skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
That sounds all fine and well but half the time I utter a conservative opinion I'm accused of being a "russian bot".
Brief aerobic exercise immediately enhances attention and perceptual speed
Off topic : the launch webpage [1] is hell annoying.
Image loops, scroll-jacking, poorly thought out.

By the time I scrolled to the bottom, Chrome made 470 requests and downloaded 42.8 Megabytes (10 additional requests blocked by AdBlock plus extension) and thats just the 'Overview' tab.

W.T.F!

[1]: https://store.google.com/product/pixel_3
The key to unbounded growth is commoditization of living necessities. What is necessary to live is produced more efficiently as time passes, so they take smaller share of the overall economy, while luxuries grow to take bigger share. Luxuries are less resource intensive so they can grow their share without straining the earth, simply by increasing price.
> If a large group of people reduced their energy consumption to help climate change it has the consequence of reducing demand and therefore energy costs will come down. That will make green energy cost uncompetitive and slow down the transition to green fuels.

Another way to look at it is, as more people demand green energy, the supply will increase faster to meet demand. As the supply increases, economies of scale reduce the cost, making it more competitive with fossil fuels while at the same time wind and solar efficiency will increase further reducing the cost per unit.

Eventually the supply with the lowest cost will win and the others may become obsolete.

Whether or not that can happen fast enough is another question. Taxation of fossil and subsidizing of renewables seems like a logical conclusion. The likelyhood of a massive win-win solution of that nature with no game theory cheats on a global scale seems much less probable than innovating our way out of it.

I don't think government on a coordinated global level can do it. It would be like diverting the same level of national resources as a war into a peacetime effort. Would need a way to demonize climate change so it becomes a common global enemy. But on the other side of demonizing is half or more of humanity, so it is really a new level of war over new types of resources being shoreline, water supply, and probablilty of destruction or famine by natural disasters.

I hope for no war and don't believe all that will happen. But it could. And I think investing in time, money, and peace seems like a valid approach to get behind vs trying to get government to do it.
Excellent leak/scoop by Allum Bokhari & co-- that can be true AND Breitbart is still garbage.

Some choice Breitbart articles:

This is a fun one: https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/07/15/obama-gl...

Yarmulke-sportin' Ben Shapiro was absolutely OUTRAGED about Google's & Easter: https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2013/03/30/google-f...

-------

Keep an eye on this one & the kook-right in the United States: when right-wing folks inevitably rake Goog & co over the coals, you get one bingo space if it somehow magically transforms into their grievance/we-get-stabbed-in-the-back/work-the-refs

No need to shoot the messenger, just don't take all the offerings of this particular messenger too seriously. True for anything but most especially the kook-right
>Here in 2018, I'm not that worried about Google's position as world's information arbiter and how it chooses to censor content.

Why, if I might ask?

"Google" has entered the common lexicon as a generic term for "search the internet for something". The amount of power they wield, ignoring all other power aside from the ability to rank the search results of most internet users, is massive and I think this cannot be overstated or minimized.

This is a non-fallacious version of the slippery slope. Just because you're okay with the "do the right thing" nee "don't be evil" Google of today does not mean you'll be okay with the Google of tomorrow having that power. Consider very carefully whether you want any one particular company to have that power, and what the remedies are if Google ever does go full evil.

On a side note, it absolutely reeks of double standards on many of the commenters here to castigate Google for their Chinese censorship while giving them a pass for what is described herein. Censorship is only bad when done at the behest of a state? I don't understand this sentiment.

I want no third party deciding for me what is "hate speech" and deciding I shouldn't be able to see it as a result. With a special emphasis on the second part of that phrase.
> This isn't a debate

Be advised that you don't get to decide on whether this is or isn't a debate. You are attempting to re-frame the debate to suit your precarious position.

This debate as specified in the parent discussions, is about Microsoft enforcing updates on people without choice. This causes annoyance and even loss of work. The top comment describes Windows as an "an update engine that will sometimes also do computation for you". This is a significant and legitimate criticism that trumps your arm-flailing about malware (which as I said would be better defended with virus protection).

As the parent poster said, many of the vulnerabilities discovered are exploitable only locally, or under very specific and rare circumstances, yet are still flagged as "critical" and bundled with user interface updates.

Then you rode in on your horse, citing car accidents and seat belts, which really doesn't help in the context of having control over when system updates are performed. Nobody said "never update". It's about control over when those updates happen.

> ...but the rest of us are going to take care, and would appreciate if you didn't contribute to...

You're having a hard enough time speaking for yourself, please don't branch out to speaking for others.
So UB, then? All complaint solutions I could find to this use memcpy() instead. Some use __attribute__ ((__packed__)) for structs, but that seems to have its own gotchas (https://stackoverflow.com/a/7956942), but not relevant here.
When the full list was posted on HN previously, [1] there were a few that I thought are humorously over the top today, and would definitely be out of place (and potentially piss off HR) in a modern office:

Beware the truce of the bear: https://flashbak.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/NSA-15.jpeg

If the communists win, they'll erase God: https://flashbak.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/NSA-31-1200x...

Commie security: https://flashbak.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/NSA-38-1200x...

Christian ideals created freedom: https://flashbak.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/NSA-42-1200x...

Four horsemen: https://flashbak.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/NSA-69-1200x...
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17222827
Let's hope it stays that way but I am not too optimistic.
Delta Cargo to extend Bluetooth tracking capability from early next year
Is it also like Android's "sandbox" in that every application asks for every permission and the only choice is between "no security" and "can't install anything useful" and inures the user to just click "accept" on everything?
It's not the belief that is harmful per se. It would be the harassment of those affected that is harmful. To give an alternative conspiracy that was given a lot of oxygen, many believed that Bush caused 9/11. Conspiracies themselves are often wrong, but occasionally correct. I don't believe that one was correct, but for example, Edward Snowden's NSA revelations were initially derided as conspiracy. It's important that even those types of ideas be allowed to compete in the marketplace of ideas.

The problem I see isn't so much that people harbor conspiracies, but that they do so without interacting with the world at large. They do so in a bubble, and in a bubble, a conspiracy can be amplified. This is how extremism develops.

The core problem is that people aren't interacting with enough different types of people in order to moderate their own behavior.
While you've been asleep in bed at home, Apple have built an insane services business and scaled the iPhone to heights no one could have predicted. Not only that but they quietly made the Apple Watch and AirPods a force of culture, made huge strides with their iPad lineup and have nailed the execution on all three which only feeds value back into the overall Apple ecosystem.

It's no longer about any single product anymore, though the iPhone still is the 800 pound Gorilla of the product lineup and the obvious lynchpin tying everything together. But there is also Apple Music, iCloud, The App Store, Apple Pay and huge investments into AR, ML, Privacy, and a whole host of developer APIs.

You're missing the forest for the trees of why Apple is able to make such _deep_ inroads into peoples lives and get them to pay top dollar for it at scale (50mm iPhones are made and shipped every quarter).

And don't forget all the strides they've made in retail with their Apple Stores. Don't forget the insane chips their chip design team has been pumping out every year. Don't forget their acquisition of Beats and going head to head with Spotify. It's easy to take all this progress for granted. As a beloved consumer business, they're firing on all cylinders as far as I'm concerned. They'll make mistakes from time to fine and that's ok (iOS 11, AirPower, Mac Pro) - but you've got to ignore quite a lot of progress to make such a strong claim that they're asleep at the wheel - they are decidedly not asleep at the wheel by any measure.
> they kept that promise! Look at the internet today

I am looking. What I see is it being devoured by Google. Search 99%, Chrome 80%, private email 90%, Google accounts for work, for school kids, and Google Analytics tracking in every web site.
IMHO Some of the responses here are missing the point. That seems to be a common theme as of late: "I don't like the argument or I'm already on side 'X' in this fight, so I'm going to setup a straw-man to attack so I can avoid engaging the core premise of the article."

Her post isn't about keeping a private repo or being selfish. It's about "I am not your therapist or punching bag, nor is it my job to educate you, so why would I waste my time submitting my patch and dealing with a toxic community? What am I supposed to gain from that interaction, other than being insulted, belittled, and having my patches ignored?"

She is hardly the only person who stays far away from contributing to the Linux kernel (and other projects) thanks to certain nasty and emotional segments of "community". Those people don't show up in stats. No one knows they exist. The project just has a reputation for being full of assholes, so many really talented people choose to stay away (or strictly limit their involvement). This can become a self-reinforcing cycle where only assholes can be heard, resulting in design-by-asshole rather than design based on technical merit. Assholes (by virtue of being assholes) usually immediately dismiss this by claiming anyone making such complaints is technically inferior (or is intrinsically unsuited to contributing because of their age, gender, or other attribute).

I'll also point out that acting out like this is purely emotional knee-jerk behavior - the exact opposite of merit or technical arguments. Linus is perfectly capable of criticizing patches on technical merits without calling people morons in the process. In the past he has chosen to lash out emotionally for one reason or another. Perhaps he had a bad day. Perhaps he just enjoyed insulting other people. Perhaps he thought he was better than them and wanted to show off how superior he was. None of us can really know the underlying reason, but at the end of the day it hardly matters.

I really want to stress my last point: lots of people (including here on HN) are trying to make a self-evidently Orwellian case that adopting a CoC and setting community standards is somehow trading technical merit for soothing people's feelings... in defense of another contributor's ability to lash out emotionally. One has to engage in some especially motivated reasoning to make such prima-facia false claims.

A code-of-conduct basically boils down to "don't attack people personally and don't belittle, harass or intimidate other contributors". Or perhaps in simpler terms: "act like a professional".

Being professional means giving direct and honest feedback. Lying to avoid hurt feelings is the opposite of professional!
So I think the inlining decisions in a compiler are some of the most heuristic-y parts of the compiler. There was a paper from Jeff Dean and some other Googlers recently that hinted that machine learned models might be the next leap forward in compiler technology, as a potential means of replacing these heuristics.
I really wish someone would do another solid 7-8" Android (or ChromeOS) tablet. That felt like a perfect form factor - I could even still pocket it in a vest.

Alas, most of what's still on the market is either ancient (and not getting new Android updates), or cheap low-res junk, or usually both. The only exception seems to be MediaPad M5, and Huawei screwed that one up by reporting it to the apps as a phone rather than as a tablet; and then there's the whole shared antenna issue (basically if you use Bluetooth, your WiFi is an order of magnitude slower).

And I'm not holding much hope for sub-10" ChromeOS tablets. It seems that everybody just wrote that market off.
It seems that people really prefer to vote extreme people who take hard instance against situations instead of level-headed ones.

We now have hundreds of years of experience regarding politicians.
Maybe we have to teach politics in schools:

On the methods the politicians have used to manipulate people and how to call them out.

On the way we should measure politicians and what makes a good decision makes vs. a poor one.
Love my little tasker app that lets me pick how long to surf for and blocks the screen after that many minutes.
There's been companies around willing to do the work for a small premium for a long time. There's also software designed for security or making it easier. Here's a few, semi-random examples:

http://www.sis.pitt.edu/jjoshi/Devsec/CorrectnessByConstruct...

https://www.ghs.com/products/safety_critical/integrity-do-17...

https://runtimeverification.com/match/

https://galois.com/blog/

http://sel4.systems/

https://muen.codelabs.ch/

The defense buyers just don't use such companies or products in most cases. They know they don't have to due to corruption mostly. The money they save might even get someone a bonus for achieving some metric like keeping costs down. Mass market is similar where they don't buy the stuff either. So, the supply of high-security systems are extremely low, usually high per-unit as a result, and not prevalent.

Sad but true...
https://www.runforoffice.org
Now the cat is out of the bag, freedom of speech is just a lofty ideal that only worked when all media was controlled by corporations that chose what people listened to most of the time. Now they are trying to put the cat back in the bag. Good for reiterating corporate control over thought and speech.
I know the quote is from the series.
Slide 66 is particularly interesting, and articulates an observation that I've made:

> Tech firms are performing a balancing act between two
incompatible positions

> 100% commit to the American tradition that prioritises free speech for democracy, not civility

> 100% commit to the European tradition that favors dignity over liberty, and civility over freedom

It is a very American view that unrestricted freedom of speech is a requirement for a well-functioning democracy, and that any restriction of this beyond censoring direct calls to violence is evil.
how about washing machines that don't fall apart after a few years? Surely that has a larger impact on the environment

https://medium.com/@ryanfinlay/they-used-to-last-50-years-c3...
How a scammer got $12M from a Canadian university: They just asked for it
Do you consider American culture to be one of the more free ones? If so, then why do these conspiracies exist? Why have flat-earth conspiracies and anti-scientific dogma thrived? Why do we have a president that outright denies scientific fact?

If combating false ideas with truth worked, then surely these problems shouldn't exist in America, the land of the free. In the arena of free speech, only the values with the most truth should thrive. Yet that's clearly not the case.

This is the paradox of tolerance. We can say that unhindered speech is the way of countering harmful speech, but then I ask you: What led to the rise of such harmful speech today?
I don't care one iota if she does or does not participate on HN or in any other community.

The only other post of hers I recall reading boiled down to her refusing to fix a thing at work that it was her responsibility to fix and wouldn't have taken very long, like a few minutes, and leaving it that way for six months, calling it "an experiment" to see if anyone else would fix it and then talking trash about everyone else at work when her boss finally told her to fix it already. It struck me as very unprofessional, childish and toxic.

She is the only woman that I'm aware of who blogs about programming. I'm not a programmer, so that might just be my ignorance showing. But my guess is that's the primary reason her writing shows up here so often, because it doesn't strike me as great writing overall and her attitude seems to be pretty toxic generally while she blames that on everyone else.

She could make a lot of the same points she makes without pissing all over everyone in the process. She could very reasonably say "I'm a woman in tech, so I deal with brogrammers 40+ hours a week and I have no patience left to do more of that in my off hours." She could say "Eh, different strokes for different folks. I share my stuff with people I enjoy talking with and I'm okay with that meaning it isn't out there in the ether for the whole world to access. We can't all be Linux."

She could make all the same choices she is currently making and describe them in her blog without gratuitously pissing all over a community that very likely accounts for a large share, perhaps even the vast majority, of her blog traffic.
Corporate and state control but I agree completely.
By GP sure, but the comment I'm responding to is an unequivocal "this is a bad idea". My take is apply common sense and don't make idle threats on the 2nd email or you just look silly, likewise when you get to the stage of few other choices make the threat just once. Then get on with it. :)
Are those bots not "behaving civil in the expression of their (masters') beliefs"?

Or do you think they should be censored because they are Russian?

Or because they are bots?
I like the idea of substituting:

I'll check Reddit real quick with I'll wash this dish real quick

I guess bad habits can inspire good ones...
> What do you say to those people? How do you solve that problem?

That's not a problem that needs to be "solved." It's not necessary to force everyone to think alike, or believe the same things. It's not necessary - or desirable - to try to force everyone to never think/believe mean things or unhappy thoughts.

It's similar to saying: how do you solve people that believe in ghosts or god or unicorns (particularly if you're an atheist and believe that's all bunk). Consider hardcore religious people that believe most people are going to burn in hell, and or they believe that most dead people are in hell. Now ask the same question: isn't that offensive to those people that are going to supposedly burn? Isn't it offensive to the memory of the dead? Solve what, that people are allowed to believe what they want to (including offensive things)? The censorship it would require to constrain all of it would be horrific, authoritarian to the nth degree.

The world didn't end because of all the 9/11 conspiracy theories. Thousands of people died in those attacks. Yet the conspiracy theorists proclaimed that a plane never hit the Pentagon, that there were no people on the plane that crashed in PA, that all the Jews stayed home that day, and so on. That doesn't need solving, people will never stop believing and saying crazy things, you can't force it to end.

As longer duration examples, JFK and the moon landing conspiracies persist five decades on, and will never cease to exist. If NASA couldn't solve that with 50 years of education and the extraordinary amount of evidence they've provided, what hope is there for the other items.
Geoengineering: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05357-w

https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/a38zve/watch-the-trailer...
Give money to Democratic candidates challenging Republican incumbents, right now.

If we believe in evidence-based science, then all evidence points to Republicans being anti-science. You don't have to be a committed lifelong Democrat to see that the current Republican party is fighting climate change efforts at every turn and needs to be displaced in order for political progress on the issue to happen.
> something that could be in the red zone for some portion of HN community in terms of benefiting, but not sharing, in FOSS.

I admit, I'm in this camp where my gut reaction is fairly negative. Truthfully, I'm trying to sit on this info a bit and come to terms with how I feel with it (with respect to a personal strategy), because my reaction was pretty visceral. I mean, it's okay, it's not disallowed by most licenses, but if I wanted could I do this and feel okay about it?

There's a wide spectrum between doing work and fighting to get it included and doing work and actively keeping it limited to a few individuals. At a minimum, just throwing what you have out to the public and saying "here, do what you may with this, it worked for me but I wash my hands of it if you want help" seems a sane middle ground to explore.
You can use PrivateLink for this instead of peering. That way you just hit a local IP address/ENI in your VPC. CIDR Ranges don't matter with that. (not sure about the x-region story)

Two different design philosophies, there are been a global GCP networking outages due to having the single flat network. A few this year. All providers have had their issues, but, global blast radiuses concern me.
> There's freedom not to use Google services.

Using Google services is now required by many public schools in the US. That's where all the homework is posted, for example. Now in the US there's freedom to not attend public school, of course, so technically you have the right to not use Google services. But in practice the vast majority of people would not be able to exercise that right in this case.

Similarly, a number of schools are starting to do communications with parents purely through Facebook. And I expect this trend will keep getting worse before it gets better.

> Calls to regulate independent companies are purely ludicrous.

If they're really independent companies, yes. If they're government-sponsored monopolies, on the other hand, the calculus is quite different. And we're quite close to that line, if not over it.

You could argue that the right solution is for governments to not enshrine these companies in these monopoly positions. That would be lovely, obviously. Too bad the companies are spending all this money to get into those positions (see Google Classroom).
AutoHotKey is the big help here. Shortcuts instead of hunting for files, shortcuts instead of repetitive menu commands, remapping keys to do screenshots or launch KDiff or whatever. Like for example, I set one up that only applies to Outlook and applies a monospace style to the selected text so it looks like code. That was a bunch of clicks before and now it's just Ctrl+Q.
Spam filtering isn't censorship. It's not censorship when the recipient doesn't want the message. And botspam is spam.

The difference is when you have a message that some of the actual human recipients actually want. Then it isn't spam, it's just information some people disagree with.

If you don't like what someone has to say, don't listen to them. But you have no right to tell someone else they can't.