skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Exactly. It has nothing to do with who might be offended. It has to do with a history of racial oppression. No one is going to complain if you compare a individual black person to a rat or an individual Jewish person to a monkey because there is no historical precedent of those insults being used as blanket attacks against those groups. It is when you flip those two that you will get in trouble.
I wonder what kind of wonderland you live in where most senior developers make close to half a million dollars.
Show HN: "harold" A control systems toolbox for Python
Is there any video of this meeting? That would be great.
Given that the explicit "master" and "slave" relationship definition lacks any other common meanings in any other technical field of English (that I'm aware of), I'm not quite sure I understand your point.

The hierarchy of "parent" and "child", at least, is used for terminology in other fields, e.g. euphemistically in psychology, for relationships that fit a particular behavior pattern, even when the participants aren't actually related. Likewise, I'm sure the programmers responsible for the "parent"-"child" metaphor, didn't consider all the possible pseudo-language this method might generate. Just as no one might imagine `chokeAndDieOn(kernel)`.

On the other hand, "master"-"slave" is taken from a pretty explicitly provocative (and negative) situation that still exists in many forms in today's world and was designed as a metaphor explicitly for the relationship, as opposed to being incidental, like your example.

However, if what you say is your firm belief, then you surely wouldn't mind `"dominatrix"-"submissive" databases` or `"torturer"-"victim" databases`?
Because the second level domain is far more important than the subdomain. The second level. www.example.com and example.com usually have the same contents, but are always controlled by the same group.
I just find it sad that people don't find it grounds enough to switch to a more open network.

Not having to see Alex Jones as often is a feature, not a bug.
You do know what the “A” in AI stands for? I’m not disagreeing with your central point, although I think given how well the incentives of the leadership are with most outcomes debates about their degree of control are not really important. At the end of the day though, if you’re calling people or a system made up people an AI, you’re bending the term past the breaking point in a way I feel obscures and distracts from your actual point.
Even if we accept that to be generally true, and I do, that doesn't mean that the person that you replied to was wrong.
Buying a cheese fondue is the most Swiss thing about this story. Cheese fondues were a fad in the US before I was born, and I know a lot of people's parent's who own them and use them maybe once every 5 years.
> (I can't quite translate "concessione")

I think in English it's "concession" :-) "The right to use land or other property for a specified purpose, granted by a government, company, or other controlling body"
Perhaps you could discount the results based on county or state migration records?

Although it seems plausible some families might move to places with better care which might affect how you weight your values.
>Suicide usually has a cultural basis

Yes -- hence copycat suicides. But cultural, not genetic. Ideas, not genes.
This change goes far beyond merely hiding the "www." prefix. I'm not making up these examples:

1. "m.tumblr.com " and "tumblr.com " are BOTH displayed as "tumblr.com" even though they're literally different sites.

2. "www.example.www.example.com" displays as "example.example.com" which means all "www" subdomains, whether leading or not are being stripped out.

3. In the extreme case, "www.m.www.m.example.com" shows up as "example.com" which is pretty misleading.

Usually, the Chrome team is very thoughtful about decisions that impact security. I'm surprised this was released in such a half-baked state. I hope this is not an indication of how Google's plan to "kill the URL" will work out.
What you are describing is some form of cultural exchange. You have received some expression of another culture and "answered" it by modifying or combining them with your existing cooking repertoire.

My point is that I don't think the article established that the profiled Bedouin people are responding to an external stimulus.
"Their complexity makes them a security hazard."

GTFOH! HANDS OFF!
Dear Google, just do syntax highlighting. Make the subdomain gray. You can even color https: green and http: red. But don't hide them. I really think syntax highlighting will accomplish the same thing for less technical users.
That won't really help the pension issue–pensions are held up by the expectation of a large working-age population to support current retirees.

FWIW, I think people tend to overstate the risks of overpopulation; the Earth could support 10x the current population with a comfortable standard of living, if space and energy usage per person was reduced (which could be helped along by increased urbanization, among other things).
I have a lot of experience with anti-semitism - I've followed many extreme forums over the years and it's one of the most consistent patterns - even in oppositional ideologies.

Alex Jones is influential enough that he could, to use the parlance 'name the jew' and most of his followers would follow along with it or he would get new ones. If you think that he would find himself marginalized you are absolutely wrong - that would only occur at one level of society and the polite part isn't close to being meaningful - there is a huge market for this.

Throwing all people you find objectionable into one bucket is an error.
The Trap of Innovation
Not sure if this helps but, looking at the footer, there is a link to the git repository for the blog: https://github.com/lilianweng/lil-log/tree/gh-pages

Also, "Built by Jekyll and minima".
I also have some speech I disagree with that I would like silenced.

Is there a form somewhere?
Their dominance has become problematic when they entertain concepts like this seriously. They are really growing into the monolith that we all feared.
"anti-semitic"
really dude?
Worth noting, it looks like there is an extension for opening an SSH FS remotely[0]. It's something I've been curious about and will probably explore further. Not sure about getting a more flushed out dev environment on your chromebook, I know it's an option and that VS Code works in Linux (use it under ubuntu/elementary).

[0] https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=Kelvin.v...
Incorrect title, or misleading at least, The NSF awared $500K for a "Lehigh research team to investigate a 'Google for research data'". You're likely not going to make a "google for x" on $500K.
> or `"torturer"-"victim" databases`?

Torture-testing. Victim threads. Everything has its use.
I simply cannot agree with this logic. I'd compare this to saying, if you don't like TV censorship create your own channel. Don't like censorship in Hollywood? Simply open a major studio. I've been extremely critical of industry censorship elsewhere, so at least there's consistency. I don't like the MPAA telling me that female pleasure and homosexuality is worse than brutal gore and murder.

I'm glad to see Alex John's go, but I'm shocked by the lack of concern many people have on this issue. More and more communication relies on social media, and I'm terrified by the implications of ceding public discorse to any large organization. Yes there technically are other options, but we're talking about mainstream channels with sizeable audiences, which tend towards oligarchies. People are just happy that speach they find deplorable will be censored; conservatives were happy to have homosexuality censored. Obviously, in this case Twitter is being much more reasonable.
The Twitter founder addressed concerns about Jones’ conspiracy-mongering, and tasked journalists with refuting his bogus claims.

“Accounts like Jones' can often sensationalize issues and spread unsubstantiated rumors, so it’s critical journalists document, validate, and refute such information directly so people can form their own opinions,” Dorsey tweeted. “This is what serves the public conversation best.”

Wow. Putting the burden of proof on anyone but the person making a claim is ridiculous.

Any video with John or Joan Q. Qanon will have someone saying something to the effect of, “Well, you don’t have any proof that it’s not true!”

Also, Jack Dorsey is a closet believer in the Tooth Fairy. He’s been known to dress up as the Tooth Fairy and to participate in Tooth Fairy-related rituals.

I encourage anyone to disprove that.
Sometimes the right thing is nontrivial.
By definition, pure functions can't read from or write to disk, can't read from or write to the database, and can't read from or write to a socket.

If you aren't able to do any of those things, there is no "at scale" - you're trapped in a single process on a single computer, spinning away but not able to communicate with anyone else.

Pure functional programming helps within an individual component by letting you quarantine the statefulness at defined areas (e.g., in Haskell, at the program's entry point), but it doesn't let you make it disappear. Sooner or later, you're gonna have to deal with it.

At scale, you've got tens or hundreds or thousands of different processes, and each of them has its own statefulness that it ultimately has to deal with. When you're looking at the big picture like that, I'm not sure it makes sense to worry about whether it's been quarantined, Haskell-style, or not. It's still there, and, in the big picture, it's still distributed more-or-less homogeneously throughout the system. Even a process that doesn't use disk or talk to the DB or anything like that is still not referentially transparent, because it's still subject to side effects by virtue of the network being unreliable, the OOM killer being unpredictable, and all that fun stuff.
"dom-sub" makes a lot of sense, honestly; catch me using that in my next project. I would object to "torturer-victim" because it doesn't properly describe the relationship.
These types of usability steps disempower the user from having control. It doesn't surface what's actually happening and tries to "fix mistakes" with blunt overly-generalized presumptions.

This isn't the first time it's happened.

Take the https-everywhere changes. If you explicitly type something like "http://example.com.:80/" but the browser knows about an SSL cert for the domain, it will attempt to shuttle you off to https, failing to do the SSL handshake because of course it's port 80. Adding the protocol and the port isn't enough of a hint that I know what I'm trying to do.

What's worse, this is a domain-wide setting. If you have say, local.example.com, the browser will try to protect you again.

You have to go to an obscure preference and make the browser forget about this on a domain-by-domain basis, which will reset the next time it gets a wildcard SSL cert for the domain.

This thing is of the same vain, it's the new Ctrl-Q of the browser world; a feature that, due to some dogmatic ideology, doesn't have a "knock off the bullshit" setting.

Somehow irreversibly child-proofing software by making it not do what you tell it and hide important details has become fashionable, it's nonsense and needs to stop.
It's interesting that while people claim they can't afford to retire, more than half of the population begins collecting Social Security in the US at age 62 (https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-people-who-claim-socia...) when those on disability are included.
That's really only true if your mental model is saving the state of the project or program. Most people want to save the state of the image, and exporting layer, guide, and other data is secondary to that.

To put it another way, all the data you want "Save" to save isn't actually important to most people who want to use the "Save" button, and if it is they're most certainly aware of which image formats preserve that information.

Having three different ways to save something depending on what you want to preserve is an odd way to do things that I'm bitten by every time I use GIMP.
WildStar Developer Carbine Studios Shuts Down
It's unfortunate that this is so poorly written in terms of it being quite obvious that he speaks English as a second language. I also have mixed feelings about a few other details.

But, on the whole, I agree with the sentiment.

I'm older than I used to be and this has made me more appreciative of polite language. But a lot of people who use what I used to somewhat contemptuously call "polite catch phrases" are often not actually any more respectful of other people than those that don't. That genuine respect matters far more to me.

In essence, I think he is correct that what America needs to do is set things right by its own people instead of telling non-Americans that they need to jump through hoops over our emotional baggage for relatively minor details of this sort.
Standing up to thought-policing bullies is a worldly action that shows goodness, IMO.
I've always thought of the Visual Studio's Immediate Window as a repl + debugger.

It's what got me hooked on repls back when I was coding in VB4.

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/visualstudio/ide/reference/...
Yikes, talk about poor timing [0]!

Of course, the proposal [1] was submitted at the beginning of August before this was available, but it must still be a bit of a gut check for the research team.

Hopefully they can figure out a way to inject additional novelty in the project.

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17919297

[1]: https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=1816325
The person mentioned in the post obviously didn't assume that after they started name calling but I think you could assume good faith usage of those words and still have a problem with it.
Use tags?
Medically diagnosed apathy was the term I was thinking of while driving
One of the big failures I think is for FB to not push friends lists more. The default is that you have 500 people on FB that you sort of know, and that you don't reject people that add you but you barely meet. So you end up not feeling like you want to share anything because your supervisor is on there, which you're work-friends with, but not close enough to share just anything.

For example, all my friends in their 20s will post pictures of them at various raves but none of them will post it on Facebook. Everyone knows half the people there are on ecstacy, which is fine for your friends to know, but perhaps not all of your colleagues.

There's a great deal of limiting self-expression on FB, because it's become such a public place. You're left with people who keep very small facebook circles, which is a tiny minority of mostly inactive users, people with sizeable circles who keep quiet because things you're open about to your 20 closest people, you don't want to share with the other 480, and there's people with huge circles who are the most vocal and often extreme in opinions and things they share.

Facebook has all the basic functionality to change this, moreso than instagram for example. You can put all your contacts in a limited-profile list, which reveals a profile picture, a handful of holiday pics and posts you explicitly set to public. And then you can put 20 friends in your close circle, which every picture and post is revealed to by default. This can be even more private and intimate than say instagram. But FB doesn't push it. So people end up having 1 privacy setting for everyone, accepting everyone on facebook, and rejecting most people on instagram. Most friends I know will rather accept 100 distant accounts (travel, food, lifestyle accounts of individuals abroad or companies) on instagram than accept a colleague that's 10 years older that you have lunch with everyday and are cool with, and have been facebook friends with since your first week at the company.
6 days until the EU votes on an extinction-level event for the internet
Truth, but even that is something that you need to let happen, then fix in code reviews, etc. You can't turn a junior developer into an experienced one without letting them code and make mistakes, which then must be fixed (hopefully before getting pushed to production).
"Shitty for everybody" indicates a kind of neutrality.
LOL @ that pie-chart. It seems to be lifted directly out of the mythical man-month.

Can we please find a way to automate these C-level executives next?
can someone explain this part to me

Send 2000 byte over network = 44ns
Roundtrip in same datacenter = 500000 ns

Isn't a rountrip simply a send from A to B and then a send from node B to node A?
HERES THE INDICTMENT: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/north-korean-regime-backed-pr...
Lots of people saying this is for the benefit of non-technical users.

For me, this is a minor inconvenience, precisely because I'm technically capable/interested enough to handle the inconsistency.

But this kind of stuff (and I am speaking somewhat generally here) tends to frustrate me, precisely when I'm trying to educate or deal with a non-technical user in some capacity where it happens to matter. I can't just tell them, "that is the address of the page, and that will always lead to the exact same place if you type it fully and correctly, and that's that". Instead I have to get my head around what if they're using browser X or operating system Y, I have to ask on the phone first, "hang on, tell me what you see on your screen", I have to say to the lady who's eagerly sat in front of me with pen hovered above paper waiting for me to dictate how to do a thing in straightforward steps, "well it depends, first you have to check this thing, and if it's like this then you can do this but it might also be like that in which case it's a bit different, let me explain" - and this is usually the point at which the non-technical user gets tired and throws the book at me.

In short, I think consistency of information and process is usually much more understandable and useful to users of any level, than the dumb 'simplification' of this half-baked information-hiding.
If you work on an automatic transmission and quite a few other mechanical devices, you’ll learn that “master-slave” in technical English predates modern computing. It’s useful terminology because it’s instantly comprehensible as a metaphor and accurately describes the “slave’s” total lack of autonomy. There’s no reason to make it political, unless someone is endorsing the concept within the context of human relationships.
The problem with this approach is it inevitably results in one of two broad possibilities:

1) Someone creates a "truly free" social media platform, and it is invaded by people who wish to mold it to reduce freedom for "toxicity"

2) Someone creates a "truly free" social media platform, and the only people to use it are those disallowed from using the mainstream platforms, creating a feedback cycle that eventually results in the free platform either shutting down or being branded "toxic" in and of itself, at which point they'll just go after the company that hosts the platform.

We're becoming so worried about "offending" people that we're literally giving away all our freedom of speech in the process. And yet, if we create such a restricted environment, and political sensibilities change dramatically, suddenly those in control become authoritarian dictators.

There's also the argument of "perhaps it's not a good idea to drive these people underground, where they can ultimately do far more long-term damage, than leaving their content available for all to mock"
> I think that animals in captivity have a great deal less suffering than many wild animals do

Do you have any sources that back up this claim?

So do you really think that pigs in factory farms (not 'happy' farms you see in childrens books) for example have a better life than their free wild counter parts?

Please read the description below of what that factory farm life is [0]. Pigs are very smart and they literally go insane in factory farms.

How does us breeding these various farm animals in the millions with mutuation (bigger muscles for more meat etc) which couldn't survive in the wild add to a diversity of animals?

Furthermore factory farming is destroying our environment based on a study by the UN [1].

There is no good reason to breed and kill Billions of farm animals anymore for food, when we have better alternatives that are less destructive on so many levels (environment, human and animal).

[0] Pigs used for pork

The majority of breeding sows spend nearly the entirety of each pregnancy confined to a gestation crate, which is only slightly larger than their body, making it impossible for them to lie down comfortably or even turn around.

Gestation crate floors are usually made of slats, which allow manure to fall through, meaning that sows live directly above their own waste. This design exposes sows to high levels of ammonia, and respiratory disease is common in confined sows.

Standing on the hard, unnatural slatted flooring of a gestation crate takes a toll on pigs’ feet, causing excessive foot injuries, damage to joints, and even lameness.

The intense boredom and frustration pigs suffer in gestation crates have been blamed by researchers for abnormal, neurotic behaviors confined pigs sometimes exhibit, like repetitively biting at the bars of the gestation crate or chewing with an empty mouth. These behaviors can lead to additional suffering by causing sores and mouth damage.

Source: https://www.farmsanctuary.org/learn/factory-farming/pigs-use...

[1] http://www.unep.fr/shared/publications/pdf/dtix1262xpa-prior...
Notably, what is the common answer to a system regarded to be too complex to be handled on a general level, so that it may be considered a common risk? Authority (read, trusted man in the middle).
I'm in between. I do get enjoyment from music, but don't listen to it except when driving, which I didn't do for the six years before last week. I don't actively seek it out or wear headphones for walking/working/exercising.
> He should've been kicked off long ago, but I fear that having this particular example be the "final straw" is only going to strengthen the alt-right's persecution complex.

He is quite correct in the assessment that he's being persecuted on ideological grounds, unless he says "by the government". Why would you deny that ?

And let's face facts here. If you held an alt-right viewpoint in San Francisco ... would you tell your employer ? Would you tell your friends ? Would you tell a police agent ? Would you tell city hall ?

Because I'd sure be afraid as hell to tell anyone. Neither Damore nor Eich deserved what happened to them, and it's disgraceful (and, of course, discriminatory/racist) that such things happened. They, of course, will not change their opinion or their vote, and will give more power if this movement does grow to the point they can get enough politicians elected.

The really sad part is that it really looks to me like neither Damore nor Eich had an alt-right worldview when they got screwed, but ... let me ask you ... if they held one now, because of what happened to them, would you find that surprising ? Would you blame them ? I wouldn't.

So let's just say that I REALLY think this is the wrong tactic. Engaging with them is the only way things might happen. That's difficult, takes constant effort, and will require people to sustain insults. Yep. Absolutely. Censorship, aside from being an act of desperation, mostly strengthens the hand of the people being censored, and convinces new people that what is being censored is true. I mean, just the act of censorship by itself does that. Plus, it won't stop them, Breitbart and Infowars are more than big enough to grow their audience organically.

This act of censorship is doubly counterproductive even. Before we had very concrete things to point at to show how despicable he sometimes is ... and now we don't. Or at least, he has a lot more arguments against those.

Let's face facts here. These bans, takedowns, ... they make most of us feel better. They make the situation worse, but they make us feel better. That by itself is dangerous as hell.