skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Sure. How about voicing the controversial opinion that private citizens should have a right to free speech without being fired (as in, believing that free speech should apply to more than just the government).

IE, free speech, applied to private companies, as the controversial opinion that a person is getting fired for.
I don't mean to be trite, but are you saying this person voted for Trump to "own the libs"?

Doing something out of spite like that is a pretty miserable experience...
What's more, Ajit Pai was nominated by Obama only because the FCC has a fixed apportionment of party appointees.
Trees can only story a certain amount of CO2, and factories will produce much more than the trees can absorb.
You do realize that we had net neutrality regulation before 2015, right? It was just enforced via other means, means which were found by the courts to be overreach by the FCC in 2015, at which point the regulation was restored by reclassifying ISPs under Title II of the Communications Act.
Oh I totally agree with you. I feel shutting this down is rational too. I just figured it was the theme of this thread and of the original article.
Do you have a blog? Been visiting this daily to see if there's a new update about the write up on networking trial errors. :)
I don't understand how a company, which is shipping vehicles that people are lining up to buy, could be worth zero.
You can buy cream for that already.

To address what I hope is your point (not really about skin colour, I assume that was simply an example of a no-go zone for your imagined liberal interlocutor), there are not many areas of research out of bounds because of social mores - there are always some at any given point in time in any given society (for example cloning or using fetal tissue in the US), and there are valid discussions to be had about whether research is ethical or not (which shifts over time).

Those hard ethical issues on the edge of science and what it means to be human are unrelated however to: novel physics ideas, almost all startup ideas, ideas for a new currency like bitcoin, spacex etc. Of course to have good ideas you need to preserve some innocence, ignore all the naysayers (of which the internet has plenty, a never-ending horde we all participate in at times), you may need to stand apart from your society (as in the case of bitcoin) or reject its tenets but that is entirely unrelated to tolerance for intolerance, to tolerance for hatred, to a happy ignorance of ethics or moral boundaries.

The writer mixes up simple cynicism and societal pressure which he experiences (which are as old as the world and easy to ignore), and real hatred leading to violence and seems to think they are somehow equivalent. Those are different categories of objection, different qualities of harm. Paul Graham or Sam feeling bad because people are dismissive, petty and wrong about good ideas he has, is simply incomparable to the real harm caused by the normalisation of the ideas in this essay (e.g. a given class of people are evil and subhuman - be that gays, jews, rich white men or something else). By giving those ideas credence, he's lending a hand to evil in the world.

In short, you don't need to allow hatred of [insert your hated group here] to allow good science.
Exactly, Russia is shitty neighbor here in Georgia too, supported separatists to create military bases and buffer zones to themselves. I am glad there is no more shitty SU and hope one they we will be in NATO to protect ourselves from whoever nutjob person Russian people decide to "elect" next in their mafia ruled country. I am also happy NATO still expands.
Strang’s textbook (and lectures) introduce matrix multiplication AB as combinations of A’s columns. He uses the cell-by-cell / “dot product” formulas just to check his work, which seems reasonable to me. I’m a big fan of “combinations of columns”. I sometimes even hear that in Strang’s voice when I’m doing some matrix multiplications.

Axler was way too abstract for me as a first linear algebra book. I look forward to returning to it once I finish Strang.
> Establishing a single externally consistent order of events for all possible observers is physically impossible

No, it is not. It does however require communication.

Additionally, what's true in an absolute physical sense, is somewhat removed from what's practical engineered product. For example, we cannot literally make a physical part that is perfectly 1 meter in length. This has not stopped us from making everything from microchips to spacecraft.

> Abel puts in money in Spain, Beth removes it in Australia -- do you charge an overdraft fee/interest? (N.B., Abel and Beth may be names of HFT algorithms.)

Spanner handles this by using two phase commit over sets of independent consensus replication groups. By using TrueTime's ability to provide absolute intervals, it can wait out uncertainty windows to enforce the total order.

> P.S. Not sure what you mean by "hidden communication channels."

Schemes such as lamport and vector clocks require all messages exchanged to include clock data. If two clients establish their own communication channel using some other protocol, they may not agree on the same event order, because the system has no way to know it needs to advance the logical clocks based on this hidden communication.

Spanner in combination with TrueTime avoids this limitation. External observers will see the same commit order in real time, regardless of how they communicate.

Please read and understand the papers to get what you're missing.
We tried that in the US. The incumbents did weaselly things to make life difficult for the CLECs, and eventually lobbied Congress to remove the requirement.
In China you can talk shit of government all you want, many people on the street will even agree it with you. Just don't write and publish it.
There are some site-blocking hosted-on-the-device VPNs on Android. I haven't found any I'd be comfortable recommending though - gotta find an open source one I can reasonably audit and isn't terrible :|
Reading through some of the comments on those two threads you've linked, it sounds as if there are a lot of people that have invested in specific cryptocurrencies that are trying to convince people that it is THE ONE.

The bubble is now big enough that it's impossible to trust any articles or commentary on the validity of one against any others. Even the commentary of HN - which is normally a cut above - because HN commenters are more likely than the average person on the street to have dabbled in cryptocurrency early and may now have triple digits at stake.

In regards to IOTA, the fact that it has some well known backers only serves to blow more air into the bubble when it's an admittedly beta product.
There is a difference between thoughtful disagreement and treating the speaker as an outcast. We should engage and attack ideas based on merits.

One of my favorite ideas here recently is a "steel man" argument. It's putting the best version of an opposing argument forward before explaining why it's wrong.

This charity to the people behind the ideas is missing when you're looking for a soundbite or worse looking to banish to an out group.
Thank you. While last mile device monopolies we certainly relevant, the root issue here is that this really isn't a federal government problem.

Which is probably why the courts have been rejecting the FCC's attempts at enforcing net neutrality for the past 12 years.
Many countries have big internal variations within areas, just as much as between other countries - by your logic why is it not just as necessary to have separate currencies for California, Southern Italy etc? London, New York, Shanghai, Paris, Singapore would be better served by a common currency than their national ones according to this line of logic, and given that they make up significant proportions of the economy for their respective nations, you'd think that enforcing use of the local currency is hugely damaging for their economies.
Obviously 'everyone' is an exaggeration; a vast majority, then.

You should not be able to keep a person out of your restaurant because of their views, but the job one is tricky and nuanced.

I think there are certain beliefs that a person could hold that are valid disqualifications for hiring that person; for example, if a person is advocating that women shouldn't be allowed to work and should stay at home because they have nothing of value to offer, how can I possibly hire that person? How is a woman supposed to work side by side with someone who has expressed the view that they have no value in the workplace? I think if your opinion is that some of your coworkers have no value in the workplace, that has to disqualify you to work there.

Now, of course, the spectrum of troubling views will eventually reach a point where the answer is not so obvious as to whether they should be hired or not. I don't think I have a strong answer to where that line should be.
I have heard big things about IOTA, from 2 of the least technical people I know. They both work in marketing. (nothing against marketing)
As long as the terms are not too severe it might work.

YC might reserve the right up to 20% of any given round, at the price the lead investors pick.

This is not too onerous.

If you're doing A,B,C and pass through due dilligence, well, maybe it's one less hassle, i.e. finding that n-th VC to come in on the round.
> just because a person presents an unethical idea doesn't make that person universally unethical.

Reminds me of a Kill the Poor sketch by Mitchell and Webb.
I wasn't aware one could do UDF with javascript. Thought it was for addins only.
The real life equivalent of this is "if I leave my door unlocked, should someone be allowed to walk in anyways?"

I would definitely want some intent provisions in, but saying something is accessible therefore free game seems too wide.
So what do we do for the next 10 years?
For real: I really hate corporations 'stealing' data from my phone. For example Google likes to introduce new sync options to Android and every time they do so it is activated by default. So as soon as the update arrives their software syncs my data to their servers without my consent. They probably have some clause in the EULA but as a user of their products I really hate that behavior. A similar case is not being able to disable address book sync before it syncs the for the first time.

Those things should be crimes as the data they fetch is not publicly available on some web page but exists only on my personal device and they take it without my consent.
There are a number of high profile examples like Mozillas CEO being kicked out for donating to conservative groups or Damore's firing. As far as mass campaigns, there's a number of managers that have admitted to keeping political blacklists just within Google: https://www.inc.com/sonya-mann/google-manifesto-blacklists.h... And there are various large campaigns to dox people on the far right like https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/08/14/543418271... which have been successful in getting numerous people fired.
I was gonna say, this sounds like Camlistore.
> Generally, the cost of buying and running one server in a datacenter and staffing the ops team needed to keep the hardware running is cheaper than paying for a 24/7 server of comparable specs in the cloud

I would disagree here. You can run the metrics for your stack, but it's likely cheaper on AWS.
https://awstcocalculator.com/

If you don't need to compute something but twice a day, or just certain times -- you can pay pennies on the dollar for a serverless function. There's no need for an entire server for things like this.
The perfect tool for a digital hoarder like myself. Will follow this with attention.
I see all these "can be" and "could be" type statements, but the reality of the situation is that we have not solved these problems yet, but today we have no net neutrality regulation. So it's ok to think of the bright future 5 years (optimistically) down the line while we've immediately taken a huge step back?
It's funny that you use C99 as an analogy. Please list all the compilers you support that support C99. I'll give you a hint--MSVC, Clang, and gcc all don't support C99 fully, and possibly never intend to. It's not just an idle "oh, no one cares about those features; they support it for all intents and purposes": gcc kept its default standard at C89 in part because it didn't support C99 fully.

What you're doing when you say that you assume C99 compliance is you're thinking of the features from C99 that you want to use and relying on that. Admittedly, the generally-unsupported features are very niche. But that means that you potentially have a dozen different ideas of what "we support C99" actually means, and that's before you start asking how reliable an implementation needs to be before it meets the definition of "support." Declaring support for versioned standards is often more problematic than helpful (versioned implementations is a different story).

The real problem with autoconf is that no one removes the unnecessary feature checks and no one audits it to see what's still necessary for the platforms that people intend to support.
You can pretty much already do what you want with VSTO or XLLs. However having a standard scripting language installed on everyone's machine is a all different thing. It means you can add some scripted logic in your spreadsheet, give it to someone else, and know it will run without having to install or maintain anything.
How to Set Up Object Storage with Django
That was my first question, too. After clicking through a few links and even opening up an intro presentation I was left unsatisfied and closed the tab. This project desperately needs an FAQ or overview video up-front.
I'm with you on this. I've been living in the US for three years and literally never faced any racism of any sort. I went to vacation in Amsterdam and some shit faced kid decided to harass me cause I'm Indian within two days of being there. Anecdotal, but yeah.
Do it!!!!!! To stay relevant do it!

I mean any language would be better than VBA.
Agree, you are kind of watching from the outside inside. I end up mostly focusing on center stories. But being on the site, it really hits you just how bad the media has become. No one, it seems, listed to John Stewart when he appeared on Crossfire. Instead, the morphed the whole network into Crossfire. [1]

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE
It's not that bad if you have just a few hot paths. They can be written in Cython or Numba without much trouble.
I'm curious what you think of the "No Bullshit Guide to Linear Algebra" [1]? I'm considering buying it to refresh my knowledge from school. Or what books do you suggest?

[1] https://www.amazon.com/No-bullshit-guide-linear-algebra/dp/0...
One doesn’t need to work at a startup for most of this points. My company is over 16 years old and we also meet the following bullets:

* Less bureaucracy, more building
* Larger impact on a product; not just being a cog
* Generalist rather than one narrowly defined job
* Ability to learn many new skills
* Working on something they believe in
* Working with newer technologies
* Flexibility (work from home, set own hours, etc)

Most of our engineering team has stayed for more than 5 years. Some have been there for 15 years.
Looks like there's been some nice progress since I last looked at Camlistore! The importers from cloud services like Twitter look really interesting.
Seems like a sensible theme to explore but is this data or conjecture? I'd make a similarly anecdotal conjecture that you'd be met with rigorous debate but your social character standing won't be affected by bringing this topic up, nor would it be socially acceptable for your opponent to use ad hominem at any point. This is the theme the author is addressing.
Disclaimer: I worked at Etsy, a long time ago.

> The next group, headed by Chad Dickerson and Allspaw, seemed like they wanted to focus on technology for technology’s sake, more than what Etsy was actually doing with that as a company.

I think you're missing quite a bit of this story. I was around during the transition of Chad from CTO -> CEO, and the truth is that Etsy needed to focus on the technology badly during that time. The site would go down constantly. We had very little insight into what was going on with sellers or buyers. Every busy day was basically us crossing our fingers that the site wouldn't go down.

We needed someone focused heavily on the technology. We could never have continued on that path and grown as much as we did.

> Etsy should be focused on one thing: connecting buyers and sellers of handmade art with each other.

Deciding what potential buyers are interested in and what items to display to them is a pretty difficult technology problem.

Detecting mass-produced goods in a way that's more subtle than "ban all Chinese sellers" is a pretty difficult technology problem.

If anything I would argue that Etsy didn't focus nearly enough on that, and focused way too much on "low-hanging fruit" (minor workflow adjustments for sellers and buyers).
You do know US is part of the NATO right? What makes you think US can't deploy 3-4 times more powerful conventional force to counter absolutely outdated Russian junk?
The video demo on the front page is a great place to get an overview of what it's all about.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Dk2iVlc67M
That may be true, but regardless of whether pt is a best practice, the point remains that it is still a unit. IMO that puts it ahead of the alternative example.
> there are a lot more libraries

Not to get into a huge python debate. But this statement is just blatantly false.[0] Unless you are in a niche domain, the library you need either supports Python 3 or (increasingly, esp. among newer packages) is 3-only.

[0] http://py3readiness.org
Is there an overview that's less "an hour long" and more "three sentences"?
If you're ever in Vegas, the National Atomic Testing Museum is a great place to go: http://nationalatomictestingmuseum.org/
Another way of putting this is "can we go back to City States already?" Alexander the Great proved that the time had come when only units larger than cities could survive. We've been stuck with nations ever since. China and Russia are making the case that military aggression is not behind us yet.

But also relevant is this: infrastructure needs are growing, not declining. You may if you wish argue that 3D printing, mesh networks and personal nuclear reactors (or solar cell arrays) plus cheap water filtration are gonna change that real soon, making taxes obsolete; but so far the historical trend is strongly demonstrating ever-greater needs for public infrastructure. The fact that a few companies actually have private and rather monopolistic control over many of the most modern components of that vital public infrastructure is an argument for close regulation of them by government of one kind or another, surely.

Pure Libertarianism works best if you can make everything you need from wood, using sharpened stones. By the time a society can create Bronze, it's not viable.
Thank you. This is great.
In the Microsoft world scripting is often mediated through COM:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Component_Object_Model

that is how people do stuff with VBA and Powershell and you can do it in Python with

http://starship.python.net/crew/theller/comtypes/
Hard to really say the difference between a nuclear war and the U.S., Russia, UK France and others setting off vast numbers of atmospheric nuclear weapons in the 20th century.
> Net neutrality principles have been sanctioned by the FCC since 2005

And before that no ISP would even consider tiered pricing because there were no services worth tiering. Alexadra Petri has a really good analogy over at the WaPo:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/wp/2017/12/14/n...
How to add Google Custom Search Bar to blogger and make money
The two arguments aren't exactly equivalent. Gun buyers are US citizens have a lot of rights and obligations from the government. Immigrants are not citizens and don't have any rights or obligations to fairness from the government. We already have very different rules for immigrants from different countries. A Canadian can get into the country much easier than other countries for example.

I don't personally support banning Muslims because the terrorism is so low it's not worth worrying about. But one could imagine if it got much higher and was a legitimate large threat. Then I would be completely ok with banning Muslims.
No time machines, but maybe a genuinely panicked recognition of just how much trouble we’re in could inform the nature and magnitude of the response.
"That doesn't mean they weren't persuaded that some of the "facts" were wrong"

Why did they repeat the false statements from the NPRM in the final draft is that is true? Why did they dismiss comments correcting falsehoods in the NPRM as not persuasive?

"it means that they weren't persuaded in terms of opinions"

I am not talking about opinions. I am talking about the details of core Internet technologies like IP, DHCP, DNS, etc. The rule change was based on an argument that ISPs meet the legal definition of an "information service." To make that argument the FCC's NPRM and the final draft make several false statements about the technical details of the Internet.

Whether or not net neutrality regulation is proper is a different matter. This order actually removes net neutrality requirements as a side effect. What the order actually does is change the FCC's official legal classification of broadband Internet service from "telecommunications service" to "information service." The 2015 rule change also involved changing ISP classification, in response to a successful court challenge to earlier net neutrality regulations that were based on the "information service" classification. Basically, the courts determined that an "information service" cannot be subject to net neutrality rules, because that is a "common carrier" requirement that can only be imposed on a "telecommunication service."

"they don't oppose net neutrality because of what the ISPs said about it"

Maybe so, but in terms of the technical details this entire order is predicated on, the FCC for the most part cites the comments of ISPs as the truth, and dismisses everything else.
i didn’t say that the robots had to do everything that humans can. I said we should accelerate the improvements of robots and do what we can with them.
Google has built ad products on data about what you want, and Facebook has built ad products on data about who you are, which are both natural extensions of the data they receive in order to deliver you their core service. Which constitutes more data or a creepier amount, unsure. But I’m more wary of services that are mashing that data together to get a fuller picture of you.
It's fine in theory to criticise the ethics of the idea alone, but there can be a limit to that.

If the CEO of a mining company has the "ingenious, un-PC idea" to increase mining profits by lobbying Congress and donating to sympathetic lawmakers to ease EPA regulations so he can dump mercury directly in the river, my ethical argument against the idea is that it damages the environment and the people in the communities, possibly for generations.

If his answer is "I know that, but I value profits more," what is left to discuss about the ethics of the idea? We agree on the facts of the matter.

All that's left is for me to say "I think your moral framework is very different from mine," which is really not that different from my saying "I think you are a bad person."
tldr: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
This is an interesting question, but I don't feel like this offered anything new towards an answer.
What do you mean by "ethical outlook?" Who doesn't have one? You may not agree with their ethics, but they're there. If you're talking about shared ethics, that's known as morality.