skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Probably not. Strong anti-abortion views are mostly religious in nature, and only for specific religious subgroups: http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/views-abou...

The evangelical absolutism around abortion is historically new. Before 1980, plenty of evangelical Christians had nuanced views on the topic: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/02/18/the-bibl...

Even some evangelical writers see this as mainly about a wedge issues used for political power, not morality: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2018/07/03/the-con-...

So I think it's no coincidence that at the same time extreme anti-abortion views came to prominence on the US right, the US right became steadily more extreme, with centrists disappearing from the Republican side of the aisle in Congress: https://xkcd.com/1127/large/

My expectation is that this, like all positive feedback loops, will eventually break, and Christians will return to historical norms. And I'd further guess that this will be aided technological advances that make extreme antiabortion views untenable. Look, for example at the question that goes something like, "In a clinic fire, would you save a five year old or a tank with 1,000 embryos?". [1] Advances in medicine, AI, copying minds, and animal uplift would provide many more examples, forcing a debate around what really makes something a legally protected person. If an AI, a human mind moved to silicon, and a dog with a 140 IQ all get citizenship, it'll harder to explain why a nonsentient fertilized human egg gets those protections.

[1] https://www.quora.com/In-the-abortion-debate-isnt-the-5-year...
Why having any of those articles anyway?
If you get a watch with an OLED screen, it can be on all the time and lit, with a black-and-white view of the next navigation instruction on screen.

Need to make sure you've got Maps installed on the watch -- I just realised the reason mine stopped doing that was that I didn't reinstall it after my last factory reset.
The point isn't that the vote itself was held in the middle of the World Cup, the point is that the time during which the public would have had informed itself about the issue and news coverage might have featured it overlapped with the time during which headlines are typically dominated by the World Cup.

This isn't unusual and it doesn't take a conspiracy theorist to see a pattern. In fact, if you don't want too much public scrutiny, this is exactly what you would want to do. Actually Germany provides a good example for where this might work because historically Germany always made it past the group stage and Germans in general tend to follow their World Cup coverage fairly closely -- and it would have worked this time, too, hadn't it been for those meddling South Koreans.
FWIW, I think you're asking a legitimate question that should be thoughtfully answered instead of downvoted. I don't know what to call it other than "internet cause fatigue" but it does happen, and I believe that there are lawmakers and bureaucrats that take advantage of it by postponing votes and/or bringing the same issue to vote down the line under a different label.
I have to say (and I am not a fan of modern copyright law at all) that I'm undecided about this law.

I guess the contrarian in me requires more analysis and reasoning than I've found in the top google search results or following some of the links posted here on Hacker News. In fact I'm aware that I often take positions based on disliking the presentation of arguments and this is a personal flaw.

But I have to say most of the pieces I read rub me up the wrong way by seemingly just repeating arguments from authority or presenting interpretations without any logical reasoning built on primary sources (i.e. the text of the directive).

Many of the pieces, even by respected sources, seem very click-baity where it seems there is competition to come up with the most apocalyptic claims. The directive will lead to the end of the internet itself seems to be the bar.

When I finally found a piece which actually quoted text from article 13, for example, it didn't seem to explicitly support many of the claims. Is there a mandate or even reference to upload filters in the text of the article? Does it reference memes at all? I'm happy to be correct if there is. But if there isn't, I don't see an obvious path from the primary text to these sort of claims.

The actual text of the article that I've seen quoted seems to simply codify the status quo that currently exists in nearly all countries. Which is that content aggregators are oblidged to cooperate with copyright holders to block copyright infringement. Google, youtube, eBay, etc., etc. have been doing this for years without "killing the internet". Don't all countries with copyright laws already provide legal mechanisms for holder to force content aggregators to remove infringing material?

If that's the case, then this is simply a typical EU directive - which just represents some sort of minimum standard based on the existing laws in the 28 countries.

As I said, I'm happy to be corrected if someone can provide an argument based on the text. Please reply with links or references instead of down voting :)
FIA doesn’t hold the commercial rights to F1 so everything related to clips etc is not handled by them. This has been getting better in F1 too after Liberty Media bought the commercial rights from Bernie. Formula One Group being be entity that holds the rights and was sold to Liberty Media for 4.4 billion in 2016.
You think making a bit crawler would nullify google

No, I don't. I didn't say anything even remotely like that. What I'm saying is that crawling is a prerequisite for all of the "... best treatment of that data to serve ads, personalise experience ..." stuff. That's why this topic matters: because if people aren't allowed to crawl (or can't do it effectively for technical reasons, but that's a subtly different issue), then they can't do anything else.

Just to be clear, I am most emphatically not saying that just building a crawler is enough to compete with Google. What I'm saying is that you can't build a competitive search engine without that "0.05%" bit because it's required to enable the other 99.95%.
... Is this reply for real? This is absurd and disingenuous. Google is one of those 30% app stores. Google/Youtube also absolutely does not cover 100% of the expenses and certainly doesn't "go out and get for you" the revenue. Google/Youtube doesn't pay anybody shit for creating the content that populates their network. Google should be on its knees thanking these content creators, not clubbing the altruistic creators of free software over the head with their insidious racket. This must be what it's like talking to Apple fanboys about paying double for overpriced garbage hardware.
...listening to BBC Radio 6 today, I was pretty shocked about how they only portrayed it in a positive light. Their spin was that it's all about making sure YouTube can no longer pretend they're not benefitting from copyrighted material being uploaded illegally, and how Paul McCartney thinks that's a great thing for artists.
For those not into the whole American exceptionalism thing, you could go with Haiti, whose revolution started in 1791 and where independence and the end of the slavery were fought for at the same time.
Well, that is racist, isn't it? I guess the point is that the bot doesn't appreciate when something's being racist for educational and historical purposes. Reminds me of Facebook taking down important but disturbing primary source journalism.
You think so? AFAICT there isn't even such a proposal being negotiated, and it had better be ready for signing this year. BINO looks like it might fail through simple lack of time.
> At issue was a part of it that referred to "merciless Indian savages".

I mean.. not sure I disagree
Two classes of human beings, slaves and fetuses, each deprived of human rights, for valid reasons in the eyes of the supporters of the respective practice.
It did:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_Trade_Act_1807

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_Abolition_Act_1833

It even pressed other countries to abolish it (not only for pure reasons, also for commercial ones, but they'd still make Machiavelli proud).
That is exactly what every multinational has been doing in the Third World for decades! Software developers in Tunisia, for instance, get paid 5k per year. If the salaries are enough to cover the cost of living then workers will be happy. 100k in SF is the same as 70k in London which is the same as 5k in Tunis.
The British banned slavery on the British Empire at the start of the 19th century. But the slave trade was banned on English soil way before that, in 1102. However, there were imported slaves in England, which got their freedom in the mid 18th century (via some court cases because slave trade etc was banned on english soil in the common law), effectively ending slavery as a whole in England. Then 50 or so years later, as the anti slave trade movement grew, this extended to the colonies and the whole empire.
Seeing how close it was I am really pessimistic about EU and further integration. I want my country to have a shot at sane copyright/patent/tax laws. If they fail I want other countries to have that shot, maybe at least one succeed and I could move there. With one centralized government there will be nowhere to run if things like UK prison-for-wrongthink or German/Spanish copyright and censorpship laws are implemented.
I do not know if this counts but:

- change default port for sshd will take away 99.9% off all random attacks.

- many copy protections may count as this. Some of them uncrypt themself before running so that it is harder to disassemble the bin file on disc. Also some more creative protections have been around, https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/5-strange-video-game-copy-prot...
This makes me think the question is better phrased the other way around. Why is SV compensation so high compared with the rest of the world?
> I just gave you a first hand account of it, and a concrete illustration of it is the current topic of discussion.

You gave an account for a single situation, which is completely different from the normal business: Being caught in a minefield under fire. Yes, there are situations where the military (or self-defense or many other things) train you to the point that muscle memory takes over and you just do what you have learned. Using that anecdote to somehow say "the whole military is" is not even a stretch anymore, it's just wrong.
> To participate in some parts of society WhatsApp is now a de facto requirement. A whole nation blindly agrees to whatever terms of use Facebook drafts.

Same if you don't have a Facebook account. Speaking of which, WhatsApp was the defacto IM standard before it was bought by Facebook. Previously it was MSN Messenger (or whatever it is called these days. Skype?) and that was horrible as well. XMMP was at least federated, and had backwards compatibility.

The advantage WhatsApp has over MSN is that the data is E2EE.

There are some people who push for an alternative called Telegram, which uses home brew cryptography instead of established standards.

Though if I look at the Mastodon drama (recently posted on HN, apparently from 2017) federated in practice can lead to fractured communities. Heck, you can even see that in the history of IRC (how EFnet and IRCnet got started).
Good news, there's a somewhat feasible looking kickstarter doing just that: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/ridebeeline/beeline-mot...
More rights compared to what?

What matters is that EU AI startups are more restricted than US startups.
Enterprise Wi-Fi at home: Reflecting on almost three years with pro gear
Presidential term limits.
Machine performs its jobs flawlessly, detects racism.
The copyright holders and their lobbyists are untiring in their push, because they only need their proposals to be successful once to go through, but we need to continuously get them voted down to retain our freedoms.

It's very much an uphill battle.
That argument scales up and down, which makes it pointless without an accompanying argument about absolute size.

Why is your country's current extent and size optimal? Why not split it up, maybe even down to sovereign towns?

Why not unify it with one of your neighbours?
Wireless Bluetooth earbuds cost about €10 and should fit even with a regular helmet.
Aren't the high US salaries themselves extremely location-specific? It's more like CA/NY vs rest of world in terms of salaries.
Citation?

Not surprising, however.
My first line is the counter.

If you do not understand the difference between neutrality and apathy, say that and I'll happily explain.

The difference is that neutrality, by itself, doesn't describe motivation (which could be apathy, but not necessarily).

As an example, if you apply that logic on countries which were neutral in WWII, that doesn't mean they were pro status quo or pro whatever the outcome was either in theory or practice. It means they have a different interest than the 2 power blocs. And if you look at who was part of Axis, you find Finland, who made a pragmatic and strategic decision due to their (recent) history with Russia.

The other line just describes the fallacy.
This Is AI [documentary]
The UK has two members on the legal affairs committee. The Labour member voted in favor of the copyright directive. The conservative member abstained.

There is very little chance that the UK will have substantially better rules than the EU post Brexit.
Great read. I credit the mises.org web site for convincing me to get out of the US stock market in 2007 and I generally like their Austrian Economics outlook.

The article is full of humor, and I understand if other people in this thread don’t like it. It would be a dull world if we all had the same philosophy of life and business.

I especially liked the opinions in the article around what motivated people to risk all to come to America.
Heterodox Academy: What Is Viewpoint Diversity?
In what way does ubiquity equate to superiority? Popularity does not confer superiority.
I'm talking about the fivethirtyeight 'percentage of winning'
Perhaps they could just tag content as racist, but still let it show - just give it a rating or visible highlight.

Perhaps also add a “historical” or “contemporary” tag.

People could opt out, but more importantly, we could see who is posting racist stuff vs. it being censored before hand and not allowing anyone to engage with the poster.

I’m not certain nerfing all social media is the answer.
Anarchist roads, rutted and muddy, are what can expediently be cut through wilderness.

Ideally, they lead to smooth and fast paved roads between and through populated places, paid for by fair contributions from all, for the benefit of all, at a reasonable price, as agreed to by the majority.

When unfairness arises, whether in the manner of compelling contributions, distribution of benefit, unreasonable price, or without majority consent, that’ll be trouble.

We’ve seen the process and results repeatedly before, so why can’t we do more about what’s happening now? Where’s the balance point? How do we find it and rest there instead of swinging wildly past it in both directions?
Well, at least with slavery, slave owners to some degree or another had to at least mitigate against the risk of revolt or uprising throughout history. I suspect fetuses might be held in higher regard if they could exert their sovereignty inside their parents womb to any sufficient degree before/during/after an abortion.
Great article! I'm a long time Anki user, and while our use patterns for Anki are a bit different, I really identify with almost everything in that article.

I highly recommend you learn and use Anki, especially if you're actively studying something (e.g., for a degree). I'm using Anki to (partially re-)learn mathematics, and it is gratifying to know that, with a reasonable amount of certainty, whatever I learn I'll actually remember for the long term (unlike when I did my CS degree).
What history teaches us about tax and anarchy in Uganda
I would argue that controversial laws have to be at least delayed in order for all the points to be address.

I would rather not change anything instead of risking broken legislation that does more harm than good.

> Google, youtube, eBay, etc., etc. have been doing this for years without "killing the internet".

Google has the infrastructure and resources to do so with YouTube, going out of its way to detect copyright infringement and to react automatically to take down notices. Smaller players don't have Google's resources.

This is not the same issue as with GDPR. Even if companies need to invest resources in being GDPR compliant, it can be argued that business models relying on the ignorance of users are criminal enterprises and that GDPR-style consent should have been asked for without having a law for it, being common sense in a world where people don't understand the repercussion of their actions when using technology.

But copyright? That's a government granted monopoly and like all government granted monopolies it can do more harm than good. It can be argued that copyright is flawed, especially given the forever extending duration, currently being life plus 70 to 120 years, which is absolutely ridiculous. Give us 20 years, like patents and then we can discuss about extra protections otherwise fuck media companies lobbying for even more protections.
Things should be taken in historical context. What's completely politically correct and progressive today will be horrific tomorrow.

A BBC exec recently criticized Monty Python for being politically incorrect (in today's terms). Of course they were on the leading edge at the time, and now they are being vilified.

Political correctness is the western equivalent of the hard-line extremists that destroy ancient art in the middle east. It's just wrong.
Cage the Mastodon
I've lived in both SF (and Berkeley) and London. Accommodation in London zone 1 is a good bit lower than SF without the same level of competition. Accommodation further out is (overall) significantly cheaper than the BART accessible parts of Oakland and Berkeley with a drastically better public transportation setup. Pretty cool and inexpensive but (by London standards) not that accessible areas like Peckham are about as long of a commute into zone 1 as my Civic Center to Berkeley BART commute, and probably much shorter once you factor in the time spent waiting on platforms at before getting on and/or a connection at 19th Street/MacArthur.

It's actually possible for me, a not-especially-good junior/mid developer to consider living alone with a <40 minute commute in London; that seemed to be a no go for guys making far more than me in SF.

All that being said, I saved a stupid amount of money in SF working on intern level wages. If your goal is to slum it and accumulate money, London does not come close.
SF is a place to go and pile up money with a get out plan in mind.
That was my thought as well, there's always something "big" going on. IMO, it would be difficult, near impossible, to coordinate votes with events, going through the bureaucracy involved etc.
ChkTeX [0] on *nix, or lacheck [1] for Windows.

[0] http://baruch.ev-en.org/proj/chktex/

[1] https://www.ctan.org/tex-archive/support/lacheck
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/11927 is the discussion when minimal OS X version for Rust was bumped to 10.7.
More interesting to me is that this reply from the editor:

>>
Editor Casey Stinnett wrote afterwards of the offending paragraph: "Perhaps had Thomas Jefferson written it as 'Native Americans at a challenging stage of cultural development' that would have been better.
>>

Seems racist as well. Not from Jefferson, but from the editor. The only real “challenge” was that the colonies wanted their land and resources and were willing to do anything it took to get them.
all about the context
Have been to our offices in Tunis, can confirm. Shit's grim, apparently their currency devalued 3-4x in the recent years, making everything absolutely dirt cheap, and their salaries worthless.

Friendliest people I've ever seen, though.
>You gave an account for a single situation, which is completely different from the normal business: Being caught in a minefield under fire

The first hand account is the former Israeli NCO paratrooper, the mine field example is just an illustration for why the military retains that style of management despite its problems.

>Using that anecdote to somehow say "the whole military is" is not even a stretch anymore, it's just wrong.

And I can clearly see you didn't actually read the whole article I linked to, and are instead trying to argue just based on my minor quotation. I really recommend you fully read it before arguing, both for your own edification and because it's really interesting.
He posts full schematics on his google+ page - https://plus.google.com/+HenrykGasperowicz

Here is the schematic for the 3LEDs & 0 switches video liked by GP - https://plus.google.com/photos/116398424278304767741/album/5...

I don't understand the electronics, but the logic is hidden inside the 9 volt battery connector.
Yes, and that's one of the problems with a zero-tolerance policy of censoring problematic speech - doing so without understanding and allowing for historical context means whitewashing history as well, because history itself is problematic in modern terms. Huckleberry Finn and Uncle Tom's Cabin have been banned from school libraries for similar reasons, missing the point entirely.
Hint: BBC is media. They'll be benefited by the change, supposedly.
We should recognize that it's both politically incorrect, and historically of it's time.

Just because something is from the pages of history, doesn't mean it should be presented as perfectly fine today - that's also wrong.
The Royal Navy, which had historical links to slavery, even ended up positioning ships in the Atlantic specifically to stop slave ships:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Africa_Squadron
Rapidly Prototype with the OSD3358 – Octavo Systems
Data Science Excuses That Businesses Shouldn’t Have to Accept – InsideBIGDATA
When a fetus does not need somebody to spend their time and pain hosting them and risk their health and life doing it, then we can talk about this.

Even if it was not a fetus but an adult with a fully formed conciousness and personality, this would be a hard demand to make, and our laws reflect that.
Qt Creator 4.7 RC Released
I'm pretty sure US startups also have to respect copyright law when mining data on the internet?
Yes. Where can one see who voted what? We have European elections coming up soon, I'd like to use this vote to inform mine.
I'm pretty sure :)
PHP 7.3 Alpha 3 Released – Phoronix
This comment gave me new perspective on my romantic relationship. Thank you. :)
Could you re-write it so that the bot (or HN readers in the current year) wouldn't detect it as racism?
Good idea and it looks good so far. I didn't test it out, but I can imagine that for some cases the fee is worthwhile. I would reduce the amount of "In the future we will implement ..." on your landing page.
You should think about creating a Wordpress plugin for this.
"Why? What in Europe could have been so horrible that rational people would risk their lives and their children's lives to escape it?

Socialism. It wasn't called socialism in those days, but that is what it was—unlimited government control and taxation of everything and everybody."

That is Mises.org in a nutshell you.
A yak shave with SGI's EFS
What does “pre-internet” have to do with “buffer overflows, double frees, dangling pointers”?

I have no evidence, but I wouldn’t be surprised if code from them had less of these since there were far fewer code jockies that just hacked together code they don’t quite understand from google search results. I think most programmers then were much more classically trained.
if your application needs to be up a lot then you will also care about memory fragmentation - as far as I know most benchmarks do not focus on such problems. You still must test it under real live conditions! No way around that.