skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> And the right to sue for redress of grievances is covered in the first amendment, for goodness sake. She didn't exercise it.

Good luck trying to sue one of the most powerful companies in history. I wouldn't dream of this.
Hopefully it would simply mean more customers for other hosting centers. If you feel that people should take up arms against AWS employees in that case then you have other problems.

Business disputes are as old as businesses and we have ways to resolve those disputes: the courts.

And be sure to read the fine print of any service or company that you are going to do business with if your business will be dependent on that other party. Avoid such dependencies as much as possible.

So yes, signing up with AWS is a calculated risk. You should know the possible downsides of that decision, and you should be aware of your position, rights and obligations as well as the terms of service.
Facebook's Zuckerberg to testify before US committee
> The created an environment where people could work hard to create their own destiny while giving themselves the ability to destroy those destinies without cause or recourse.

> It was only a matter of time until one of those furious victims took up a gun to get revenge.

I strongly disagree that given YouTube's arbitrary policies murderous retaliation was inevitable.

However, your pointing to the economic context of Ms. Nasim's grievance with YouTube is very helpful.

Before continuing, I want to clarify that whatever may have motivated Ms. Nasim to take the actions she took, I believe her actions are ultimately unjustified and unbearably tragic and that no one is responsible for what Ms. Nasim did except Ms. Nasim herself.

Concerning the economic context, the arbitrary foreclosure of a career path where the contractor (YouTuber?) has little to no recourse over her livelihood highlights problems with the unequal power between platform and content generator.

I believe platform owners (like YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, etc.) have the ability to make matters more equitable. Attempting to make platforms that rely on user-generated content more equitable undoubtedly will present new challenges, but such consideration for the people whose labor a platform depends for its existence is the moral and ethical thing to do.

Giving content generators more power over the monetization of their content is the right thing to do.

EDIT: add a "the"
Show HN: I made a Chrome extension to reveal zero-width characters
World Record Paper Airplanes
Wow, memories! MUF taught me stack architecture. I remember printing out reams of its documentation (diagrams in ASCII art, IIRC) on paper and reading through it for fun, just trying to wrap my head around how this crazy thing was supposed to work.
Pure psis are, but no one plays pure psis - usually you combo it with shifter, warrior, or some other fighting class. Drain mana alone makes psi worth taking in a multi-class.
Sometimes I wonder if YouTube should cut their losses regarding this whole revenue sharing thing. It's so far caused so much grief and losses for them and it doesn't seem to be able to sustain high quality content like it was intended to. Perhaps they should just leave YouTube to go back to its roots where people were just video sharing for sharing's sake and perhaps focus the money on YouTube Red where they can just buy high quality shows outright
People need to realize that YouTube and all social media are "person farms" that use the public to create their platform's attractiveness and value. The only purpose of you being on social media is to generate money for the platform, through any means the company can devise with the information you (un)knowingly give them for free.

Any platform claiming to pay you (real money or virtual currencies or "likes/points/karma") for activities on their site are creating dependent persons, and for those with less (less economic opportunity, less experience, and less experience with fraud) become unnaturally dependent upon these platforms. It is a shameful scam that moral persons should recognize on sight and shun. But our lack of critical thought today has people wholly unaware of these predators in our society, and the dependent persons they are collecting as economically disadvantaged and unaware slaves.
If you thought investing your future in internet videos was a good idea, I'd stay away from cryptocurrency.
Yes, those are just assumptions more or less, although I'm guessing all those points could be valid aspects of the narrative. Primarily it's just annoying that a complex situation is condensed down to "it's because her videos were 'de-monetized'".

It seems you take offense with me singling out the PETA connection however. But it was just an example of how certain advocacy groups are not afraid to stir up hate, PETA is not alone there. I honestly do think it needs to be included in the analysis of these shootings however, but as I said in the original post, not as a single explaining factor and finally; not sure at this point if it is really applicable here.
"I suspect that the DoD did accept the decision after the RFC was submitted"

You suspect that an enormous Federal bureaucracy "accepted" something but it isn't written down anywhere? Does that sound right to you?

If you mean "accept" in the tacit sense that they can't do anything about it now, well, of course, that's why I called it "hijacking". I can't do anything about the fact I'll be home late when my bus is hijacked, but let's not pretend I've "accepted" the new destination and somehow now the nutjob with a gun has my permission to take it there.

Funny thing about OIDs, everything that needs to enumerate things and touches any of the ISO/ITU X series standards uses OIDs, yes, still in 2018 and presumably forever. For example you might have noticed that TLS 1.3 is now (probably) finished. Grep through that and you'll find it mentions all the OIDs you need to use to make it work, and introduces OID filters so that you can write key-value matches for client certificates like "I only want client certs which have the following policy OID".

OIDs are fine, there is no reason to create a new parallel system that would work the same way and presumably either duplicate the OID hierarchy or try to displace it.
Thanks Steve, the underlying auth/storage technology is open source: https://github.com/blockstack.

We are planning to open source our code in due time.

One of the cool aspects of our tool is there are no servers involved. Everything runs client side and the lookups are done with de-centralized zonefiles on the blockchain.
Without addressing any of the actual arguments..

>Any webserver will be happy to serve up .mp4 content. There are free players (JWPlayer for instance) and you are entirely free to serve up whatever you want from your own hosted service.

This echos the classic dropbox comment, "you can just do it yourself". A layperson isn't going to.

>That capricious decision can be appealed, you can take Youtube to court if you feel they have wronged you.

You can sue whoever you want, but you will lose due to lack of resources.

> Because it never was theirs in the first place

As the facebook controversies have show, people have a remarkably bad time using common sense and making rational decisions on the internet, so while you are totally correct, its silly to assume people think that way.
Sci-fi author Greg Egan's comical crusade against Google, to remove misinformation about him:

http://www.gregegan.net/ESSAYS/GOOGLE/Google.html
Should you turn off your A/C system before shutting off your car's engine?
Then other customers would be worried and might decide to move away? That's the key difference here, you're paying for AWS, you're not paying for Youtube. On top of that if you find that Youtube doesn't pay you enough then... Well, there's not much you can do since you'll probably earn even less on other platforms.

AWS on the other hand has plenty of competition, as long as you don't willingly lock yourself into their platform you'll be fine.
Who decides what is notable? You? Google? Some jerk who has it in for me?

Any system that functions as a gatekeeper to full participation in society needs accountability.
That would suck for many people, but would totally be in their right. Again - how are people confused about this. If AWS drops you as a customer use an alternative. Moreover, these people's videos are still hosted on YouTube's servers.
The best way to handle test failure is read the output in detail and see why. If it’s performance (not fast enough) then I usually found that I’d missed a point in the lectures that greatly sped things up. None of the solutions require careful hand optimization, they are well designed to require the right algorithm and data representation. Another problem you may run into is correctness. Some of the tests have tricky edge cases and you can try to see from the test output what that case is and simulate it yourself. You’re not crazy though, some of the exercises are hard and I asked for help in the forums when I got stuck .
Thanks SpaceLab, please reach out to us at support@stealthy.im

Also, let us know about the login bugs, we are looking to constantly improve the tool :)
It's strange to look back on peoples' perceptions of people online 15+ years ago compared to now. Today, it's totally normal to meet other people online, but back then, most people (who weren't part of online communities) though everyone online was catfishing.
And what valid grievance would that be?
what was the similar feature Apple wanted to release?
It seems far harder than it really is to forego Facebook completely.
>Discussions about YouTube's monetization policies shouldn't even be part of the story.

Features of the environment that lead troubled people to lash out should certainly be a part of the story.
> Youtube and its employees are the victim here.

No. The employees are the victim. Youtube? Not at all, save for a day of missed work. Them cutting off a person off their income without any way of appeal caused the whole chain of events in the first place.
From what I understand, this is an example of the issues of algorithms not being able to understand context. We would obviously want to discourage animal cruelty, but graphic depictions of animal cruelty from an anti-cruelty perspective also get the crackdown. It could lead to a scenario where bad things continue to happen just because any depiction of them is filtered as advocating for it.

At the risk of drumming up unneeded controversy, it reminds me of when Marine Le Pen in France tweeted graphic images from ISIS actions as a rallying cry against them, only to be charged by the state with circulating violent content inciting terrorism ( https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/01/marine-le-pen-... ). Without proper application of context and judgment, a terrorist spreading propaganda and an anti-terrorist illustrating the terrorist's propaganda would be seen as the same sort of thing.

Of course, there's no simple solution -- we wouldn't want a world in which someone could get out of responsibility for spreading needlessly graphic content just by saying "oh I was just spreading it for educational purposes!".

Can automated processes ever hope to achieve the nuance we need in our societies?
If it wasn't a gun it could have been a knife. Or like the epidemic over seas, a bunch of acid thrown on peoples faces. We don't know how she got the gun, but in America, if you have no criminal background, haven't done anything crazy, and they do a background check, you can purchase a weapon. You can't ban crazy, and until we have some way of seeing into the future, you can't stop all crimes. Also, our gun ownership in America has absolutely exploded. Like doubled. And have shootings and killings doubled? Nope.
Made me think of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simone_(2002_film)
"Hitler followed a vegetarian diet. At social events he sometimes gave graphic accounts of the slaughter of animals in an effort to make his guests shun meat."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler#Health
Or if you don't have a Debian stable system at hand:

Go to https://packages.debian.org/stable/beep and download files from the "Download Source Package" section.

If you're only interested in the patch, get this one: http://security.debian.org/debian-security/pool/updates/main...
The problem is that unlike the Internet which is lossless, the telephone network is lossy and there is no standard as to how much loss is acceptable.

Even if all your equipment and your telco's equipment is perfect (which it isn't), all it takes is one single weak link in the call chain (from a cheap carrier somewhere) to completely slaughter the audio quality by passing it through some bad equipment or even analog equipment.

The telco industry is the total opposite of the Internet industry - in the net most of the technologies, standards, etc are open, there is mostly a culture about sharing and openness, and while proprietary solutions exist, they are often much better as far as complying with standards goes, and open-source solutions are competitive as well (any Linux or BSD box can be used as a router).

The telco world is the opposite, lack of openness, the standards, if they exist, are often under NDAs, lots of security by obscurity, a lot of scammers selling proprietary gear ("magic boxes" as I call them) that respect the standards to the bare minimum or sometimes don't even try (which leads to lots of fun when two different magic boxes both claim to support the standard and yet fail in mysterious ways when trying to interoperate). An example would be a magic box that only supports G711 (a crappy low-bitrate codec), so even if the call chain is full IP and all the other boxes support better codecs (or even yet, just handle SIP singling and let the peers talk directly via IP), the call quality would be limited by that one magic box that insists on G711. The lack of openness and knowledge prevents people from making an informed decision and they have no choice but to trust the salesman that their magic box is best. Open source solutions aren't up to scratch either, Asterisk (and derivatives) is a start in the right direction but frankly doesn't really scale and has problems when you try to make it highly-available.

I wish the telco world would just die and we move to SIP with media directly over IP, that would eliminate all those problems. SIP is already used within VoLTE and Wi-Fi calling but a magic box within the carrier's network (the P-CSCF as they call it) will often still insist on re-encoding the media stream instead of letting the packets flow between the two phones directly, so you're still at the mercy of whatever codecs that box supports. Calling outside your carrier will involve another magic box that will bridge your SIP call to the other carrier's network, via legacy garbage E1/T1 links with crappy codecs (instead of you know, just using SIP and letting the packets flow directly).

If you have good equipment throughout the entire call chain, that ideally does not interfere with the media itself (so the RTP stream is direct between the two phones), and the phones both support a good codec (Opus?), you could have MP3-quality calls.
Well, if her experience is representative of other folks, then I suppose it is a problem. But is it one that a new interface could fix? I believe that it's possible, but it's not obvious to me how it would be improved. I'm not experienced at all in UI/UX design.

> The difference between her and most Reddit users is that she was determined to get active on Reddit: she kept trying for weeks.

I don't understand -- she persisted and others who use reddit don't/didn't? Meaning they don't need to apply significant effort and she did? Does that mean that it's somehow intuitive to them and not her? I feel like I am missing the point you're making.
You're saying it like it hasn't already happened. Most models already are carefully crafted images, with a lot of post-processing happening so what you end up seeing is more of an art piece inspired by the model than the person behind it.

Un-lifelike famous characters are already very much a thing, especially in e.g. japan where there's characters appearing everywhere.
+1 for nethack
You could argue that since Youtube has created a public forum for others to work in, they should be held to different standards than a regular private company. I.e. Youtube should be regulated as infrastructure and thus can not longer unilaterally changes rules or make judgements based on those rules.
If you search her name on twitter, around 40% of what you see is right wing conspiracy theorists who assert, without evidence, that she was a member of ISIS. I also noticed a smaller percentage of people asserting, again without evidence, that she was an NRA member. And neither appear to be true.

How do these get spread on Twitter? Are partisans mindlessly voting them up? Are bots behind this?

Man, do I feel stupid for thinking the internet would be a force for good. That it would promote democracy, free speech, and critical thinking.

I look at Facebook and Twitter, and the bad greatly outweighs the good. I chose a career in web dev, thinking I would be doing something beneficial, but everything we've done amounts to nothing.
> This echos the classic dropbox comment, "you can just do it yourself". A layperson isn't going to.

Then you will have to live with being dependent on the whims of another entity. Which means you give up a lot of your freedoms.

> As the facebook controversies have show, people have a remarkably bad time using common sense and making rational decisions on the internet

This wasn't 'on the internet', this was about as IRL as it gets.
In every thread - every single thread - there's some euro guy with this exact comment verbatim. Line for line, word for word.
I guess you have short-term amnesia, because I just explained why I think the grievance is valid in the post you replied to.
F.lux for example.
My thoughts as well, but still an interesting article.
In my experience, the class syntax has been more bad than good. Devs with experience in other languages simply start writing classical OOP code without realizing the ramifications of what they are doing.

Unless you are creating thousands of rigidly structured instances (never adding/removing properties or changing property types), you are almost always going to be better off using the factory pattern instead where you get other benefits like no `new` and real privacy.
Ubuntu, one of the largest Linux distros, does Long-Term Support (LTS) releases with a 5 year release cycle [1].

Things break on Ubuntu for those addicted to upgrades (me!).

In my preferred DE, KDE/Plasma, I can't recall ever needing to use command line for normal user level configurations.

[1] https://www.ubuntu.com/info/release-end-of-life
Can't you just use a whitelist of allowable characters?
Only if you have a version that exists outside Steam. If a game has been installed through Steam, it must have the Steam client running to play.
I don't understand why it's a problem at all. Can't YouTube enact settings for advertisers to choose which videos they want to advertise on. Some of the obvious things to filter could be video category, view count, number of likes/dislikes, comments. Instead of demonetizing channels, they could tag them controversial and allow advertisers to say they don't want to advertise on controversial channels. Seems a lot better than a blanket ban on advertisements.
What does “most explicit ways” mean? Do you mean in the most straightforward language possible, with as much jargon as possible removed? Do you mean extremely patient exposition? Do you mean a first principles approach that builds advanced probability theory, linear algebra and statistics from set theory, then dives into machine learning?

Murphy’s Machine Learning: A Probabilistic Perspective is just over 1000 pages long. It’s an exceptionally good book for the mathematical theory behind machine learning. What would this book look like under your proposal? If we add in Axler’s Linear Algebra Done Right and Chung’s A First Course in Probability Theory, we’re adding another 350 pages or so each. Both of those books have prerequisites, and Murphy’s book isn’t the top either.

In my opinion your proposal is unrealistic, yes. I don’t mean for that to sound harsh, I just don’t see a way to achieve what you’re asking for without making a monolithic tome larger than Knuth’s The Art of Computer Programming, and potentially even more diverse in scope.
It is not the right place to discuss this issue in the context of this shooting, and I accept if I am downvoted for it, but since you answered in general, I'd like to point out that I generally disagree.

In my point of view, it can be reasonable and morally justified to subject companies that manage to obtain a quasi-monopoly on some form of information distribution to rules that go beyond of what is required for a company merely by law, or even to adjust the law in order to better protect those companies' users.

I would consider it fair and reasonable, for instance, to demand of Facebook, Youtube, and similar platforms (incl. app stores with quasi-monopoly status on a given platform) to be fair, to not manipulate content in favour of the company's political ambitions, in favour of obviously immoral or of decidedly anti-democratic agendas. I also think it is fair and reasonable to expect these companies to remove dangerous, illegal, or decidedly anti-democratic content, to remove radical propaganda, and so on, within reasonable limits. And it is also reasonable and fair to expect or even regulate these companies to adequately compensate content-providers, since they de facto act as their publishers, make money of this content, and have besaid quasi-monopoly. I also think that companies that hold some quasi-monopoly over some information channel should be held to higher standards than those for which there are many viable alternatives, since the former are closer to being utilities. (What constitutes a quasi-monopoly or enough of a monopoly is, of course, another, quite debatable question.)

Obviously, none of this justifies any kind of violence, and the shooter was deranged and most likely wrong about her perceptions of her supposedly unfair treatment. But I couldn't let your statement stand on its own, since I believe it to be wrong in general. This is a debatable standpoint, of course, but there should be a debate. To give another example, I really don't think that Google should be allowed to skew their search results as they see fit, e.g. to influence elections in various countries, just because they are a private company and using Google search is free.
Youtube is a valuable platform in no small part due to content creators, and they recognize that, which is why they have a revenue sharing program to begin with. It's disingenuous to compare those content creators to panhandlers.

I agree that they should realize it's a volatile system and prepare for downswings, but that doesn't make them beggars.
I don't think he was defending the shooting but rather the fact that many so-called "pro" Youtubers feel like they're getting shafted.

I think you built a strawman that makes it harder to discuss because you seem to equate "being unhappy with Youtube's monetization scheme" with supporting that shooter which is obviously inane. I doubt anybody here is saying that you should go shoot Google HQ if you're unhappy with their ToS.

For the record I don't think people complaining about Youtube's monetization are right anyway, begging a tech giant for lunch money is not a viable business model. If you think you ought to be paid for your content then you should try to work together with other content producers to create your own platform where you get the share of the profit you deem fair. You need Youtube more than they need you.