skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The trend to refuse debating is more harmful than it looks.

Here are some defences I've seen so far

1. Debating is pointless because the person wont change their mind

On the Internet, you're not debating a person. You are also debating for the benefit of uninformed (yet potentially well meaning) bystanders that are watching and reading. Hard as it may be to imagine, a lot of these people just don't know what you know.

This is the exact time to bring out your best, most convincing material and information. Why not do it?

Its not a stretch to assume a lot of generally well meaning people will be sceptical to progressive ideas at first. After all, isn't the whole premise that we've normalised unfair behaviour so much that people can no longer easily see it from within their bubble?

Can we really afford to write off everyone that is like that completely? Why not try and give them a peak outside their bubble instead?

2. Debating will legitimise the other person's reprehensible point of view. We are taking a huge step backwards just by engaging.

Assuming no other information is available to the uninformed bystanders, here is how this looks like to them:

* Person A makes a plausible-looking argument;
* Person B says they're wrong,
* wont even dignify that with a debate
* will continue to be enraged
* will do everything in their power to get person A fired.

A bystander might try and find some resources on their own. Or they may conclude this is a matter of "free speech": person B, having no arguments in their favour are just trying to shut person A down.

3. I'm outraged right now. Not quite in the state to educate people. I also just debated with 50 others before this person and I'm sick of doing it over and over.

Thats understandable. Please though, if at all possible, consider the potential consequences of continuing to engage without a debate.
Wow, that didn't take long. Why is this discussion being flagged?
Yeah, that's right I think.
You can't just spin up your own CoinBase if you don't trust coinbase.com. I mean, it's BitCoin, so you can run your own transactions, but you can't do any of the other stuff CoinBase does.

But with Stellar or something based on its consensus protocol, you can run your own node if you want, or more likely, a bunch of public nodes can exist and you can pick the one you trust to work with. For example, if banks decide to start working with MobileCoin, then Chase could offer a node and, as a Chase customer, you could decide to trust their node (since you already trust them to manage your money) and use that one.
I do watch it... Letterkenny is the the best thing on TV (well, CraveTV) right now in my opinion. CBC isn't the only studio producing Canadian content either.

I briefly checked your comment history... you sure have some negative things to say about Canada, huh?

I'm still interested in hearing you name some of these derivative shows that apparently make up the vast majority of Canadian television.
That entirely depends on the arena in which one finds oneself. In far-left circles women and minorities tend to be given carte blanche, while in far-right circles older white men receive similar treatment. It is a spectrum of acceptable norms based on implicit values surrounding group identities.

e.g. if a white man offers a controversial opinion in a left-leaning arena, he is more likely to be dismissed.
Wow. I can see why Uber did not want this document to come out. It appears that Uber was operating their own intelligence agency with bribes, surveillance, breach of systems, impersonation, etc. I can see it opening further lawsuits from many other angles.

From competitors like Lyft:

>"Uber had successfully obtained trade secrets with the complete download of its driver database ... It
contained approximately 35,000 taxi driver records"

>"Uber used driver and customer impersonation to steal
competitor trade secrets. This conduct not only violated the trade secrets law discussed above but also wire fraud law"

From regulators:

> "In January 2017, contacted Jacobs on Wickr and advised they had a bug in a meeting with transport regulators and
that they needed help cleaning up the audio."

> "Jacobs heard about the practice of bribing foreign government officials. Based on his knowledge of targeting foreign officials to identify those with influential power, and the rapid insights into new markets"
Yeah, I find myself having to clarify every time I use that phrase that I'm using it in the "pre-buzzword" sense...
Nothing revolutionary about distributed consensus. It was the 2008 financial crisis that brought the anti-banking crowd into frenzy, seeing all sorts of claimed benefits in using this sort of thing for money. They would have been goldbugs or tulip collectors under other circumstances.

Or do you mean the revolutionary scamming techniques never seen before? /s
The fact that this is flagged just reinforces his point about frail narcissists in the valley.
You chose to install Firefox, and you chose not to participate in the process that creates it. What happened next was not "without your consent". What happened absolutely had your consent. You consented by deciding that the whole messy process of producing the software was going to be someone else's problem, and you just wanted the sausage without having to see or take part in how it got made. You consented by delegating to the people who actually did the hard work of making and shipping the software.

If you now decide you don't want to run that software anymore, that's perfectly fine and is your choice to make. But arguing that you didn't have an opportunity to know what was going on or review code before it landed on your computer, when you installed Firefox by your own choice, when you decided not to take advantage of the radically transparent and open way it's built, is just not going to fly. You had a million and one opportunities to "review" the code you were going to download and run. You just chose to do other things instead. You seem to regret that, but you also seem not to have learned any lesson from it.
Keep in mind I'm not endorsing this analysis. I'm just trying to interpret it.
> 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.

This is unfortunate. The discussion has been heated, yes, but I would argue there is plenty of substance to be found. Ironically, @sama was decrying precisely the ever-shrinking social space for controversy.
Conclusions can be.
How about the ones born in India /China/Philippines on h1-b? They are not treated equally (compared to a h1-b born elsewhere), and Indians are the most abused (by law).

Basically Indians on h1-b are highly paid shackled slaves of America, because they wait crazy number of years (10-70 years) to get a green card. During that wait their options to demand better pay/raise/jobs are extremely limited.

And these shackles are the source of conscious/ subconscious abuse.

Now try saying to anyone in America who is a DACA sympathizer that those in the green card backlog are in a much worse situation. (I did to one in Bay Area and it didn’t end well)
he has quite a portfolio of mathematical objects http://www.georgehart.com/rp/rp.html
He Makes America Great Again
You don't have to free up digital TV frequencies to introduce LTE. Many European/Asian countries launched LTE on 2600 MHz before their digital switchovers were completed, and others have recycled GSM/UMTS frequencies, reducing the capacity/coverage of the legacy networks.
Yet even with the NN, Canadians still pay the highest Internet and mobile charges in the world! [0] They are more taxed than anyone and they still have severe bandwidth caps. Given how their market is ruled by very few large companies, NN is a moot point for them since they pay through the nose anyway. They have no competition and that's a bigger issue. Their politicians always like to pat themselves on the back and are trying to present Canadian situation as better than the US all the time. But the reality is not so clear cut.

[0] https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/how-canad...
Just to clarify, it is okay to treat people poorly because people were treated worse in the past?
I’m really sympathetic to this idea, but it’s not a really tenable. How does this solve the restaurant problem? It doesn’t. The only real solution is to have a strong government provided safety net. The government is the only counter to strong private actors.
It seems like it's somewhat symbiotic in that the adolescent macaques derive sexual pleasure/"practice" from the interaction while the deer have parasites cleaned off them.

Also, as they mentioned, it will be interesting if this behavior persists and becomes integrated into their culture or will be forgotten.

On a side note, do the researchers seem to share an uncomfortable photo there, or is that just my misinterpretation?
Resisting your attempts to slide or conflate my statement with unrelated viewpoints.

My previous statement stands.
Much worse than TV though.
Is it reasonable and scalable to expect people to volunteer their time and expertise largely for the benefit of for-profit businesses? (Disregarding the benefits to the communities themselves.)

Due to network effects and inertia I imagine building communities in walled gardens only makes it more difficult to leave if the platform changes their terms. Patreon's recent fee change being one example.
... it has since been modded off of the front page.
> 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?

Because there is a real danger of it spreading to other documents.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article1298372...

Its a slippery slope we've seen at the state level.
Perhaps these words are trigger words?

Aren't people in Alabama entitled to their safe spaces?
Hearing "Fetus" and "Science-Based" maybe are seen as micro-aggressions?

(Which, to be fair, there isn't any sense in offending people. And there may be some bureaucrats that wouldn't mind doing exactly that. The more neutral and non-political you can make communication by government the better. So perhaps that is the motive.)
CanCon prompted Bob and Doug McKenzie, so it's not all bad.
Over time, studio have increased the share they demand of ticket sales in the early phase of movie releases, especially those expected to be blockbusters. In some case to 100%. So, theaters have to make even more of their money than they used to on later parts of the run, smaller films, and concessions, forcing (because of uniform pricing, which you could write entire articles about why it is the norm) all ticket prices higher, as well as concession prices higher.

Plus, increased competition from more new media means that people who are indiscriminate in their entertainment choices are more likely to go elsewhere no matter what theaters do, so it's increasingly sensible to charge higher prices to the smaller share of the potential audience for whom the in-theater movie experience is a strong preference (and thus who are less price sensitive) rather seeking the broadest audience.
Marketer here. While I agree that these are often standard practices he shares, there's a strong difference between knowing about them, and knowing how to apply the practice to different business situations properly, or educating others on how to do so. Patrick excels at that part.

Also, honestly, I've met many "marketers" who don't know those things, or don't know how to actually implement them, or why.
Nah, just nah. You're conflating violence enacted by the state with the political philosophy the state uses to remain come into and remain in power. If you're going to blame the Khmer rouge on communism, then you also need to factor in the conflict in the middle East, American Indian genocide, slavery and more and attribute that to capitalist philosophy.
Also, while it may drive up the price a little, the idea the NSA won't be able to tap into worldwide internet just because the bits don't travel through the US is naive.
What NN has to do with "freedom of speech, equality and diversity"? The whole article sounds like a bunch of duckspeak, repeating slogans without almost any actual informational content.

Wait, no, I'm wrong, there's one: Canadian NAFTA negotiators have indicated that they support inclusion of a net neutrality provision within the agreement’s new digital trade chapter.

What this means? That Canada would require US to create certain regulations as a condition for signing NAFTA? Wouldn't it be kinda presuming - telling US which laws they have? I mean, Canada can have any regulations they want, NN or not, that's their business, but what this has to do with US and NAFTA?
How will Tesla enforce this policy? Tracking vehicle usage data, looking for lots of short trip patterns? Looking for rideshare decals (drivers would be wise to use removable decals)? Asking Uber/Lyft to share VIN numbers of registered cars?
In Québec, more than 50% of songs played on the radio must be in French.

Naturally, they play most of those songs during the night.
Agreed.

As a brown guy (I think right of Center) my views tend to piss off the far right/left equally. And I think there are many like me who are just keeping their mouth shut listening to garbage from both the far ends.
Nobody likes using technology
This administration has a penchant for creating drama. I can’t see any other purpose to this policy.

Also, 7 words[1]. Not 6, not 8. It could be coincidence but I really feel like we’re being trolled.

[1]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_dirty_words
> Censoring the CDC, of all organizations.

This isn't the first time it's happened. The Dickey Amendment in 1996 forced the CDC to stop research on gun-related injuries because the NRA was upset.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment_(1996)
In the ultramarathon world, there is increasing attention being paid to PEDs. A lot of that focus is not on the physical benefits of the drugs, though that is important, but the focus is also on the mental benefits. That is, drugs that lower anxiety and/or increase focus can have greater benefits in a race that might last 20 hours. So, in my world, being physically able to run 50 or 100 miles is just table stakes. It's the mental game that makes the difference in whether you cross the finish line or not.
What I'm saying is it's possible that because the loop is so small the hardware prefetch is not done loading its page of data yet. This causes a cache miss and forces the hardware to think it has to reload the instructions each loop. A tiny delay might slow it down just enough for the prefetch to complete.
It doesn't help that they broadcast everything twice, because some of their older receivers have different frequency ranges from before the merger.

I think they could do a lot better if they used their modern position to their advantage. Most receivers are in cars, and many cars are coming with always on internet. Hook up to that and a) report on coverage deficiencies, b) fill in from internet streaming when in poor coverage areas, c) get metrics on listener numbers so things that nobody hears can be dropped, d) use streaming to boost bitrate.
> This is not unlike programming.

You mean, Canada should mandate certain percentage of software be written in Canada too, and if your site or software product doesn't run X% of Canadian software, you should not be able to use it within Canada? Great idea, sure.
What many are having an issue with is that we see some agendas pushed using techniques from totalitarian regimes.

When two sides have different solutions to a problem or opinions, but one side feel morally justified to seek the firing of the other and have the power to do so we are not talking about an abstract concept of moral theory anymore.

There is a reason why functional societies follow the rule of law instead of the rule of the mob.
If he honestly thinks that writing a blog post about how we should allow people to make hateful comments about gays (and presumably other minorities) and not have it blow back on the companies he helps finance and run then he really isn't thinking clearly. This isn't something I say because I want it to be true, but something I've learned from direct experience.

Last year while hiring people I gave was going to give someone an offer but before I could they dropped out of the process. The reason they cited was that we got funding from Peter Thiel, who helped Trump get elected, and that this person could not work at a company that ultimately helped profit Theil.

There are always consequences to speech. If you advocate for allowing hate speech then people will assume that you won't take hate speech against them seriously.
You and the lawmakers opposed to that bill certainly seem 'allowed to say' whatever you want on that subject.

Let me be more clear: What does this have to do with 'What you can't say in Silicon Valley', or 'animosity towards Trump'?
Downvoting = groupthink enforcement
Is that why there is a virtual monopoly on internet connections and mobile options in Canada, and why Canadians pay some of the highest rates in the world for connectivity? Is this why Canadians only have one central news source, is the CRTC a bastion of freedom now all of a sudden? They do such a great job controling television and radio, let's trust them with the internet.
Because words and the way we use them change the world. HN is probably mainly a place of realism, but social constructs are playing an increasingly effective part in the world of politics.

On top of that it's another level of bullshit that distracts you from all the other terrible things the US government is currently doing. "They are censoring words???" - mean while the worst tax reform in US history is being passed to increase inequality to revolutionary levels.
I think they'd use 14 if they wanted to troll better.
Canadians already pay the highest fees in the world for internet access. Regulation is only going to make it more difficult for competition to emerge.

The solution to most of problems is competition, not regulation.
> If you're going to blame the Khmer rouge on communism, then you also need to factor in the conflict in the middle East, American Indian genocide, slavery and more and attribute that to capitalist philosophy.

No, actually, I don't "need" to do that.

Communists have murdered more people than any other single group in the history of the world. Sorry, but they have.

The Middle East has been a bloodbath since the dawn of recorded history, and likely before.

"American Indian genocide" had nothing to do with capitalism per se, nor does slavery have any connection whatsoever with a free market. It is, in fact, quite antithetical to it.
They are. You can feel oppressed without being oppressed and be oppressed without feeling oppressed. Second case seems to fit wiki definition of "false conciousness". Both seem to me to be just overestimating and underestimating of how much universe ows you. Both easy mistakes to make if you try to define it too precisely.
My point is that anyone can cherry pick something and turn it into a general "how can anyone support this administration" when of course the reality is more complicated. People who didn't like Obama did exactly the same thing.
> 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.

This is the exact opposite of the point being made by the blog post, which is why people think it's an awful blog post.
Elite marathoners are incredibly fast. It boggles the mind. But, for me, I'm more impressed by Camille Herron breaking the world record (men's and women's) for 100 miles in 12 hours, 42 minutes, and 39 seconds which is a 7:38/mi pace.

Running a 7:38 mile would be really fast for most adults, but to do it over 100 miles is unthinkable.
Interesting. What's your thinking for #1, #2, and #4? (I'm asking genuinely).

Another I'll add from my list: "The social costs and spillover of disruption are not fairly priced today, representing a market failure; it's a problem akin to pollution in pre-regulation 19th century manufacturing."

The election of Trump and enthusiasm to "build a wall" to protect manufacturing jobs reflects a real pain felt by a large number (maybe the majority) of Americans who are scared about their future job prospects and inability to provide for their families; many tech companies today are making their problems worse. These externalities are being foisted on society and these workers, who are not involved in the disrupting technology itself, and the companies have no obligation to pay for this cost.

An assumption that disruption will "work itself out in the long run" isn't acceptable (nor is it necessarily true). I think it's like environmental pollution in the 70's, before we had the EPA to penalize the behavior. It's also accelerating, and could reach a tipping point that would put serious risks on our political system and social fabric.
There's a bunch of decent shows made in Canada - Continuum, Orphan Black, Haven, Flashpoint, Vikings... That's only those I've seen and pretty recent ones.
Will I have to give a mobile phone number to use this cryptocurrency?
Wow. Holy cow. Why aren't doctors pushing back politically on this?
This is an inspiring piece of modern art. Btw, www.inbflat.net is the work of http://www.darrensolomon.com who has made a number of really cool projects that melt your mind a bit.
On your last one, there is also a funny story about his Hawaiian resort: https://www.theverge.com/2017/1/19/14327854/mark-zuckerberg-...
Looking for cars with Uber placards parked at superchargers?
Let's please focus on breaking up ISP Monopolies, NN-like effects would be achieved, and much more, by doing so.
It is not just those people being silenced though. It is people who stayed home, maybe their views are not quite as radical as someone who would protest, or maybe they tend to be more politically apathetic (ie most people).

When those people watch Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2017/08/14/twitter-users-identif...) and see what is happening to those people for their speech and actions, they are being silenced.

These are also probably the people more amenable to changing their views. It's got be pretty hard to swing someone with a tiki torch marching down the street, but someone who feels sympathetic to their views could maybe be reasoned with if they would talk about it.
>the researchers seem to share an uncomfortable photo

It seems like they're sweaty and exhausted, presumably from hard work in an unfamiliarly hot climate.
I'm not "denying representation", I'm saying that there aren't two sides to every issue, there are ideas which have been proven false and offer no gain from discussion.
a classic waterfall approach where somebody writes a big spec, a team spends a bunch of time implementing, and then sometime at or after the deadline, a working model is produced.

...which is actually quite suitable for the safety-critical parts of a car like the ECU and other controllers that control the actual driving aspect, but not for everything else that doesn't need such a level of process.

On the other hand, I suppose it could also be blamed on the lack of "performance is a feature" --- if they specified the radio to be as responsive as the accelerator and brake, for example.
Amazon.com: 2017 Honda Civic Reviews, Images, and Specs: Vehicles
Does this qualify:

"Use my code as you please. Just promise to contribute back any improvements you make to it."
Many people continue to be treated worse today. But those who are accustomed to dominance cannot tolerate even a single setback without screaming bloody murder. Their endurance is paltry compared to that of the historically oppressed, and their empathy and perspective even more lacking.