skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I don't get it.

You make reference to a legal system that precisely defines what is or isn't legal, and then give an example of a company who were legal, but who got prosecuted / sued anyway, and who lost.

Law is not just the acts and statutes, it's case law too. We have strong guiding principles in GDPR, and we have mostly clear direction for what is or isn't acceptable. And now we wait for regulation to happen.

> so massive fines!".

No. "We don't like it, so here's a letter telling you what we don't like, with suggestions for current best practice". At that point you either change to come into compliance, or you write back and explain why you think you are in compliance. European regulators (at least the ones in the UK) try to avoid fines. The UK's ICO has never used their maximum fine, and there have been some serious data breaches in the UK.
The same was true for technical articles on databases. Just factually incorrect information, and lots of marketing. Tried to fix it, but there were a few people more devoted than I was, and it became too much of an effort to play the revert/lawyer game just to get consistent articles with similar information across all databases.
Accept. AKA, "You will comply."

P.S. If I could afford it, I would have started putting everything I do behind shell companies, years ago.

Not because I resent taxes. I still believe "you get what you pay for" -- as long as you are also paying some attention and care to what is being purchased. (You can't "outsource" your care and involvement.)

But because I value my privacy and autonomy. And a fair playing field -- everyone gets e.g. insurance protection and banking services. And you don't get dinged for being friends with someone with a less than stellar social metric (e.g. past conviction, done their time, being a decent person, now).

I wouldn't feel the need for the shell companies, except in response to the way "business" and data mining have been going.
If you use a third-party, they would be acting as your data processor. You'd need to make sure you have a contract with them that ensures they're respecting GDPR as well.

I agree with others that you should self-host whenever possible. It will simplify these questions and you'll be able to fully protect your users' data yourself.
US it's not jailing its own people for holding beliefs the government doesn't like. If China is doing that to its own citizens, what should other countries expect from China?

US has its own issues but as long the people are free to talk about them and hold FREE elections I'm sure they can/will find solutions.

Do you fancy a ruler for life? Go to China or other such countries that I won't name! Live a life ruled by people you can't even speak bad about even if they make your life miserable.
There are a lot of obsessive people on Wikipedia. Back in the days when I was an active editor, I was regularly embroiled in edit wars with somebody who had odd but extremely firm opinions about the romanization of Okinawan (not a political topic even in Japan) and what appeared to be 24/7 ability to enforce them. I suspect quite a few of those shut-in "hikikomori" types are top Wikipedia editors...

All that said, checking the manual of style in question today, I'm positively surprised to see the weirdness is gone. This is a strength of Wikipedia: over time entropy of opinion tends to decrease, even though it may take years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Japa...
I don't know how good or bad the German definition of hate speech is, my point was more that even if there is or were no precise definition, it would still not be a huge problem. This just seems to be a rather popular misconceptions that laws require and are not useful without perfect definitions for everything. In reality there is a lot for variation, some things are totally nailed down, some things are intentionally left open to interpretation.
Why would such isolstionalism work now when it failed so horribly during the interwar era?
You are confusing edits with articles.

Deletionists tend to confuse their personal ignorance (often of a website called "Google" [yes I know how notability works, no that's not an argument against not bothering to even trivially check whether an article can be improved rather than deleted]) with a mandate to sabotage Wikipedia.

People who remove cruft from articles, rather than speedy deleting articles that aren't about Pokemon, are not deletionists and should not be invoked as human shields for deletionists.
> Do a geolookup, you have my approximate location.

Nowhere near "personally identifiable" nor necessarily correct in any way.

> Do a Google search for my IP address and you'll have my name.

That would be highly unusual.
> I find it interesting that platforms are liable for hosting hate speech, but individual users are not liable for creating it.

NetzDG only regulates how platforms that get a lot of complaints about content that is already illegal under existing criminal code have to handle and report those complaints.
Yes, I have read most carefully. And I have also talked to one of the admins, as you can see.

Obviously, things are not adding up. We can both agree on that much ;-)

What I don't quite get is why fivefilters.org is interested?
Not, unless you life in a war zone..?
Brad Pitt Appears as Vanisher in Deadpool 2 for a Reason
Alright I'm going to have to disagree specifically on that point. I otherwise agree with your argument that there's no homogenous "they" banding together (And there's an article for that, even! [0] And an article nuancing that view too. [1])

But I emphatically take issue with the idea that it's reasonable to shut down what sounds like, in your words, "very legitimate concerns" instead of guiding the concerned users through the proper process, fostering a healthy discussion.
If I'm being harsh, isn't that the role of an admin, someone who should know better?

It's important to follow rules, and I could ironically cite you a dozen Wikipedia guidelines that argue for[4][5][6][7] or against[8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] the idea that not following proper process should get your concerns shut down.

But one of the founding and most important principles of Wikipedia[2] is precisely that it has no firm rules.
What it has are guidelines that have been found to work well, and policy that one is expected to follow unless there is a reason not to.

The moment that heavily codified process is used by experienced editors against less experienced ones or against people who have a legitimate concern, that is not helpful process and not a fair or acceptable outcome.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_Is_No_Cabal

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CABAL

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:5P5

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:LAWYER

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOCOMMON

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RECKLESS

[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CAUTIOUS

[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:EXPECT

[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:IAR

[9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BOLD

[10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SNOWBALL

[11] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOTBURO

[12] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOTFATRAT

[13] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:COMMON

[14] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:REASONABILITY

[15] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:PRINCIPLE
Penetration Testing Requirements for GDPR
Global Food Security: A Primer
For (ii) what do you use instead of probabilities? And for (iii) what changed for you to think this doesn't improve over time?
It's not like that at all. Here, you are actually opening the door and looking at what's behind it. Over and over again, knowing it's prohibited, for the purpose of getting data you know you're not supposed to have access to.
Compare that with China where you don't even have the right to talk about government abuse.
megapreviouslies: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=xi%20editor&sort=byDate&prefix...
Costwise it could be a simple matter of giving the software away and a cheap Chromebook. Creating the software is less complicated than what they are trying to do now and Google could easily justify the cost by the amount of data they could collect and getting a foothold in thousands of small businesses.
[Kotlin] Any Plan for Supporting Language Server Protocol
No-one is suggesting having no market forces anywhere. Market forces are an excellent way of ensuring a good selection of high quality fruit in a fruit market. And they may well be a good way for deciding who manufactures, supplies and operates the buses in a city. I just don’t think they are efficient for deciding when, where and how often the buses should operate as this experiment was tried in the U.K. across many cities outside London in the 80s and it led to chaos. As to examples of centrally planned public transport, London Underground, Paris Metro, Berlin U-Bahn. The only example of centrally planned transport I can think of that’s not operating effectively is the New York subway, but that’s because of a general problem of political corruption in the US. None of these systems operate without market forces, because they use them for things like purchasing trains, cleaning services, engineering designs. They just don’t use them for planning when and where the services operate.
No, you can't edit, even simple spelling mistakes get reverted regularly. It's designed to be an overly byzantine bureaucracy to discourage edits so a relatively small group can maintain control. Remember if 100 million people made meaningful contributions daily there would be no way to maintain that control.

Arguably that works well, but it's almost meaningless to call it a wiki.
Are there actually people on the other side of this argument? Like, is there someone who is saying "Immediately do a root cause analysis — just that, and nothing else — no matter what the situation is"? This seems obvious on the same level as "a piece of kale is not suitable for use as a pacemaker."
As an end user, I don't care what language a program is written in. I care about features, usability, accessibility and many other things- but not how you did it.

Maybe you've got something awesome here, but you had only a few seconds to catch my interest with your subtitle, and you instead used it to tell me what part of it you love rather than what part of it I will love. Don't do that.
Probably, they don't want to find them.
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&doc...

That's the detailed version of the ruling. The ruling refers to IP adresses with time and date, as explained in point 37.
Right now China doesn’t really have an outlet to the wider pacific in case of war. They are blocked by Taiwan, Japan, Korea, Russia and the whole of Southeast Asia. If they could control the whole SCS, or retake Taiwan, then their submarines would get out without assured detection.

So it’s not just national pride, there is a huge strategic element at play also.
The thing with defense is that even without the ABM treaty, we don't have an effective defense. MIRVs will always be cheaper than single shot ABMs, and their reliability is too low to rely on in the event of a second strike. That's what I meant by it being a reality.

People do of course adopt it as a strategy as well. But if effective defense tech existed I don't think the strategy would hold. The US abandoned the ABM treaty even without such technology.

As for your first point, it's true that MAD didn't really conclusively come into force until submarines. But there were efforts before then to maintain a second strike capability, such as keeping a certain percentage of bombers in the air, preparing them for fast takeoff, etc

Maybe not 100% assured second strike, but the basic idea was the same
Fair enough, I can just remove that sentence I suppose. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The internet is a fickle mistress.

edit: Nevermind, I can't. Guess the edit threshold is somewhere under 2 hours. Oh well.
> For instance displaying a Swastika is perfectly legal if you don't "objectively" use it to "promote (the) national socialism".

Yet the chilling effects are real, leading to silly examples of censorship. Particularly in new mediums such as video games - most famously Wolfenstein 3D. The Bundesprüfstelle für jugendgefährdende Medien (BPjM) / Jugendschutzgesetz (JuSchG) has made some questionable decisions in the past.

I agree that "hate speech" has a different connotation than Volksverhetzung (particularly in this day and age), and it's a bit more nuances than the article presents it.
What's wrong with "we have one million users. You are ranked 45698th. The one below you is proplaya92, the one above you chose to have his name redacted" (but we can tell you his playtime on all characters, his k/d ratio, etc).
High correlations with immense statistical significance don't imply any one path of causation, but they do imply causation is involved. That doesn't mean A causes B, it may mean D causes A and B, etc. But mere coincidence isn't plausible when your statistical base number in the millions and the effect is large (as this was.) We agree that correlation and causation aren't the same word or concept - I never said anything different, nor would.

I'm proposing a possible explanation (as you have also done!), not claiming proof; you seem to be confusing a claim of evidence (which may indeed be false or misleading, but remains evidence) with a claim of proof. These are different things, esp in Science post-Popper, although conflating the two is very popular, even by scientists, today! I haven't said other explanations are impossible. That's always so. But you might want to argue for your view by finding other supporting evidence.

For example, pro your view, a much better argument on your side is that there was no possibility in those days of controlling for fetal alcohol syndrome - it hadn't been discovered yet. In fact Vernon's studies of Aboriginal IQs also preceded that discovery and FAS turned out to explain most of the lower IQs effect he measured amongst Native populations.

I've added an unecessary "!" here just 'cause you did.
I've experienced this in terms of general problem solving abilities as well. A car accident has me suffering from TOS (Thoracic Outlet Syndrome) which triggers severe pain down my left arm after sitting at a desk for 20minutes. Once the pain starts, i find that my productivity and thinking ability takes a nose dive despite my attempts to look past it. Chronic pain is truly debilitating.
PostgreSQL Hex Editor
It's certainly possible. There are plenty of people who have been assigned (usually small) subnets (e.g., a /28 or /29) and have their name, address, phone number, etc., publicly available via WHOIS. (For "residential customers", it was acceptable to not publish their personal details, however.)

I'm not sure about the other RIRs but ARIN, at least, has (had?) a requirement that any assignment of a /29 or larger must be reported (see "SWIP" [0]).

In other cases, a PTR RR for a single IP address could be enough to personally identify an individual.

[0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_Whois_Project
Is this basically maglev at the point where the body meets the chassis?
That's a definitionally selfish attitude. I love the fact that it's written in Rust!
saying that "anyone can edit wikipedia" is identical to saying that anyone can contribute to the linux kernel. Its both true and false depending on how you look at it.

Yes, anyone can send in a patch.

No, only a very small subset of the world population has the knowledge and experience to create a patch that gets accepted.

Yes, they do want more contributors and want to encourage all users to contribute.

No, they can not accept all patches.
On HN, you can just "star" the paste at the beginning and end.

One puzzling feature of the shift register is that there is no wiring between the stages! How do bits get from one stage to the next? Did the chip have another layer of wiring that wasn't in the photos? Was there some sort of hidden connection? Eventually I noticed that there wasn't an isolation ring between the stages—a silicon barrier that separated most I2L circuits. Without this isolation ring, an "invisible" PNP transistor exists between the stages, apparently allowing one stage to flip the next stage to the right value. Each shift-register stage is constructed from two NAND-gate latches. When the clock is low, the first latch is forced into an indeterminate state. When the clock goes high, the latch ends up as 0 or 1 based on the bias it receives from the previous stage through the "invisible" PNP transistors. Thus, the latch becomes edge-sensitive since it will change right on the clock's rising edge. I found a paper ("Injection-Coupled Synchronous Logic", 1978) that describes a similar technique for an I2L shift register9, so I think this is the right explanation, even though the circuit seems a bit sketchy.
I don't view progress as binary. That some things are worse now than in the past is a banal and uninteresting point, but it's clear that the world is much better now than it was even 50 years ago for the average person by virtually any metric that matters: number of people living in poverty, childhood mortality, life expectancy, chances of being persecuted for your religion, race, or sexual orientation. The list goes on.

There are obviously tons of problems still but the improvements that have been made are vast. I get that we still have a lot of progress to make, but the cynicism of the person I was replying to is inappropriate when you look at the facts.
Bah, looks like SnoopSnitch requires root access (and a Qualcomm chipset in the phone) for most/all of the interesting mobile network tests, which is a shame.
> Sure, but is such a school giving their child any actual advantage?

I think so. It puts them in touch with other rich children from all around the world.
Thanks, that's interesting. I like to read the article before commenting, but I don't usually go a level deeper!
The developer didn't post this.
That's entitled and in my view just plain wrong. I want people to tell me why they think something is technically cool on hacker news. Even if what's cool is how it's built and doesn't matter to the user at all. And when I personally don't care for it I just move on.
>It doesn't generate a global optimum (which is impossible...)

Assume a preference function P(s: student, x: school) -> [0,1]. Consider a matching M(s: student) -> x: school. We can define the utility U{M} = sum[s over all students](P(s, M(s)). The function M which maximizes U may not be unique.

Now consider a random weighting function W(s: student) -> [0,1]. For any r >= 0, we can consider the r-biased utility under X to be U(r, W){M} = sum[s over all students]((1 + r W(s))P(s, M(s))). I then define an optimal matching under the weighting X to be the pair (M, r) such that:
-U(r, W) has a unique matching which produces a maximal utility, which is M
-for all q < r, q >= 0, U(q, W) either does not have such a matching or the matching is equivalent to M

Of course if a matching exists for r = 0 then no weighting is required, but this is not guaranteed even for only two students going to two schools.

Anyway, since M is a global maximum of U(W, r) in the space of matching functions, it is automatically Pareto-optimal, thus solving the swapping question. And because it is not possible to predict r without knowing everyone's preferences and the weighting function, gaming the system should be intractable without supernatural intervention. It is also optimal with respect to W because bias is minimized, although optimizing over possible choices of W is intractable. One way to generate W(s) is to perform a Fisher-Yates shuffle and assign W(s_0) = 1/S, W(s_1) = 2/S, etc, where S is the number of students. In this case an optimal matching is guaranteed to exist in the limit of large r (proof left as an exercise to the reader).

However, I do not have a procedure to calculate (r, M) for minimal r.
Solved by getting a good office manager.

In theory, I guess.

But -- getting back to the original subject -- for some reason during interviews the odds that you'll get an inadequately stocked and clean whiteboard seems to be almost laughably high.

Consistent with the observation that in many places, the seem to almost make a point of the importance of positive candidate experience in so many other ways (from poorly prepared interviewers to inappropriate / irrelevant questions to stalling and ghosting, and on and on).
I think the large reason is that many people are not at all reflective. They are not trying their best to objectively evaluate their situation and the problems they have.

When you are an owner of a business this is really dangerous situation to be in, because there is no external oversight and no easy way to get feedback. I think this create this delusional type of business owner we can sometimes observe say in Hell's Kitchen. These are real people.
Just google the news, you'll find the description of Block 5 and what it means there; and previous articles will tell you how many refurbishments have been made and what relaunches have been performed, and whether there are or aren't SpaceX announcements of price drops. FWIW, the first stage (which is the only reusable stage now) “represents close to 60% of the cost" of a launch.

If you want more detail, you'll want to find a transcript of Musk's teleconference with reporters on May 10 2018.

Now what are your sources, sir, that justify your scorn, certainty and incivility?
While it's far from flawless, that is the point of having a democratic process.
We used to moderate supports of the Wiki Foundation (4 figures a year) and dropped in recent years. It does seem rudderless.
We are at datacenter business and we rent hardware/vps. For our case, lawyer at our company said that IP is personal data only when it is written in contract, i.e. when you lease a server and we assign you a static IP. In other cases you cannot create a 1:1 mapping between IP address and physical person. Even when that IP is assigned to a household - still that cannot be PII because multiple people may use that IP.
HUD pulls tool used to identify segregation in communities
It's all very Kim Stanley Robinsonesque in his climate-change trilogy where there are so many US Shadow agencies that they are constantly getting in each other's way.
But wouldn’t it have been faster to check out the site than to write this comment..?
Most of US media, both traditional and social, is critical of our government nearly every day right now. The government's clearly not in control of the barrage of information we face everyday.

Some have argued that people in the US are brainwashed by the media, but that theory can't explain how Trump won.
The title is derived from the title and subtitle on the page, as per the HN guidelines which require using the page's title. The subtitle is on a Github page, where the language it's written is a very relevant fact for potential contributors.

(I'm not the one who posted this, but I was a Xi contributor)
From everyone that uses Wikipedia a subset has made an edit. And within that subset an even smaller fraction is part of the inner circle that has some ideas about Wikipedia's culture. The Chinese Communist Party is vast, but it still qualifies as an inner circle, even though that onion has plenty of layers.
Exactly which part of this is supposed to help the ship that just hit an iceberg and is in the process of sinking?

If your answer is "the relevant committee would have met before the accident" or "the committee would reduce / mitigate future accidents," you have missed GP's point.
I've never understood how railways can be privatised; it's a natural monopoly. I can't decide I want to compete with this rail line and build my own rail line (at least in most circumstances). And a London-Edinburgh line is not in competition with a London-Newcastle line.