skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
This article starts OK, but the conclusions don't make any sense to me... Print advertising isn't dead, it still lives on (of course) in print, and even if newspapers and magazines are diminishing, billboards and other outdoor advertising certainly are not. Sure, there is way less of an emphasis on it with new types of media that have popped up in the meantime, but it's crazy to say the Internet has killed it...

It says "It’s hard to imagine the NSA launching a similar campaign today" and "We’ll never see their likes again" - but of course they still produce this kind of stuff internally... Sure, the style has evolved and changed from the mid-century aesthetic, and the way the message is communicated has changed a bit, but 'creative/artistic' posters for this purpose still exist and will continue to... I literally saw a cartoon poster reminding people not to share classified information produced by the Australian Defence Department last week on a site visit to a Navy facility that uses some of our hardware...
Netlify has been a great help in building https://localgov.fyi/ Kudos!
$10 a month for more content than I know what to do with is such a cheap price to not have to deal with the pain of torrenting.

If it was $20 per DVD like in the past, the pain of torrenting was far less than the pain of the cost of buying your favorite movies.

I really think it's that simple. This value equation alone means that a majority of people won't care enough to go the extra length to participate in torrent communities. They'll just pay a small $10 a month to watch whatever they want, whenever they want, on any device, anywhere. That'll kill the incentive right from the start.
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?

You point at anti-science conspiracy theories as a failing of free speech, and you're probably right, but what would you have us do otherwise? A world in which some central authority dictates that certain opinions are never allowed to be expressed, to me, seems like an absolutely horrible place to live, even if it meant that antivaxxers couldn't spread their crap anymore.

Furthermore, there is no such thing as a perfect political system. It's not enough to point at what free speech fails at, you also need to suggest what we should be doing instead, and how the failings of that system wouldn't be worse.

It's a pretty good comparison to democracy, in my mind. It's the worst system ever invented, except for all of the other ones we've tried.
I was going to say that they're not really doing it on Android, but then I remembered that both Apple and Google banned the free speech absolutist social network Gab's official app.

At least on Android you can still install it without Google's consent if you so choose. Overall though what you're saying still has more validity to it than I'd like to admit.
I'm curious too. There may be a binding arbitration clause in the EULA that allows them to overturn any decision made by the court.
This. In some ways, we sort of see that with the PC movement itself. Like when people attacked Scott Kelly for quoting Winston Churchill, the OG anti-fascist, who opposed real life fascists, for God's sake: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45789819
> On a team of 100, you have so little power/responsibility that you feel out of place calling attention to issues

This reminds me of bystander effect [0]. The demarkation of responsibility in large enough teams could invoke delays just in finding who is responsible for what.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect
It's ironic that Wikipedia has a 'Censorship by Google' article that would benefit from the addition of a paragraph or two about this memo, but due to Wikipedia's censorship of Breitbart as a source and Breitbart being the source on this, that won't happen.

It's a shame when legitimate journalism is stifled by censorship.
And before someone replies with "How can you possibly say that", you can do both - be optimistic about the future and also change your own personal habits and become educated on the topic in general anyway.
Okay, now let's apply your example to something a bit more violent. People that believe black people are sub-human and deserve less rights.

At what point do we no longer tolerate their opinions? For example, would you believe it's bad for someone to be censored on HN because they talked about how much they hated black coders? At a certain point we deemed as a society that those sort of views are considered bad. Do you think that was a mistake?
> "Everybody wants to censor what they don't like."

This should be top comment on all HN discussions involving content moderation, so people can read it before they respond and think about whether what they are advocating makes sense. People these days so effortlessly are able to make that huge leap from "I don't personally like this thing" to "This thing must be suppressed/illegal for everyone."
> 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.

This is disingenuous because humans have been around say 2M years, and those hot climate years were >5M years ago. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record).

We don't need Earth to have Venus conditions for it to be a big problem for us.
Equating hurt feelings with 'harm' is sophistry. If your speech causes harm, you can sue for damages. A person's belief that Sandy Hook is a conspiracy harms no one. A person can say or believe what they want and I for one couldn't care less whose feelings it hurts. I'm sure King George's feelings were hurt by being called a tyrant. And, I'm sure there were sniveling nimrods who wrung their hands in virtuous concern about the uncivil hate speech of the colonists.

Sticks and stones...
> Or because they are bots?

That one.
How to make your AMP web pages even faster, according to AMP
If twitter/FB/reddit had done a better job with banning spam bots originating from the GRU offices then you wouldn't be getting called a Russian bot. The effect of Russian bots is multi-pronged because it dilutes the discussion into figuring out whose is a person and who is a bot.

If anybody wants a good article to read on their commute: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/magazine/the-agency.html

This is a 2015 investigative report digging deeper into Russian bots. Attempting to find some answers.
You can't use memcpy here, you have to modify the original memory to mark it as freed. You also can't allocate a new buffer to do the copy into because you are the allocator.

The C standard specifically states that a cast (T ) to and from (void ) is validly defined behavior and that you must get the original pointer back. It's also valid to go from (T ) to (U ) and back again if and only if T and U have the same alignment requirements. (void ) is required to have no alignment requirements because you can't directly de-reference it since the result would have type (void).

__attribute__((__packed__)) is a completely different topic about how the layout of the struct gets decided and what padding might be used.

What's going on here is that malloc() gives the caller a (void ) that points to one position past a (struct header_t ) and then free is casting it back from (void ) to (struct header_t ) and then going back one element in the set to get the original header with the meta-data about the allocation, this is perfectly fine because the pointer is never anything other than (void ) or (struct header_t ) as far as the language is concerned. The caller might turn the element after the (struct header_t ) into something else but the original (struct header_t *) is always the same.
The presentation mentions "global inconsistency" as a problem, but I disagree. Communities have different community standards, so they should have different moderation.

As an example, it is rather unfortunate that American obscenity standard is enforced against the world at large.
Fundamentally it is a political problem, not a technological problem. We need high carbon taxes, we need to end fossil fuel subsidies, and we probably need to change our economic system to something that addresses the tragedy of the commons.

But we’ve seen in recent years how technology can influence politics. I’d quote a tweet from Tristan Harris from the other day [1]:

> In an hypothetical world, if Facebook were re-designed entirely into a global coordination tool for billions of people to take the most meaningful and significant steps to fight climate change -- what would it look like?

1: https://twitter.com/tristanharris/status/1049177712227573760
Has anyone here successfully lobbied their management to get rid of the open office plan?

A good game plan for that seems much more valuable than headphone recommendations.
I know that the Xbox 360 doesn't allow offline play. I wouldn't be surprised if inserting the disc automatically and permanently ties some unique serial number to your account.
Ah, ok. Makes more sense this way.
It would not surprise me if the NSA did know about it but it's a shame they didn't have any proof.
Hate speech is free speech too. So there's no grey area, legally that is (remember "God hates fags" ruling?). The rest is just censorship, and most of it is political these days. Twitter is not even hiding it, they openly ban conservatives. And it's legal, since these are private companies. Just don't consider them reliable sources of unfiltered information.
A map isn't necessary to show a location. The digital sign could just display the name of the last intersection the bus was at. (I'm not convinced that's any better than a reasonably good prediction though.)
Absolutely nothing. As long as solutions require major changes in lifestyle for most people absolutely nothing will happen. Our only hope is to invent technology to mitigate the problem (sequester carbon from the atmosphere, get cheaper alternative fuels, protect cities from rising ocean levels and reinforce infrastructure to better tolerate extreme weather).

Anything else is just wishful thinking that places much more faith in the ability of people to value their long term interests over their short term comfort than evidence suggests is warranted.
Here's a few on Aliexpress: https://www.aliexpress.com/wholesale?catId=0&initiative_id=A...

It would appear that they are used and recycled though, rather than new OEM parts.
TLDR;

- break task in to tiny steps

- allocate time on calendar

- buddy up with someone

- Talk about it to others

- just relax and something else you want

This article is not deep study but just someone’s opinion.
> Attacking the free press is one criteria.

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

You do realise that you're

- attacking the free press by asking for censorship?

- Sort of labelling other people that disagree with you (in this instance: disagree with democracy) as enemies (of democracy)?

That's of course very inconsistent.

But it also assumes that "the current form of democracy is the best we can ever have".

Democracy needs criticism, especially since what we have is a 19th century system that assumes information dispersal and real-time voting is practically is impossible.
> If so, then why do these conspiracies exist?

Because that's how the process works. Liars lie and evidence proves them wrong. It doesn't make them disappear from existence, it just makes it so you can discover the truth.

Without free speech there are no fewer lies, all you do is suppress the truth. The Party's version is the only version even when it's fiction.
The true reality is that the most persuasive ideas survive, not the most truthful ones. The challenge for the scientific community is to make sure to remember that persuasion matters as much as logic and facts do, if not more.
> The Earth has also been a lot warmer than it is now

Key here is rate of change, and what humans can survive. We are changing the climate many many times faster than ever before. Nature does not have the time to adapt. And the wars, famines and mass displacements coming from ecosystem collapse is like nothing we've seen in human history. Think we have a problem with a few million migrants? Try a billion or two!

P-T Extinction event "The Great Dying" took on the order of 100 000 years to elevate CO2 and still killed off 96% of marine species and 70% of land vertebrates. The largest mass extinction ever(?) We're going strong in that direction over a few hundred years.

And a very hot earth will have large areas that are not survivable by humans, by traditional crops and food animals, and so on. Storms and floods massively more powerful than we see today.

Frankly, how can you not be afraid of that future? It's very likely your descendants won't survive it.
Don't have a free "org" source; maybe they never was. Free domains I got were under national TLD.
This happens to me too. I think people do this so they can dismiss ideas without having to refute them.
Yes! I am OK with only humans having a right to free speech.
Be kind, rip and share where possible. The Dmca only applies in the US. The 2600 campaign against dmca feels like it was yesterday.

Netflix let's you download a lot of content. Great for when you aren't connected.
I've been shocked by how many of my home appliances I've had to fix in the past 20 or so years. I think that I've fixed or replaced every single appliance in my house, some of them more than once. And I have to pay 35 bucks to dispose of an appliance.

On the other hand, it could be perception. My parents had to fix appliances too. (I grew up in a fix-it family). And we have more appliances now. For instance home computers didn't exist when I was a kid.

And there is a balancing force. While stuff breaks, the ability to find repair instructions online has been a godsend. I swear that whenever I experience a problem with technology, someone else has already had the same problem, fixed it, and blogged or YouTube'd about it.
Use a website blocker for the last one. Make sure you set it first thing in the morning, otherwise you have lost the battle.

Another thing I add is accept five lines of code as an acceptable day of work. Because usually it leads to more, but if it's just one of those days, five lines is infinitely better than zero, and you are far more likely to get out of your rut tomorrow because it's a new starting point. Feeling bad about things just gets you into a writers block state and exacerbates the situation. If you have done five lines and know your brain is toast, don't feel bad about taking a mental break for the rest of the day.
The day they stop calling it "cyber" is the day we can rest easy, knowing that people who know what they're doing have been put in charge.

https://xkcd.com/1573/
I like polar bears so it's sad to see those go. It will be disturbing to see coastal cities founded next to sunken cities. Storms are fun but only when they're occasional. I already miss the insects.

We worry about losing languages, cultures, artwork to the unyielding entropic horror named time. Not because we have a pragmatic need for them. But the future is scary when you can't bring the past with you. My culture is my security blanket.

Maybe my kids are going to grow up in a world not defined by technology but by the change in daily regimen of existence. Humans adapt really well to just about anything, so I bet my kids will feel right at home. They'll roll their eyes on cue when I insist that the future wasn't supposed to be like this.

I've always kind of wondered how someone as liberal as me can possibly turn into an old curmudgeon. Maybe this is how. Maybe I'll be disquieted not by being overrun by the creep of new gadgets, but by looking around and seeing a completely foreign anthroposphere.
I read this as being similar to “The king is dead long live the king.” Toxicity is just swapped with different toxicity. The road to toxic is often paved with good intentions.
I think sockpuppets should be moderated, and bots should be too, for the same reason.
This was the subject of one of John C. Dvorak's last PC Mag articles: "Twitter and Facebook Are Publishers, Not Platforms" https://www.pcmag.com/commentary/363100/twitter-and-facebook...
> It didn't. It was just one thing: Open standards and promoting the open internet.

The Wikipedia article [1] presents the motto (which is actually "Don't be evil") as being much more than that, from its origin and throughout its use. On second look, it doesn't even use the adjective "open" or mention standards.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_evil
> Aren't ear-plugs noise cancelling?

No, they are isolating. Canceling is an active process using destructive interference of sound waves.

Since it is a different mechanism you have quite different properties. For example size/material/fit on ear have different constraints and you can selectively filter out different frequencies (many noise canceling headphones allow you to let voices through for example, or sirens/warning noises).
If by 'harmful' speech you mean conspiracies, I would argue they've always been around. It's not a new problem. People have always filled the gaps in their knowledge with unjustified beliefs.

However, your answer would be to deplatform those who would post such ideas. Do you honestly think that would make it better? Did deplatforming Alex Jones help people? It just galvanized those who believed there was a conspiracy and made him all the more popular.

How about we take on the hard task of trying to actually reach those who we believe have false ideas. For example, how do people respond to flat-earthers? Constant ridicule and laughter. The reason they believe in these theories is a lot more complex and nuanced than merely that they are 'stupid'.
How are we defining what a bot is? From what I can tell a bot seems to be astroturfing done by Russians working for a quasi-propaganda office. But, there are many state sponsored "bots" from all kinds of places. Promoting all kinds of things and political views, from allies to foes.

Or is a bot strictly an "AI" bot?
I find it strange what services attract hacking attempts.

If anyone has attempted to break into my bank accounts or my Google account, I never noticed. (My Gmail account is used for TFA for most of my other accounts, so I would expect it to be a target.)

You know what accounts I have had attacked? There have been dozens and dozens of attempts to access my Steam account by someone who figured out my password, but didn't have access to my email to receive a confirmation code. (Mostly, but not always, from Chinese IP addresses.) Someone else successfully compromised my OkCupid account and apparently used it to advertise escort services. Apparently someone else got into my Snapchat account and sent spam to all my contacts.

Go figure.
Well, yes. But I don’t think censoring the alt-right is problematic if they can’t stay within whatever policies companies set. You’re not denied access to a supermarket either, but if you start intentionally pissing in their floor, then you’d get thrown out.

Of course I come from a region of the world, where people like the alt-right won, and eventually started putting centrists in prison camps.
Not on HN, looking at your comments/submission stream.
Thanks to heaps of feedback I have received via email, I am manually merging feedback text changes into free programming books; goal is to release fresh new free programming books by 1st of November 2018

Link: https://books.goalkicker.com
Why aren't those criticisms valid? Scott Kelly seems to think they were.

Edit: quoting him to make this clear: I did not mean to offend by quoting Churchill. My apologies I will go and educate myself on his atrocities, racist views which I do not support.... It's a tweet embedded in the same article.

People's view of leaders change over time. In Australia Churchill was seen as an evil colonialist for his role in the Gallipoli debacle until he was rehabilitated during WW2.
I'd find a private school / homeschool argument disingenuous, so I'm with you that far.

Google Classroom is a fair point (schools also use Google Docs and the like as well), but I don't believe it holds water.

Governments would be well within their rights not to award contracts to, or use the services of, companies they felt were not respecting the values of free speech. The difference between this and active regulation are that one is voluntary for the company (must obey this term for eligibility for extra reward) and one is mandatory (must obey this term or be punished by the law).

I don't have much to say about communicating to parents through Facebook, other than that they should still offer optional email communication.
I think the thing that is missing from the presentation is that Google is positioning itself to take a tone policing position, but that completely ignores damage to actual people. People injured by the powerful and the state will be angry, will go viral, and will likely violate tone policed policies. People that drop white nationalist (genocidal) rhetoric with a smile get to push their case. Furthermore, the economics of the situation mean that Google et al are structurally incapable of reforms that dilute their power or reduce engagement. The alternative that preserves their power is to exert overt censorship as they will do in China. Thankfully, we are not there yet in the US.

Tone policing generally favors knocking down the left anyway, which is favorable to elites whom are the targets of their ire.
You live in that world right now. We have a central authority that says 'you're not allowed to call black people certain words'.

I always ask this but do you believe that was a mistake? Do you think people have that specific right to exercise their freedom of speech?

Obviously there are degrees of harm to speech. We've already collectively determined this as a society. And to me, anti-vaxxers are a great example. We arrest anti-vaxxers if their children suffer due to child abuse. Do you believe that to be a mistake, that they don't have the right to exercise their own beliefs?
But if the bots are intelligent enough to be a problem maybe they should have free speech.
Well, it usually starts with a genuine desire for civility, but as they say, power corrupts and once you give power over speech to censors (and you see this even on moderated boards), they tend to abuse their power for other purposes. It's not a problem because of repressive societies, they are the symptoms. It's a problem with human nature.
The free press in Germany seems to be doing ok, even though they aren't allowed to print hate speech.
I think western countries are not representative of the world as they represent a small minority of world's population (10% or so).

I have read some predictions about world population continuing to increase to around 12 billion and stabilising at that number.

Let's say that happens. Then you run into the problem of people in western countries consuming many times more resources and energy per capital as developing world.

Then in order to avoid climate catastrophe it would mean you have to reduce standard of living for the minority that consumes the most fuel and energy, also standard of living of those in developing world could not catch up.

Basically the argument I'm trying to make it that it won't be sustainable to have 1 or 2 cars per family like it is normal in the West, and other similar luxuries.