skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Thankfully the answer is "If we are fighting another nuclear power such that they are trying to shootdown a Bomber that didn't invade their airspace or sink an aircraft carrier something has already gone horribly wrong." Pax Atomica is in effect and there is a very reason why all of the wars were proxy wars. Everybody knows that it can only end in everyone losing.
I see little value in this post. She simply proclaims how "screwed" up HN, Linux, and other communities are, then uses an irrelevant story / anecdote to explain her lack of public participation in open source software. This could have been wrapped up in a tweet along the lines of: "These communities are toxic and screwed up, as I suspected! This reinforces my decision to stay out."
I find it really annoying that phones need so much hand holding from OEMs to keep up to date. Imagine the backlash if a Windows OEM said that: a.) you could only get OS updates from them, and b.) you'd only get 2 years of updates.
Interesting Quote of Current President (Pg 48)

"""When it comes to users, all of this bad behaviour and mismanagement...
Breads Conspiracy Theories

"Google's search engine was suppressing the bad news about Hillary Clinton" - Donald Trump, 2016"""
The obvious solution would be to decrease the population globally to more manageable level. That is not possible because humans are hardwired to breed and multiply. The next best thing we can do is try to do some big action on government levels. Again very difficult because it would mean decreasing standard of living (more expensive fuel, for example, to discourage inefficient cars, higher taxes on products dependent on fossil fuels), so you would be asking people to vote for decreasing their living standard and making their life worse off short term. Nobody is going to vote for a politician who promises to make your life worse and products you use daily more expensive thus making you poorer.
Yes - education, lobbying and advocating would all have to be part of the plan.

Edit: look at https://transitionnetwork.org - grassroots network in the UK that seems to be doing well at getting people to engage.
I think it is fair, but I can imagine a scenario where a person reads a line and thinks "this is obviously leftist".

Personally, I think company's have been bending over backwards to prove they aren't biasing against the right.
Lots of private torrent sites are alive and kicking, and lots of open communities die. I'd need more evidence that openness vs closedness is what kills them.
This is a really good document, mostly describing current events and trends in censorship.

Most of the policy it advocates is basically being consistent and open about how Google is handling issues, and how censorship is being applied.

The title is click-baity, but that's not so bad.
I don't get the creepy vibe the author is claiming. looks like mundane office posters of the period to me.
What both sides though? The alt-right isn’t in opposition to anything mainstream, they are anti-democratic and should be treated the same way antifa, farc, isis and others are.

Every time democracy fails to shut down movements like the alt-right, things end badly for democracy itself. The most used throve is stuff like nazism and fascism, but history actually have a lot of better examples.

Because both Napoleon and Caesar effectively ended democracy with applause, unlike Hitler.

I think it’s extremely dangerous to treat anti-democratic forces as equal to democratic ones. I’m a conservative by the way, so it’s not like I’m not conserved about the liberal bias in the tech sector. But the debates we have these days, about forcing platforms to include outright anti-democratic values is crazy.
..and evidently, the open source community and its products could be even more impressive if it was better at responding to criticism. You are bad at this - and that’s a problem.
> That is not possible because humans are hardwired to breed and multiply.

Wait a second, then why is it that almost every western country is currently seeing negative population forecasts without immigration?

Seems like western countries were already heading towards population decline but have been propped up in recent years with the call for more economic growth and I don't think those calls are hardwired at all.
What would be the practical consequences of losing this immunity?
And presumably this is for the difficult cases we're Google can't block it because they're not sure it's spam, and you yourself are also not sure if the call is legitimate.
Tencent’s $220B Rout Is Breaking All Kinds of Records
Not after reading about the Clinton’s on it, no.

I don’t particularly like the Clintons, but unlike breitbart, I do consider them to be human beings.
It's not elitist, it's just not wanting to deal with assholes. I think that is pretty understandable. That doesn't punish them it just results in not dealing with them.
This is true, and some have said they have already crossed the threshold and should be regulated by the government.
I'm speaking for myself here but I think the Russian bots as well as astroturfing bots need to be censored. And not censored by government regulation but by the terms of service. There are many "active measure" Russian bots active on twitter. Twitter doesn't seem concerned at all mostly because those Russian bots are padding their numbers same goes for FB and reddit.
Windows 10 October 2018 Update no longer deletes your data
You never have a browser open with documentation/stackoverflow etc while coding?

Or checking and responding to emails while in the middle of fixing a bug?

Or managing texts from family members while doing whatever else on your PC?
> "do no evil"

Not that it matters too much, but the motto was the much less ambitious (and more achievable) "Don't be evil".
Don't just vote, run for office.
I will kind of disagree.

While having stuff in stdlib can be convenient, it all tends to be where active development goes to die. Compare httplib with something like Requests.
It's almost if they are trying to limit their candidate pool to the smallest possible set of potential employees.
Their forums are ghost towns. What.cd still doesn't have a successor, and one of three strong pretenders didn't even manage to stay online.

It may be caused more by competition from Spotifies and Netflixes than their closedness (although I don't agree) but they're certainly not alive and kicking.
>It comes across as elitist to keep code fixes in your own private repository to 'punish' those you don't agree with.

Throughout my life I seem to have endless arguments about this. Many people seem to have a binary view of the world (positive/negative), and many others (like me) tend to have more of a ternary view (positive/neutral/negative).

No one is punishing anyone. Not helping is neutral. It is not a punishment.

If I dislike what you do and decide to withdraw support I had been providing, I am not punishing you. I am merely disengaging with you. My position is the same as that of someone who never helped you and continues not to help you.

And of course, as another person has pointed out. When someone gives you something with the explicit permission that you do not have to give back, it is petty to complain when they don't give back.
I knew nothing about Netlify before this post, so this is a purely generic, rational note: yes it will. You lure in customers with an attractive free tier and then change it so you can monetize at least some of them and be profitable. Choosing the right business model however, is what I think shows the true character of the company’s leadership. Unfortunately greed usually wins. But enjoy the product while it lasts. Might be a good amount of months, or even years before that happens.
This 100000% over. Otherwise they are becoming the new kingmakers, manipulating people often without them even knowing. Incidentally there is a good documentary that is now on Amazon Prime called "The Creepy Line" that is worth watching.
IANAL

You can sue Google for damages if someone uploads a copyrighted movie to youtube.

You can sue Google for libel or slander if someone posts disparaging statements about an individual to Blogspot or Youtube

Since Google has a lot of money and the people who publish this content may not have too much money, Google would become the target for many lawsuits
More likely that someone else falsified it and they didn't fact check correctly. But Google's statement appears to confirm that it's real.
I can list quite a few improvements to AirPods:

* Wireless charging case

* More controls (perhaps touch sensitive long-press for Siri)

* Better switching between iOS/macOS (or generally - better support in macOS)

* Stereo mic support

* Native lavalier mic support in iOS camera

* Waterproofing

* One-device-multiple-airpods support

* Much much much lower price

* Thinner case

* Hearing aid feature (iOS 12 sort of does it via iPhone mic)

All that said, it's my favourite Apple product in past decade.
There's a larger question that Breitbart is raising: should we tolerate Google - or any company - as a monopolist with censorship power over information distribution. In this case, they're an extraordinarily powerful, expansive monopolist at that. Who decides the degree to which they censor, who gets censored, what information gets censored, etc. Google isn't just a company policing its own platform. Imagine Microsoft aggressively censoring what people could browse, upload to the Internet or write on its operating system in ~2001 (or any time during peak Windows monopoly): it'd be an obvious monopoly abuse, harm to consumers, and as an extension of that monopoly position a form of censorship. Google, through the leverage of its multiple monopolies (search, YouTube, Android), is pushing toward that sort of behavior.
The problem is that then you have to decide what's 'anti-democratic'. You won't find 50 opinions that differ from your own. On top of that, it can then be used as justification to censor almost anything you don't like.

Sure, right now you'll think there is a clear criteria. But in 25, 50, or 100 years from now, people could have easily twisted it to mean whatever they disagree with.
> There are people who believe free speech is not the ultimate value

A right to free speech is a recent, American-centric invention, rather than a natural cornerstone of democracy, a fact that often seems lost on Americans.
Nicki Minaj bought me a first class plane ticket
Maybe if the media managed to actually present the issue in a balanced way we wouldn't be here. Maybe if every dire prediction wasn't presented as fact and every criticism labeled as conspiracy theory and vica versa for a-lot of other outlets.

Maybe if solutions like geo-engineering were at least discussed instead of the chorus of the media/politicians telling people that taxes and fees are THE ONLY SOLUTION to the crisis.

Just my 2cents, but we would be so much further ahead if the conversation has some actual balance instead of these-days where people are complaining that having a 5/95 skew in favour of the armageddon scenario if we don't have a global tax on carbon, move to 100% renewables and electric cars as being too generous to the critics of this plan.
Brietbart found quite a lot to take issue with in this presentation, if you care to read their article. Some of the points you might even agree with, or lead you to take greater pause when a company like Google starts down the path of censorship.

Weighting results toward “authoritative voices”, delisting results which could damage their advertising revenue, or as they claimed in the infamous all-hands meeting, bending the curve of political discourse in the country to suit their personal world view.

Given the power inherent in Google’s near-monopoly on search, I’m personally a lot more critical of potential political or editorial influences over Google’s methods for listing, ranking, and delisting content.
a phone in a noose isn't creepy?
Here in 2018, I'm not that worried about Google's position as world's information arbiter and how it chooses to censor content. But I do worry a bit, as the path to hell is paved with good intentions. How will this evolve over the decades to come?

Where does the line between "hate speech" and legitimate criticism get drawn? Criticism is often crude. Humor is often crude. Sometimes humor, even crude humor, cuts to the core of an issue better than any intellectual discussion or essay could possibly yield. The U.S. itself has a long tradition of pointed, sarcastic political cartoons, as an example.

We need not reach back too far in memory to find an example of grey area between "hate speech" and "free speech": The Dutch cartoonist Kurt Westergaard and his infamous Muhammad bomb cartoon.

I think Google and other social media giants will find themselves in an impossible situation, if they haven't already. To be a good censor is to declare the "rightness" and "wrongness" of content in a consistent manner. However, in order to do so, you have to stake a position.

However, these companies sprawl too far and too wide to stake a position without alienating huge swaths of the population. And without making it all too easy for factions to believe that their side is being discriminated against.
So I'm honestly not as concerned about this as I once was.

Don't get me wrong: the climate is going to change, arguably we're in a mass extinction event already and people aren't going to suddenly start acting in the collective long term welfare of humanity.

One of the things I like about futurism is the levelheaded optimism and pragmatism you tend to get. And I'll call out Isaac Arthur as a well-known example of this.

Think there's too many people? You can easily show that the world could easily produce enough to feed a population 10 times what we have now in the very near future, thanks largely to automation.

Think we're dumping too much CO2 into the atmosphere? We no doubt are but that problem basically goes away immediately if we ever get economic fusion power. Even if we don't, the plummetting cost of wind and solar may solve that anyway (by "solve" I mean that as soon as non-fossil fuel power production is cheaper than fossil fuels it becomes economic to remove CO2 from the atmosphere and turn into hydrocarbons).

Too expensive to get to space? Eventually the cost of this will go down to dollars per kilogram.

Worried about how we'll produce all that power? When getting stuff into orbit is sufficiently cheap it'll become economic to put solar collectors in orbit and beam energy back to Earth.

And all you need for this kind of optimism is the kind of technology we're widely expected to have this century.

So it's kind of sad that a lot of the larger fauna is doomed but you're not going to change people's appetites for rhino horns, fish bladders, tiger oil or pangolin dishes. Then again, maybe future genetics can restore some or all of those species.

The Earth has also been a lot warmer than it is now so I have trouble believing the doomsday scenarios of runaway climate change that'll turn the Earth into Venus just because the Earth has been here for 4-5 billion years, has been hotter than now and hasn't become Venus yet. We also seem to have a pretty poor history of predictions when it comes to climate change too.

Fundamentally this also seems like a "betting with the Mayans" type scenario too. Either the doomsayers are right and we're screwed. If so, you'll be right but who cares? We're still screwed. You're probably better off just hoping things will work out because, honestly, I think there's a pretty decent chance they will.
Just because a belief is civilly expressed does not make it less harmful. For example: people casually believing that the Sandy Hook shooting was a conspiracy drummed up by the government is actively harmful to the families affected by that tragedy. What do you say to those people? How do you solve that problem? And how do you define 'civil'?

Because different platforms have different ranges of civility as well.
On the two pages titled "But recent global events have undermined this utopian narrative" there are a total of 8 events depicted. The viewer is expected to think that the events are problems. About 4 or 5 of the events would be considered good by many on the right, but bad by the left. The remaining events are just gross, weird, and otherwise unrelated to the US political spectrum.
Most hardware engineering companies have no idea about software. To them, software is just another line item on the BOM, like a bolt or a piece of sheet metal. Something that you need to source as cheaply as possible and stick into the package somewhere on the assembly line. Nobody cares what it does or how buggy it is as long as it meets the checklist of requirements written into the contract with the supplier.

Look at things like cable set top boxes, and automotive entertainment systems. It's like they don't care what the software is as long as some bits that some supplier sent them are flashed onto the device.
But like the parent comment said, thats market cap, not value. Value isn’t market cap because the market is irrational and VOC is a perfect example of that.
It seems many historians do not support your view. Notions of free speech date back to antiquity. [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
And that's your right. But I think you might also be underestimating what "your information" might be.

What if it's a disease you just discovered you have, and you don't necessarily have all the information yet? Should you be targeted before you've had time to look into it, much less come to terms with it?

What if you have a child with health problems or are part of a pregnancy that has problems? Would you want companies that might take advantage of the situation to be able to target you?

What if you've just been turned down for a job? Should a for-profit college with poor qualities be able to target you right afterwards?

There are many times when we find ourselves in an altered state of mind (even if slightly) where we are more susceptible to our baser emotions. Do we really need to engineer a system so companies can better identify when we are in these states for their benefit and to our detriment?

It's fine if someone wants to knowingly trade their information away for some benefit, but they should be able to see what they are trading away and make an informed assessment. What we have now doesn't really allow for that, and once it's out there, it generally has little to no value later (once you're marked as an ex-con, good luck getting that our of everyone's data sets).
I doubt it was lack of vision. For a long time, one of Google's most important competitive edges was it's efficient infrastructure. With AWS coming in and Google moving to become an AI company, data probably became a more serious competitive advantage and they started Google Cloud Project
I don’t decide what’s anti-democratic though, we have guidelines for that provided by the United Nations. I mean, it’s been seen and done before throughout history, so it’s not exactly hard to spot.

Attacking the free press is one criteria.

Labeling everyone that disagrees with you the slightest as enemies, is another.

I mean, assuming this leak is real, then googles stance on censoring is extremely centrists, letting them appease both sides of the political spectrum. But that’s not what breitbart or the alt-right really wants, they want google to only appease their radical views.

Ironically, it’s a lot easier to get banned from alt-right forums than it is from YouTube. All you have to do, is disagree with whatever dogma they spin, because they aren’t even remotely interested in a democratic discourse.

Of course, looking at history, no one have ever really stopped movements like the alt-right early enough to save their democracy. So America is probably rather doomed.
The enumeration of free speech as a natural right in a Constitution is an American invention, but the idea itself is much older than that. However, the freedom of speech and press is as important to free nations as an immune system is to a body...neither will lost long without it.
Haven't read the article but if block is void *, this won't compile because sizeof(void) is not defined. And they are probably trying to subtract the sizeof(struct header) hence the expression in your original comment.
399BC Socrates speaks to jury at his trial: 'If you offered to let me off this time on condition I am not any longer to speak my mind... I should say to you, "Men of Athens, I shall obey the Gods rather than you."'
There's a strong difference between state mandated censorship and a company voluntarily censoring content on their platform.

A company has the absolute right to prohibit any content on their platform that they so choose. There's freedom not to use Google services.

Calls to regulate independent companies are purely ludicrous. If Facebook said tomorrow that any positive mention of, say, Paul Graham, would result in immediate account deletion, that'd be their choice. Very valid criticism from the perspective of a user would be warranted, but that's where it should end.
Python is becoming the world’s most popular programming language
Top tech industry execs named to a Saudi advisory board
There are thousands of conspiracies floating around. Should we consider them all harmful and ban them?

Who decides when a conspiracy becomes harmful? Should we ban flat-earthers from posting their views? After all, if everyone believed it, we would set science back countless centuries.

The way to combat false ideas is with truth; a culture that is always searching for the truth. That can only be facilitated by unhindered speech.
Non-paywalled summary http://www.blog.pythonlibrary.org/2018/10/09/python-worlds-m...
This is a valid criticism. Let's say something truly unsavory was said about a valued relative, etc. It's hurtful. But, I think it's less hurtful then not being able to have dissident ideas expressed. For examples, we have Russia and China. They will censor topics using "civility" and whatever else in their arsenal to crush dissent. Personally I think that is worse.
Outside of China yes. If China is asking people to install Jingwangweishi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jingwang_Weishi) under threat of fine or jail on Android devices, why do you think they would allow a simple, legal workaround to be "Just buy an iPhone!"

That is, China sets up elaborate domestic surveillance, deep packet inspection everywhere, asks citizens to install apps which backdoors their phones to scanning and logging, and all you need to do to thwart it is buy an Apple device? Does that sound like something they would willingly permit?

That would be like the US congress passing a law requiring Key Escrow, and every device manufacturer on the market complying, but if you just buy a Xiaomi phone, you can bypass it.

How likely do you think there's no special alteration to how iCloud encryption works in China?
“Eating food you grew yourself” is a tax dodge? What about making your own improvements to your house? Cooking your own food? Doing your own laundry? You could pay for any number of services, with the associated tax. So you’re about as much of a tax dodge as these folks. But that’s a radical expansion of the notion of taxable economic activity. The IRS trying to get that notion accepted as law would be practically unthinkable.

There was a time, for that matter, where most of the U.S. economy was agrarian. The world still worked. There were fewer government services, to be sure- but if most people are members of semi-self-sufficient communities, fewer services would be needed.
I have a few popular HN-launched static sites on Netlify including https://servicelist.io/. Not only do they provide a seamless hosting and CDN (cache-expiring) experience but they also have a wonderful multi-user CMS that eliminates about half of my Rails sites!

I'll reiterate a few other sentiments in this thread, it feels a bit too good to be true. Even with 300k monthly traffic, not paying a dime seems like a precarious situation to be in for a free service.