the sand of what is acceptable and what is not. What if it was a biologist that dislikes gay people? Or a doctor? Or, say, the person in control of the CDC, as happened today? Those lines, moved once, are as good as gone.

What if Trump was the same Muslim-hating, gay-hating person he is, but also a brilliant physicist? Would he than be OK in Sam's book?
I see the logic in what you are saying but I wonder if it would just lead to a situation where every problem just becomes, "not severe enough to warrant attention". I've sort of seen this with opposition to environmental regulations being opposed on the grounds that it "costs too much money".
Dash is equating rational argument with violence. On average, gay people are more creative. Is that hate speech? Obviously not. On average, gay men have more sex than straight men. Hate speech? On average, more sex is worse than less sex. Hate speech? Dash thinks he can draw the line where rational argument becomes unacceptable. It's his line but he gets to draw it for other people. This is not simply criticism. By equating a type of speech with violence, it implies legal consequences, whether those consequences are currently in place. It implies a physical enforcement.
It only kicks the can until you scale the remaining components to where it can scale:

- the whitepaper itself solved the storage problem with old transaction pruning.

- The block propagation and validation bandwidth requirements can be brought down 90%+ by canonically ordering transactions, memoizing transaction validation, and propagating only the block header and metadata.

- the inefficiencies in the actual code are being worked out by Bitcoin unlimited's gigablock project among others.
It is ironic that we are complaining about how polarized our discourse has become, when we created the social networks and the dopamine-drip feedback loops that genrate mutually disjoint echo chambers.
bcash still has lower fees. I am using exodus and I am getting quoted 2 cents for bcash. Litecoin I am getting quote of 22 cents while bitocin is like 5 bucks.

Though I would agree that litecoin is better than the original bitcoin. However, litecoin does not beat bcash, IMO.
Presumably things are discussed in those terms at the shareholder meetings. The "feel good pseudoscientific bullshit" is of course PR and should be ignored.
A peer, in bitcoin, is a node. If you don't run a node, or indeed if you can't run a node because of its resource requirements, you aren't a peer.

Bitcoin : Peer-to-peer cash.

You went right over the first part, and only talk about the second part, even though in the first part, the word 'peer' is used twice.
Maybe there is something wrong with me, but after reading Sam's article, I don't see any of the things you're accusing him of in the article.
Of course not. But it's extremely clear to me that the primary focus of the article is promoting the game, and the story is secondary.

After having seen a lot of these articles, it becomes easier to distinguish the real story ones from the "ad" ones. And thats why they do it, its effective, so many people can't tell its a paid advert.
As soon as our culture decides that sliminess, or literally anything other than profitability, is relevant to whether you can be a company.
You've mistaken that I assume you agree or disagree with my own position. You've haven't stated such.

The agreement I referred to was in that others are also scared of the consequences of sharing their opinion here.
As an American, I find this opinion offensive. When you say the US needs to import skilled workers you are insinuating that Anericans aren’t intelligent enough or capable enough to fill positions. It doesn’t do my country any good to import someone to do a job while there are skilled Americans looking for work.
There are lots of altcoins that have low fees. When you are getting a single company to process your payments, it is always likely to be at a lower cost. The only question is why they're even bothering to store the information in a blockchain. It would just be easier if they used an SQL database. Without the decentralization, it is the same risk profile. They know who you are, what you're spending your money on, and they can black-list your spending addresses with trivial ease. Like paypal. Just less efficient.
That's why I left /r/bitcoin. Too much people just shilling like crazy and the mods are openly banning anyone who talks anything bad about bitcoin. No joke.
surely some of us remember when Brendan Eich was fired from Mozilla for saying controversial things about marriage
And provides more customers more value than them.
> the OS is infested with undisablable adware, spyware and other unwanted [non-?]uninstallable applications

Can you please provide at least a few citations? I've run ShutUp10 after the installs and upgrades and I don't recall seeing much of anything of what you report.
Agreed. Back when the news of the payoff first became public things were a lot murkier in terms of the broad picture but now that we've had the lid peeled back and we can see a bit more.

It seems a bit more obvious, to me at least, that Uber was and still is doing whatever it can to try to get to final valuation / being bought out / IPO before the severity of the scandal was fully known. I also think that we've reached the point of no return for that matter so I'm definitely interested to see how Uber and this entire debacle winds up.
It’s positive coverage, but that doesn’t mean it’s paid. When game journalists like things, they write positively about them.
Replace "physicist" with "software engineer"? Or any occupation X where his/her statement holds true?
Many block chains being in use is going to wreck the value of bitcoin long term.

People have this bizarre idea that cryptocurrency tokens are ‘rare’. They’re not. It’s trivial to make a new currency or fork an existing one.
paypal works too. I prefer to not record my payments with the chinese government though.
This is what everyone resorts to when you know they can't win the argument. They have to attack the messenger. It never works in the end.
This just further proves how incoherent the entire unidirectional left-right spectrum is.
> Try to make sure that they never say something like that again, because they are so socially embarrassed and isolated.

Except that doesn't work, does it? If it did, right-wing movements wouldn't be burgeoning all across the globe. _You cannot threaten a human into sharing your beliefs._ All your stance does is buy a frightened silence through intimidation and in that silence grow the seeds of resentment and anger.

It's so obviously self-sabotaging, not to mention morally repugnant, that it is nearly beyond belief that people calling themselves liberals would advocate it.
Ah I see. I'm seeing that you have 2 128-bit private keys on the enclave, one known to Intel and what that is not.

Can you not use the one not known to intel to do your own code signing against another client with ECDH? Why does it seem like they are pushing this "Intel Attestation" service? Wouldn't that cause Intel servers to be a single POF incase they aren't around to give a proper reply for the attestation request? (Imagine 100,000 nodes on the network all running smart contracts, or perhaps 10 years down the line they discontinue the service.)
> So then, as the victim, are you cleared to harass and smear whoever you please?

No, and that was not any part of what I wrote.

However as a victim you ARE entitled to share your story. You are entitled to tell people "hey this person did something bad and it hurt me." And people can choose to respond to that. That's OK.

> Ah, so his identity as a wealthy man invalidates his opinion, and his writing should be disregarded?

Nowhere did I mention wealth or that it would invalidate his opinion. The quoted sentence merely indicates that the argument he made failed to consider other sides and nuances.
I personally watch out for the submarine around every corner. But did we read the same article? Its specifically talking about the pain theaters will feel after moviepass inevitably collapses and people don’t want to go back to paying full price.

Sounds like a really bad puff piece.
The worst part about working from home is how difficult it is to have a conversation with anybody over the phone. The lag makes it very difficult for things to flow naturally.
Explicit non-null pointers in C
Surely I'm reading this wrong. Does the whole thing depend on users trusting that the nodes run the correct software, which uses these "enclaves" to hide private data from itself?
Those altcoins don't have the userbase that bcash has. Bcash actually has an active community that is pushing to integrate bcash into mainstream commerce and that's what I like. Store of value is nice but medium of exchange is what really appeals to me personally.
I don’t see how the MoviePass model could be sustainable today. The name of the game appears to be “lose money on every ticket today to control the market tomorrow.”

But if they’re successful at controlling ticket sales I’m just not sure they have enough leverage to keep theaters and studios on board... idk just left scratching my head.
Ah BU. Affectionately known as fail-train #3. It was rejected for reasons that are clearly not evident to you, but rejected it remains.

If you would only go and implement your gigablock altcoin and leave bitcoin development alone, that would be great.
Perhaps there's an undercurrent of it being easy to spend someone else's 7.5M (ALL of Uber's money is VC money) to avoid the scandal.
In a broadly abstracted sense: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_versus_NP_problem
IOW, never.
If SpaceX started in San Francisco in 2017, I assume they would have been attacked for focusing on problems of the 1%, or for doing something the government had already decided was too hard. -- from Sam Altman's essay.

First, SpaceX wasn't founded in SF because SF would have been a lousy place for it to start. It was founded in El Segundo because of the talent base there working for companies like TRW.

Second, if the success or failure of SpaceX or any other company is dependent on the mean things people say when checking their iPhones at morning coffee then that's more a judgment of the weak backbone of the startup founders + employees. Blow it off and get back to work. I personally think the vast majority of BitCoin and Ethereum work ranges from crap to fraud. I doubt that anyone cares about that opinion and it's such an important opinion.

Anil is wrong. That essay wasn't dangerous. It was drivel. If what you do has merit it will come out regardless of what people say. This isn't high school.
> The significant part is that increasing the block size steadily

160,000+ bitcoin nodes are not interested in your centralization scheme, whether it is done 'steadily' or immediately.
Consider Chick-fil-a’s policy of being closed on Sundays for explicitly religious reasons. Is that oppressive to atheist employees who lose an extra day of the week to work?
How is trump correct? (Nothing about Russia has been proven)
It's not run by "a set of trusted third parties".

It's run by SETS of trusted third parties, where each individual node specifies what set of nodes it trusts to not collude against it.

You don't need any ones permission to run a node, but it is up to other nodes if they want to trust you
Creating new coins is also the easiest way to introduce new features and ideas. We’re overvaluing version 1.0 because it has the biggest install base.
> the userbase that bcash has

The number of transactions on the bcash blockchain gives a different impression of the 'user base'. If you want a faster blockchain with a larger user base, use litecoin. It isn't as secure as bitcoin, because it isn't as decentralized as bitcoin, but at least you don't have all of your purchases recorded (who you are, what you buy, who you buy it from, when you buy it, etc.) by the chinese government. Oh, and you don't have to worry about the chinese government blacklisting your wallet so that they can never be spent either.
That lot/abandoned home is pretty far back on Stevens Canyon, it's regularly 10 degrees cooler there than the rest of Stevens Canyon because it's in shade most of the day, most of the year, but manages to get a lot of car traffic because it's a shortcut from highway 9 to Cupertino.

I was mistaken about the street address of the gas station turned condos, those are on Foothill just before it turns into Stevens Canyon
https://www.zillow.com/community/cupertino-live-work/2092128...
one study that suggests 10% of the violence could be attributed to the radio station

I’m not sure what you are expecting here. Social sciences aren’t clean, you can’t go back in time and setup control groups etc, and being able to clearly show a causal link like that is pretty decisive.

Put it another way: 10% of the violence is at least 60,000 deaths.
I'm just getting set up yet, but so far so good! I haven't run anything too complex just yet, but it seems really performant and doesn't put a significant load on my system.

Next up is to try running something more taxing, and then look into GPU access from within it.

I'm looking forward to them developing the subsystem further.
But probabilities are subjective, if you build your home on a anthill your scenario's probability increases

Nonces are used to find hashes that satisfy a specific 'target' requirement
A few years ago I had a subscription card for a cinema chain in the UK, it worked out to be the cost of around 1.5 tickets a month, but I ended up going around once a week.

Anyway, at the time there was no way to book tickets online, you just had to show up and if there was space you’d get a ticket. As such I’d usually go on Saturday early afternoon when it was usually pretty quiet.
Stuff You Can't Say in Silicon Valley
> But Sam should've used something like the Node dev as an example, rather than the less salient one he provided

In my opinion, Sam wanted to share this with the least possible likelihood that it would blowback (in a big way) on YC.

He did this by picking examples that would stimulate thought without a large possibility of himself being branded in some way regarding a controversial topic.
First off, I like your example, it embodies the core dynamic that people refer to when discussing hate speech vs. free speech.

Does this boss really deserve a debate and an exchange of open ideas?

YES. Both the employee and the boss in this situation need to sit down and talk about it. Even if the boss is of the rough, conservative demeanor, he can be very receptive! You must simply approach the boss without a chip on your shoulder, and be very respectful. Any man worth his salt will reconsider their position after this. Express yourself fully, express your existing and continuing respect for the boss, and watch as he becomes reasonable. For this is the core tension between the liberals and the conservatives: There is no respect given to each other before both sides begin to engage.

If you tell them you disagree and they just continue mocking gay people, what are you supposed to say or do?

Well, that depends on the outcome of the discussion you two had. Did you come out of it friends, with a stronger relationship, and mutual understanding? Then the boss probably is just being careless in his use of homophobic slurs, and dare I say the onus is on the gay person to restrain their disdain - and such restraint should be easy, because you respect and are friends with the man uttering slurs. You know that he is your boss, your provider and guide; you know that you can approach him honestly and be safe from retaliation, so why would you feel fear in this situation? You should feel nothing at all if not slight irritation.

Now, suppose you come out of the discussion about homophobic slurs, and the boss was not at all receptive. Perhaps he uttered a slur to you as you left. Then you must leave the company, and rightfully declare him a homophobe when appropriate.

Let's get to the meat of the issue. Do you pre-judge your slur-uttering boss? Do you assume him to be homophobic, and begin attacking his character in all avenues? Do you never attempt discussion, instead tweeting about how he's committing hate crimes?

Or. Do you approach him honestly with your guard down, to admit both your sexual orientation and your devotion to your job, while requesting that he try and restrict his use of the word ft? Do you listen silently while he riffs against political correctness, nodding and acknowledging, until he comes around and apologizes for making you uncomfortable?

You may take the path of the coward, or the path of the hero.
Damore didn't reference your [1] to quote that "women are neurotic", he used it to quote that "greater nation-level gender equality leads to psychological dissimilarity in men’s and women’s personality traits".

Your [2] doesn't even cite [1], and in any case, [1] has almost 800 citations, while [2] is only cited by the author herself in her other papers. Seems like a stretch to call [1] "discredited".
I'm reminded of the Tesloop episode of 'The Pitch' podcast. "Haydn Sonnad pitches his plan to revolutionize regional transit on the back of Tesla’s electric charging network." https://gimletmedia.com/episode/11-tesloop/
I don't have an opinion on the moral aspect of being a billionaire.

I just want to point out that billionaires don't just magically create more money for charities. Someone had to lose that money.

For the sake of simplicity, lets say... Goods & services were priced optimally to reduce the middle classes disposable income. The billionaire throws the poor-and-starving a bone every now and then.

Should the middle class have more disposable income? Or should charities get their bone? It's a matter of philosophy.

Being rich is being in control. You get to decide who gets your money.
The way that society is set up, of course most of the pressure is on minorities to be silent and just take abuse. That's why all of the "MeToo" movement was pent-up and then just now exploded, because so many women were afraid of saying something for fear of the response for so long. That is what is happening every single day, and has for millennia. What is happening now, for the first time in US History, is that the dominant group (meaning, in this particular case, white men who are good with computers and very well off) have to worry about what members of the non-dominant group thinks of them.

As for your ideas on how to win over bigots, I've lived my entire life surrounded by them, and I have to say that respecting them does not work. Debating them and treating them as equals just encourages others that it's all okay. Forcing them to hide in the darkness does work, because it makes them less likely to express their ideas at other times, when you aren't around, and other people will then hear it and be more likely to say it themselves.

Bigotry is a communicable disease.
If it's supported, then they should update json5.org, which says "TODO: Unicode characters and escape sequences aren’t yet supported in this implementation."
The way you've formulated this makes it seem like people who think political correctness is important also must espouse branding people as heretics for no reason. That is not true, and obviously valid opinions deserve discussion. Sam's essay takes your comment's tack and extrapolates, saying in order for us to never accidentally brand people as heretics we should live in a society that has a higher level of tolerance for shitty things like "gay people are evil." That we should have a higher tolerance for all ideas so we can "discuss" them.

But the consequences of "higher tolerance" for harassing and alienating speech is a chilling effect on another section of the population (people who get harassed and alienated). More "freedom" for one group comes at the cost of depriving another.
They get a minority of the ticket price, but it's far from 'no margin'.

Typically in the first week they keep anywhere from 0-25%, but after the first week or two they can be keeping as much as half.

MoviePass is going to be squeezing them for their share.
To be fair, there is zero reason to think we will ever "solve" mathematics in the way you indicate.