skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> But from what I gather Alex is an entertaining quack who is ultimately harmless except in the sense that his message is subversive to the “wrong” groups.

"Jones insisted that the kids’ deaths were a great hoax, a performance staged by gun-control activists backed by the American government. As a result of that, Noah Pozner’s family says, they have been stalked and subjected to death threats by Jones’s legions of epistemically gullible yet digitally savvy followers—a fact that has, doxxing by doxxing, forced them to move seven times over the past five years, ever farther away from the body of their slain son."

https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2018/08/th...
You could use 'git diff -U0' which shows no lines of context. Or you could just search for "DONTCOMMIT" (which is what your example used).
Theory is good for books, but for life we need practical solutions.

An automated system that scans friends galleries to find my face in their galleries maybe would be helpful. Then I would see who uses my face in what context, so I can react; maybe send a polite request to remove me from the picture, set it as private, or simply remove the picture from the gallery?

Or maybe an approach based on spreading disinformation would be enough, so I could produce fake photos of my face with other randomly chosen faces from all over the internet, so that face-gathering systems will store fake relations between me and some random people?

There are lots of methods we can use to defend ourselves.

The "ban something" approach works only for parties that are willing to cooperate. But it's not the cooperative parties that we should be afraid of, it's the uncooperative ones.
I guess I am worried that as the societal norm for allowing ideological differences to be expressed degrades that it will leak into politics in the form of hate speech laws. We are starting to have fully private struggle sessions on Twitter, using such tools to sick the mob on opponents. A new sort of bully pulpit.

I am not sure any populist politician has quite realized this power. Trump has to an extent but he has no backing from anyone in media, education, or most government employees. Now that Trump has broken so many tacit rules, I fear a charismatic leftist populist would be able to nationalize these private struggle sessions and vastly amplify his or her power.

The mob has not been a force in politics for a long time. I fear a resurgence.
I switched from MoviePass last week to AMC's MoviePass rebuttal, called AMC A-List. The AMC program is $20/month, for three movies a week, in any format, with online advanced-booking. With this change, I don't see why MoviePass subscribers would not just switch to A-List if their main theatre is an AMC.
Is there an actual schema and does MariaDB do index scans?
> Public universities.

Huh? Most universities in the US are private, including the large majority of the top ones that host controversial debates. (All the Ivys, Stanford, MIT, CalTech, etc.) These universities are held to rather high standard of neutrality even though it's not legally required for them to do so (modulo restrictions from government grants, which are empirically not the main drivers of their behavior with regard to free speech). They behave this way because the university professor and administrators believe the world is better for it, and because otherwise the public would lower their esteem as honorable places of learning (and good places for donations!).

> Free speech is narrowly intended to be something that limits the government's ability to impose restrictions on non-government entities for good reason

No! The First Amendment is intended to limit the government. Free speech is a much wider concept! If you don't understand why free speech is an idea that has important moral implications for individuals and private organizations, you should read "On Liberty" by John Stuart Mills, the classic canonical defense of this. It's only 100 pages and available free.

https://socialsciences.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/mill/liber...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Liberty
Think about the Sarah Jeong way like this:

The NYT editorial board is mostly white man. While they are probably left leaning, they might probably have a streak of racism in them due to their "white privilege". So to counter balance that, you hire an overt anti-white racist.

This is the thinking in liberal left circles, they need vocal anti-white racists to balance the unconscious racist biases in the white liberal people:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/08/the-uti...
In theory people would have consciousness and would have time to evaluate good from bad sources

In practice that's not what happens.

So yeah, I'm not shedding a tear over IW (though they probably have a point, on one occasion or another. Other media address these points so it's not dependant on them)
I've probably spent at least 3 hours collectively trying to find the DNS only to find/remember it is called Route 53. I rarely use it outside of initial setup and trying to recall the name of it each time is maddening.
The use of Lattice Boltzmann Equations to parelleize computation. It’s alreadg being used in doing dynamic fluid simulations but it’s applications are pretty endless. I wouldn’t be surprised to see LBM translated for use in Machine Learning, Cognitive AI, NLP, Computational Biology, etc, etc.
Whenever i try sharing an episode with someone I end up searching that podcasts website for archive with unique episode urls. This is not optimal because it makes users load it up in a browser instead of player, but seems the only reliable way to share an episode. Otherwise the "share" link is app specific (i.e. itunes) or just takes a user to the podcast instead of individual episode. Seems like a lack of open standard to offer deep linking using "default" podcast player. also fuck InfoWars
>passive consumption

It doesn't just show up in your podcast feed.
They probably think this works like gyms,

"I should go more to the movies"

then people don't go after some months but keep the subscription.
> “Because only 15 percent of MoviePass members see four or more movies a month, we expect that the new subscription model will have no impact whatsoever on over 85 percent of our subscribers.”

Is it the same 15% seeing 4 movies a month? I suspect not.
That's why I cancelled mine too. I am grateful to them for pouring millions of dollars into letting people see more movies, and proving that people really are interested in seeing movies if only they were less overpriced. AMC at least got the message and is starting their own subscription service. Hopefully other theaters will take notice.
Sounds like AMP. "Google hosts it for performance reasons!"

I'm not too worried for myself since I plan to release it all in a Creative Commons album anyway, but I'll keep it in mind if I see someone talking up Google Podcasts.
I disagree. It depends on where you draw the line and that is entirely subjective. For you, its when no textbooks are written, but for the purposes of this discussion I think it would be more useful to talk about fields that are not so mainstream yet but that we have enough material to discuss.

Its just a catch phrase, there is no real objective boundary
It's a good deal if viewed as a completely new product. The potential customer base probably doesn't overlap all that much with their previous customer base.

There's some irony that it's called MoviePass still despite not... really being that at all now. They should have rebranded and maybe it would have gone over better.

Despite being a good deal I'm skeptical that the offering is large enough to warranty the effort required to use the service. There's a market for it, likely, but I doubt there's one that will satisfy the investment.
The technique you're referring to is called the Gish Gallop. I've also heard it colloquially referred to as the Asymmetry of Bullshit.
Build your demo portfolio with stocks you want to have
Absolutely excellent! My close friend, Sunni Williams, is going to burst at the seams from this news!
Facebook Asking Major US Banks to Share User Data
And similarly, Jetbrains. Having the product intitials in the icon is incredibly helpful.
This is exactly where my mind went, the amount of spam
even small time bloggers have to contend with in their comment sections is astounding, now imagine if every page on the internet had a comment section and no filtering, or moderation.... Even today youtube comments suck because of the near total lack of moderation.

Even sites like this one or the verge with paid and volunteer moderators who in theory monitor things 24/7 I still see useless spam. I'm not even talking about individual people with opinions some might find offensive, I mean just outright spam advertising.
Gyms have high fixed costs and low marginal costs. You don't cost them very much money every time you go.
Only problem with that is when the other uses the rights you have afforded them to either infringe or incite infringement upon your freedoms.
Re-inventing it. (And yes, that's worse.)
Aside from the points other commenters have raised, one key feature of GPS head units like the Bolt is connectivity to sensors and accessories.

Sensors historically used the ANT+[1] wireless protocol which was the standard for monitoring sensors. Phones don't have ANT+ support and required an additional dongle.

Most sensors now support ANT+ and Bluetooth Smart which allows them to work with phones, but for the broadest accessory compatibility you need an ANT+ head unit.

Another point I'd raise is that the head unit allows me to ride with my phone off, silenced, on airplane mode, or even without my phone at all. The price point is significantly less than a phone so I'm also a lot less worried about damage or theft.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANT%2B
I didn’t watch the video, just read the transcript. Your quote is the headline but it’s merely paraphrasing what was actually said.

The transcript is talking about how media is trying to drum up a narrative that any violence against the media is Trump and InfoWars and Breitbart fault. This is seen as another means of censorship and blame gaming.

The specific example that comes to mind is of the attack in Baltimore Capital Gazette which just last week journalists were yelling “What about Baltimore?!” at Sarah Huckabee Sanders, when we know the gunman had specific personal animus and had even made Twitter threats against the paper, and yet CNN anchors claim it’s Trump fault for inciting violence against reporters....

Statements like this are purely political. There was no call for violence. This is discussing current events and the narrative around inciting violence against the media (“Acosta’s life threatened at Trump rally”) which is kind of an important story going on right now. But because they are on the “wrong” side of the narrative, we’ll find a way to call it hate speech and ban it?
Yeah, except that this is a gym that you can only go to 3 times a month. So much more likely it will be used.
I'm not familiar with Infowars, or the podcast. That said, I think we have to be very very cautious about allowing corporations, especially corporations as powerful as Twitter, Facebook, Google and Apple, to act as gatekeepers on speech. It's hard to get the balance right on speech issues, and that's when the determination is being governed by a democratic government. Apple, Facebook, Google and Twitter are in no way beholden to a representative electorate, and just because this particular instance makes sense, this is a massive shift of power from government to private corporation.

History has shown that this power has and will be abused. Even if it is not here, it will be in the future.
14,000 high-res images of some of the world's earliest photographs
I can't find something that specific but here is a democratic elected official saying that her supporters should harass her political opponents https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Sus_0zebE-k
you know what? fuck you
I think the hate comes from the frequent changes to the way the program works. Customers feel like it's a bait and switch, even if it's because their model hasn't been sustainable.
Cloud-Scale File Transfer: Using Node.js, Redis, Docker and AWS Lambda
The future of AI is on blockchain
And what if they can tell from the information leaked who leaked it? This person's life will be destroyed by armies of lawyers. Just so some journalist can report on something that'll be out of the news in a few weeks and change precisely nothing.
The purchasing service has been completely offline frequently in the past two weeks, which you don’t find out until you are at the theater. Not only that, they introduced “peak” pricing that was on basically every movie, so not really peak, just a surcharge on everything. Then they decided to start removing movies from the list of purchasable at random times throughout the day, so you could get to the theater and not be able to use it.

If it was just three movies for 10 it’d be a great deal, but the constant flux of being able to use it is awful.
The idea that even Twitter itself has forgotten by insisting to show me garbage people I follow have liked with no option to disable it.
OK I get that booster reuse cuts down costs, but the fact is the 2nd stage is still not reused, which limits the economic benefits needed to open new markets. We get a 50% reduction in costs, instead of the 95% reduction in costs.

You can get a 50% reduction in costs just by going to India for launch..

Is SpaceX going for 2nd stage reuse at all? That's going to be a lot harder than booster stage reuse, since you're returning to land at orbital velocity.

And then there's the whole issue of increasing reliability of the 1st stage for reuse hundreds (or thousands) of times needed for new business models...
I've always imagined it is like Skyrim character generation and they just hit the randomize button until something "cool and modern-looking" generates
The principal of free speech isn’t the same thing as the right to an audience though. It’s the right to say what you want without being prosecuted.

Alex Jones wasn’t prosecuted and he had the right to say what he wants, he just can’t do it on Facebook. But that isn’t an infringement of his rights, it’s a simple consequence of being a total asshole.

If you always talk about how great eating feces is at every dinner party you attend, you’re not going to go to jail, but you’re probably going to find yourself without any dinner party invitations.

You could argue that Facebook and Apple are big platforms, but so what? I’m fairly sure infowars wouldn’t publish your submission if you sent an anti-trump article. Does that mean they are hindering your free speech? No.
E-readers provide full text search and unlimited bookmarks (usually with notes and/or highlighting). Multiple “finger” bookmarks brings back memories though!
And that's a darn shame. As a result we have markets saturated with snake oil while the good stuff (medicine) rots away in obscurity.
So this uses multiple paths in the same sense as tinc vpn, by determining which paths are live and/or fastest? or it splits a single tcp session across multiple links like mptcp? The title seems a little confusing to me. Or does each tcp connection take a different path, thus load balancing across different links?
Works fine, but it does make it harder to pick an icon at a glance since you need to spend those 200ms thinking about what the abbreviation means or what abbreviation you're looking for.
Annie Lowrey's Book Explores the Idea of a Universal Basic Income
What makes you think that doctors, lawyers, pharmacists, and MBAs are "economically illiterate"?

Perhaps "yuppies" was not what you actually meant?
Freedom of Speech != Speech without Consequences.

I can say what I want at work but I can get fired for that speech. Same thing you can loss your advertisers and your platforms for the same speech.

I grew up in the last house in Bethel, CT before Newtown (Sand Hook), heck my mom went to elementary school in Sandy Hook. Friends of mine had children in the school. People don't know how crazy it was the first 6 months there.

The tension was HUGE that first two weeks with Westboro Church trying to get there to protest (I knew that the people in CT would do everything to keep them away). Then the conspiracy crazies got involved and it just was a mess.

Still today I still get people who ask if it really happened. Those poor parents are hounded still. Think the Flat Earthers going after astronauts and multiply it by 10.

Jones is absolutely responsibly for his speech. Sure he can say it but platforms don't have to allow it. Terrorist, Nazis and Infowars should break every platform's policies.
I do not fully understand your comment. This is an honest interpretation question:

1. MP cannot require a contract, then change the terms (e.g., raise price, limit frequency, etc.). While I understand the frustration it is likely legal. However (at least in the US), I believe the company has to either offer you the previous terms for the duration of the contract or an opportunity to terminate. I think it is the customer's choice, but IANAL.

2. If you are saying that all memberships must support unlimited use (which is how I read it first) this is insane, sorry.
I think the icons actually are cool and futuristic but there are so many of them an average person cannot realistically keep track of them all. I can only assume they're for marketing purposes to show in slide decks or websites.

I also wonder if they painted themselves into a corner early on by having them for their early services. I guess they're a big-boy company and have stopped doing this earlier but who knows.
There isn't just one database app. They have Aurora, DynamoDB, ElastiCache, Neptune, RDS, and Redshift.
It has terrible naming too: a lot of services are acronyms, it makes them difficult to understand for outsiders. Microsoft who is traditionally bad at naming too is surprisingly good at it for its Azure services. App Services, DocumentDB (CosmosDB now), DataLake, ... are more easily remembered than cryptic 3 letters acronyms.
It doesn't seem economical in any reasonable time frame given the relative cheapness of mining what's already on earth.
Er... the actual cost of someone going to the theater is irrelevant here. The only cost that matters is what the theaters are charging since that is what MoviePass has to cover. If they can't cover that, they can't provide their service. It doesn't matter if the theater is charging $3 or $30 per ticket; if MoviePass cannot, at a bare minimum, cover that cost, they cannot continue their service. Which is what happened two weekends ago when their service was briefly shut down due to failed payments until they took out an emergency $5M loan to cover things.
Hosting this quiz on GCP / G Suite ... hilarious :)
Anyone of average intelligence who spends 30-60 seconds listening to Alex Jones will quickly realize that Jones suffers from some kind of mental illness or personality disorder, and that there is nothing of interest or value to learn from his rants.

Those who ignore the obvious signs and still choose to listen to it do so for their own, identity-driven or emotional reasons. This is the same process that causes humans to rally behind demagogues of all kinds.

When uncensored, Jones' folly is obvious and can be easily evaluated and dismissed. But when it's censored, those inclined toward conspiracy theories will assume that Jones is speaking some kind of truth to power, etc.

So Apple's move strengthens Jones in all the worst ways and does a great disservice to American civil society. The only way to prevent dark ages beliefs is to shine light on them.
This never works, it just means people don't actually switch at all because in the end they only engage with one place properly. This was one of the things that went wrong with app.net.
The bigger story is that Facebook removed several Infowars pages. That's a big hit in terms of their ability to grow through shares/likes and reach a wider audience. I don't know if the Podcast directory is a big source of newcomers, is it?
I'm saying that if you want to actually solve a problem, a more sober outlook on the reasons why that problem is even a thing is going to be far more useful than impassioned, but undirected action.

The author of the piece is calling for a ban on facial recognition tech. At what level should this ban be placed? Just the US? The Anglo world? Anglo-Europe? Worldwide? China seems to be leading the push here, and they don't seem to be all that interested in human rights arguments originating from the West.

I know that nobody here really wants to deal with China's focus on collectivism over individualism, but it really does deserve a discussion. China has been grappling with the task of governing its immense population for thousands of years. How do you draw the line between governance and oppression?

Even if we restrict our ban to the Anglo world or just the US, A ban on facial recognition tech can have the same kind of effect that banning psychedelics did back in the 70s. A ban means that we can't run social experiments. When we can't run social experiments, we can't actually know the effects.

To implement a ban, a war must be fought. Even if it doesn't result in physical violence, you're still telling a lot of people they can't have what they want. If facial recognition tech results in oppression, we need to understand how.
Why they don't use normal naming? Like why they don't call the DNS manager "AWS DNS Manager" but "Route 53"?
I am a Liberty University student. I ask them to be a neutral debate platform and they claim to be such. They also shutdown free speech on campus and do not permit open debate on topics that they disagree on. It is always kind of interesting. One day they talk about how important free speech is, the next they ban someone for his/her political views.

Honestly, I want Liberty to support open and honest debate. Otherwise, what is the point of having a university? I understand that their professors are going to be required to sign their statement of faith. Such is not required of the student and students of all faiths are welcome.
NSA’s Encryption Algorithm in Linux Kernel 4.17 Leaves Users Miffed
the consensus thus far has been any speech leading to harm/death is not allowed/legal (i.e. screaming FIRE in a theater). This is no different, we can sit here all day and try to assess who should be in charge but there is clear evidence InfoWars is leading to armed morons showing up in pizza places and/or harassing parents of school shooting victims. If this case was more nuanced i.e. suppressing political ideology i could see your point, but this is a pretty clear cut case of hate speech leading to real consequences
They go further than that. We had an app for models and fans to interact which showcased Instagram models and celebrities with profiles built using the Instagram API for verification. Apple told us we had to tone it down and censor a lot of the sexier photos like bikini and so on that was found on their Instagram profiles. We explained they were simply using the same photos found on their Instagram and if they had a problem with their images they should report them to Instagram. They basically told us no, we would have to manually censor the profiles instead. They found another reason to remove us from the store in the end flushing years of work down the toilet for us. They are completely arbitrary in how they censor the stores, there's no equitable standard. Basically, if you're Instagram or Twitter you can push the limits, but smaller businesses like ours get thrown out.
Perhaps because it's twice the price.
Privatizing Poverty
I believe the correct response to that is "sandwiched between two burly gay men I met on grindr".
While it is true that Apple is (and should be) allowed to do whatever they want with their services, as they are a private company, these kinds of actions reaffirm how important an open, decentralized standard for media consumption really is.
The Billion Pound Drop: The Blitz and Agglomeration Economics in London [pdf]
Seconded. This link was huge to me when learning AWS products.