skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It's interesting how this gets framed differently nowadays.

20 years ago, before social media, there was no assumption that everyone has a fundamental right to be able to broadcast their ideas using others' platforms. Since publication was more resource-intensive, the default for most media was to not publish things, and deciding that someone's ideas didn't merit publication wasn't seen as a violation of any great moral code. They were always free to self-publish. At their own expense, of course.

Fast forward, and, since most these sites default to letting anyone publish on their platform, with no questions asked beforehand, we've apparently come to think that using these platforms is a human right. It is not. It is a privilege. One with which they have been quite liberal with sharing, yes, but one that they are still free to revoke at any time.

There's another important right to consider, in this siuation: Freedom of association. It is also fundamental, and it goes hand-in-hand with freedom of speech. It encompasses, among other things, the right to not associate with people you don't want to be associated with. If Patreon, a private entity, does not want to be associated with sexism and racism, they should not be required to do so.
I don't know, but it's an interesting thought. What drives someone do to this? I'm in awe of it. It seems to me that it has to be tied to finding meaning in life one way or another.

I have to wonder though, how long does it take for the afterglow of such a massive accomplishment to wear off and to start asking yourself "what now?"
I ran into the Failure crate today. It was hard for me to figure out if it was something official that was going to make its way into the core language or just a third party crate. If the former, should I avoid learning failure patterns that are not using this crate? It sometimes feel like the language is moving too fast for me to learn it.
Totally get the social network stuff. But I'm curious how (or if) you consume media like movies and music if you don't use Netflix or Spotify? What did you mean there?
"Don't be"? He's been declared outlaw and hunted across the land? No? He's been rounded up and put in a camp? No? He's been arrested? No?

A company doesn't want the business of him and his followers. That's it.
Where does this argument factor in a century of the civilised west bombing the region and arming some of the worst governments in the modern world.
The graph in the article was made using a 30m dish, which I would not consider DIY territory. The referenced article is a study on what size dish is required with a RTL-SRD. Their conclusion is a minimum of 6m dish is required with simple post processing. They conclude that with improved hardware and better post processing 3.5m dish should be usable.

I'm thinking phased array. It's a more scalable method to getting large apertures and it can constructed to target multiple pulsars at once.
You are missing that Colin did it solo.
I like this one by 3Blue1Brown: https://youtu.be/spUNpyF58BY
Yes, she was implying harlot. It was just a joke, I don’t know how you turned a throw away one liner into a blog post...
I'd guess it's just that assassinations are hard.
> For god's sake, we don't even know why/how Ibuprofen works...

I bet physicists also assert that bumblebees cannot possibly fly, right? For God’s sake...

“NSAIDs such as ibuprofen work by inhibiting the cyclooxygenase (COX) enzymes, which convert arachidonic acid to prostaglandin H2 (PGH2). PGH2, in turn, is converted by other enzymes to several other prostaglandins (which are mediators of pain, inflammation, and fever) and to thromboxane A2 (which stimulates platelet aggregation, leading to the formation of blood clots).”
Nvidia Jetson AGX Xavier Benchmarks – Incredible Performance on the Edge Review
Did you use book/online courses/tutorial for learning parsing, lexing etc.
Also, there used to be a draft. Plenty of veterans alive today did not have a choice. That is not the same as "innate", but it's closer to that than to being a choice.
That deplatforming deprives the person being deplatformed of a platform is obvious, to the point that it's effectively a tautology. However, concluding that this means deplatforming is effective is extremely naive. When tech companies engage in acts of censorship like deplatforming, it causes many do lose trust in the perceived lack of partiality of these platforms. So while individual people getting censored may see their audiences diminish, support for the views they espouse and distrust of the authority carrying out the censorship often increase. In case it wasn't clear, the lack of efficacy in deplatforming I referred to in my previous comment was in reference to attempts to curb ideas and political movements - not individuals within those.

Again, deplatforming gained traction in the early to mid 2010s. It coincides more or less directly with the rise of the Alt Right. Increases in deplatforming is correlated with support for the far right, not against it.
Apologies, I was using engagement in a different sense. As a game developer I want to keep people engaged with the game - not just arbitrarily "hooked" but actually immersed and invested in the game I have made.
I think that comes with a certain ideological slant and is highly issue-dependent and thus inappropriate for the concept of virtue signalling most generally. To say that one is virtue signalling when one complains about global warming may be virtue signalling by some definition, but if it is then I would also say that not all virtue signalling is bad. Telling your friends about some issues or even letting them know your position can be important. The idea that one can't care about global warming or loses the right to make an issue of it when they don't do much themselves seems to say to me that one must believe individual solutions work to combat global warming. Now I'm not arguing for or against such an idea, but I'm sure we can both imagine cases in which it is useful in itself to raise consciousness, or socially useful to let others know your position. Maybe 'hypocrisy' is a better word for what's happening, if you feel that way.

It could also be said, using your point of view, that the 'virtue' part is important, because the virtue isn't held sincerely if you're just posting a link about it. You tie the virtue signalling to the authenticity of the signal, as do I but in a different way. The sibling comment to this one makes the same point.

This issue also comes into play when one is accused of virtue signalling when in an Internet argument, which I think is mostly a bad faith accusation lacking evidence (which I mentioned earlier). Arguing for a particular position isn't necessarily virtue signalling.
2018 is the year that we learned that complex social problems can not be solved by technology. From the political weaponization of social media to the collapse of the ICO market we've seen that the techno-utopian dream is largely just that, a dream. Social change takes hard work and the slow building of consensus, not just clever code. We have seen, however, that we can do a lot of damage to the social fabric with poorly thought out technology so I think the era of the unregulated internet is sadly coming to a close. We really have nobody to blame but ourselves.

The next generation of internet startups is going to have to be a lot more savvy about how technology interacts with society.
Hm, would headless Chromium be a good starting point for this?
The argument works better the other way. Do you believe the reason David Duke has 85k YouTube subscribers is because it's difficult to find any rational argument that the KKK is not an unalloyed good?

DD spending a lot of time being personally nice to Klansmen might swing a few of them back the other way, but I suspect making their recruitment harder in the first place might be the more scalable and less risky approach.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5302924

Hard reboot with email server disabled.
It could be, that's part of why Trump flirted with the idea of making NATO's 2% of GDP military spending target a requirement rather than a general guideline.

However, the fact that the US is the main component of NATO gives the US a lot of leverage over those other countries which is valuable in its own right.
That is certainly one way to look at it. I'll propose another way to see it: There are always trade offs. For example, you could hire enough people to simultaneously work on a Mac OS version, a Windows version, an iOS version, an Android version and a web version of your product. Of course this is going to cost a lot of money and this cost will be passed on to the users. If the users prefer the subtle differences between the UI in platforms so much that they would prefer to pay more for a product than that would be an advantage. Otherwise that is a disadvantage. Potentially a really big disadvantage. There is also a case to be made that some people would definitely want the product to work the same in the web browser as it does on their desktop. Slack is a good example of this. I don't want to learn a new user experience for the moments when I'm on another machine without Slack installed and I just want to respond to a comment quickly, I'm very happy the web experience and the desktop experience are similar.

Making absolute statements about why people make certain choices or believing them can definitely lead to false conclusions. People don't only use cross platform toolkits because they do not want to do work. Sometimes it is the best solution given the features and constraints. I like to think of it as being pragmatic.
Umm, because there is no such thing as a time machine? Any serious proposals have to start with the state of the world as it presently is.
Taming is necessary, because regardless of what you and me think about modern C++, there is a large crowd that still writes C with C++ compiler with total disregard for any kind of security validation tools.

So the only way to prevent such security exploits is by preventing copy-paste compatibility with C, which C++ sadly cannot do without breaking backwards compatibility.

You can see this happening across all desktop and mobile oriented OSes, where both C and C++ have been reduced to high performace low level OS layers, with userspace migrating to something else.

Microsoft is the only vendor left on OSes for the consumer space that still cares enough to support C++ on their UI toolkits.
It's an educated guess, which is fair, but it came off as a matter of fact in the way you articulated your claim
Not a fan of the “Pi” moniker. It’s clearly being used to associate with Raspberry Pi. One could easily think this is an official product from them.
Sure I can.

But that isn’t the point.
Should we not even be allowed to discuss a hostile immigration policy because it “sounds crazy”? That in and of itself sounds crazy to me.
Yes if you put your services into VMs.
In this hypothetical universe, is it as easy to change one's race as it is to change one's clothes? If so, it seems no different than "no shirt, no shoes, no service."

But then a world in which race was a choice would be so different from our own that one would wonder whether racial discrimination would even exist, or what "black" would even mean.
`failure` captures common error patterns in Rust and provided a test bed for experimenting on them while working to improve `trait Error`.

There is an RFC for pulling some of the trait improvements into the language. After that, I believe they plan to continue to iterate on the design of the failure crate.

The general recommendation I make and see from others is that `failure` is far from stable. Feel free to use it in applications but avoid it for libraries.
It was the scalability problem that killed Bitcoin and it probably would have happened a lot sooner without the fragmentation.
You're taking my comment completely out of context. Please reread.
People can and do change their religion. I am proof of that.
You could say the same about the way humans have learned to play chess. The main lines of the popular openings have been exhaustively searched. The way humans evaluate the middle game is also due to distilling features from brute force play and passing them on to other players who add on their own features and compute weights from additional brute force play.

The difference between AlphaZero and StockFish is that StockFish only does the latter (compute weights for features given to it by others), while AlphaZero also does the former (distill features from game state).
It also removes pretty much the only reason to use Electron despite its shortcomings - the ability to ship and run the same code on multiple platforms.

Secondly, you lose control of your application runtime environment version - need a new WKWebView version to ship a feature? Time to tell your customers to upgrade the app and their OS.

I’d maybe consider this to cheaply ship a feature inside a Mac app, but this really isn’t an option for like 99% of dev teams considering Electron.
I have the same thought when I see presidential campaigns. I don't think a balanced person would put themselves and their families through that. You have to be some kind of crazy to do this. Maybe we need these extreme people, but I am not sure we should take them as something to aspire to.
Kuipers states directly that he believes solving disagreements through violence is ineffective and wrong. He is not talking about other countries, only about the possible sources of funding for his research, namely the US military (and possibly their intelligence agencies).

As someone committed to nonviolence, and keenly aware that America has a long history of exporting violence to supposedly solve problems on foreign soil (but never seems todo so), I think he sees his duty as extending to the practicality of violent solutions, not just the philosophical bases, as you suggest.

I'd agree with him on this point. I can't think of a conflict since Korea that was solved (thoroughly and lastingly and without major loss of civilian life) using the US military to invade.
I just made an argument about that here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18765494, and here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18765509.

> The difference is that the internet has discontinuously more scalable network effects, so technology companies often find themselves in a winner-takes-all dynamic. If some publisher, newspaper, or literary magazine refused to publish Walt Whitman, he could always try and find another publisher. But if Twitter bans Titania McGrath, there is no other Twitter for her to join because the next best alternative has 1/10000th the number of users.

> This effect is new. These platforms are private entities, but effectively they operate as public commons. So culturally we must treat them similar to public commons where it isn't acceptable to kick out quirky characters because some of us don't like what they have to say.
This was Chomsky's approach to all research.
Their "punishment" is that they have to build their own platform because the owners of other platforms are exercising their freedom of (dis)association. Nobody's made it illegal for them to build their own platform, and in fact the folks on the extreme right have been building and promoting their own platforms for years and years.

And let's be honest: we're not talking about people who are "being punished because of the horrible behavior done by other people years ago". We're talking about people who are being shunned in the present day precisely because they want to revive all those horrible things and start doing them again. They don't just want a platform where they can lob slurs at Jewish people all day long; they want to re-build the concentration camps and finish what Hitler started. They don't just want a platform where they can use the n-word at will; they want a return to at the very least Jim Crow and the lynching era, if not all the way back to full-on chattel slavery of dark-skinned people.

I'm OK with them being told "go build your own forum to talk about how much you want to do that". To be honest, I'd be OK with going beyond that and just rewriting the laws to European-style "no Nazism allowed anymore", so sadly sighing and talking about how disgusting I am for wanting a world without Nazis isn't exactly going to shame me into changing my mind, y'know?
That's an entirely reasonable thing to be irritated at.
So to prevent an angry mob from taking away someone's platform, you insist we need the ability for an angry mob to take away someone's platform.

I think you need to think this through a bit more.
These "norms" are generalized and not always applicable to real life. If I disapprove of you yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, should I also have to defend your right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater? We "erode freedom of speech" when it hurts people.

This is not about "weird people with quirky ideas". This is about people who use speech to abuse, cause harm, intimidate, harass, or inspire others to commit such abuses. This cannot be tolerated in a society that wants the right to "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

One can always find a non-abusive way to present an idea. But when they cross the line into a form of abuse or violence, they should be stopped.
Did you need very selective hiring and mercy-less attrition to get to this team? This is obviously a sensitive topic

It seems to me, FINDING the right team for remote is a lot of trial and error.

(I managed a few small off shore teams and the quality really varied..)
Well, I personally believe that the reason David Duke has 85k YouTube subscribers is because any dumb shit in the world with an internet connection and a browser can press a button completely detached from any sort of consequence whatsoever.

I also think that Daryl Davis is one man on a mission. If others were perhaps similarly motivated maybe more progress could be made.
> if you raise lets say 10million during an ico (typical amount raised 6m ago), there isnt much you can do with 20M (i.e you keep the crypto and it doubles) that you cant do with “just” 10M.

By that logic, why invest in anything ever?
If some publisher, newspaper, or literary magazine refused to publish Walt Whitman, he could always try and find another publisher. But if Twitter bans Titania McGrath, there is no other Twitter for her to join because the next best alternative has 1/10000th the number of users.

This is pretty much exactly wrong (the situation is basically the exact opposite). When there were a very finite number of publishers in the English speaking world and self-publishing barely existed, an idea that could not be published would only diffuse by word of mouth. When Henry Miller could only be published in France, his works were only available to a very small number of individuals even if many could be interested.

Anyone banned from every single media site still can create a website, publish on Tor, etc. The inability to get a million followers is far from the inability to get your ideas heard. The argument confuses an inability to make money with an inability to be hear (and feel free to argue about the right make money with incindiary ideas, that obviously has a different implication).

By creating the ability to bypass publisher, the Internet produced a situation where far more ideas could be heard than previously. That situation still exists (for good and less-good). The average person still depends on filters but those filters are voluntary and a substantial portion of people know they can bypass them if they wish. And I'd say present days are also wider than earlier filters.
If this was honestly the case, then can you explain why we see the rise of neo-nazis as well as the rise in scientific distrust with regards to things like vaccines?

If arguing against those beliefs worked then by your own arguments we should see the amount of believers dwindling over time. Yet as they gain exposure even when people attempt to debate them in good faith, their numbers grow.

How do you explain this?
Every feature is a "critical feature" to someone. You have to know when to stop.
It’s not the only reason. First of all: you can use JS and HTML with all frameworks. Some people consider it a superior solution for GUI. Second: you can easily upgrade your app on iOS without moderation.
Could you explain why solving thread safety is equivalent to solving the halting problem? I suppose you also include the absence of deadlocks into thread-safety? Often it means just freedom from data races.
> By banning these people platforms like Twitter and Patreon are eroding free speech not in the legal sense, but in the cultural norms sense. If these norms continue getting eroded, god help us all -- it may set humanity and the western civilization back by hundreds of years.

I have a feeling that Western civilization which has for most of its existence censored people across nearly all media for offences as mild as saying "damn", displaying a naked person or drawing a particular shape of mouse without permission is not about to collapse because the management of a particular web platform decides that Carl Benjamin arguing with other white supremacists about whether they're behaving like "niggers" or "white people" isn't the sort of thing they wish to financially support. This really is the reductio ad absurdum freedom of speech argument.
>Freedom of Speech is not the right to be heard

Then this limited "freedom of speech", a provincial americanism based on a historical accident (the first amendment), is not the full freedom of speech the philosophers of enlightenment, artists, activists, etc., described.

>If people don't like what you have to say, or how you are saying it, they are free to walk away

In this case, they weren't free to walk away, they were thrown out, regardless of whether what was said was popular or not.

If we allow those with internet platforms to decide what's ok to be written, we're regressing before the enlightenment.

It doesn't matter if someone can "create their own platform". A right to free speech should include the ability to talk in the popular platforms of the day, the "marketplace of ideas". Nobody should be guaranteed an audience, but nobody should be denied a place to speak and potentially gather one.

(Of course big private interests have all the space they want in their own owned platforms, from TV channels and websites, to press and social media -- for them there's no "make your own website to spew your shit", they already have all of them -- and they get to pick who gets to participate in them).

Also note that just because the wind today is pro-progressive, and people you like (like the Patreon guy) get to dictate who says what and what's not to be said on their properties, it doesn't mean it will always be this way. The liberal twenties in Germany were followed by Nazism. The 60's and early 70's in the US were followed by Reagan. Consider freedom of speech practices that should apply now and later, when progressives don't have the same clout.
Apple supports Objective-C, which is arguably just as bad as C++.
Because it tastes good.

I mostly only ever drink good coffee which means I generally only drink coffee at home which is where I can make good coffee.

Usually I drink one pot (which is 10 cups on the coffee maker's scale but which comes down to 5 mugs) throughout a single day. But, it varies. For example, today, only two mugs now that I counted.
Nonsense! Yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater has a very high risk of getting hundreds of people instantly killed. It is not at all equivalent to verbally abusing someone. More so, verbal abuse is frequently socially desirable and useful! 2pac verbally abused people, many think of him as a great artist and social commentator. Many, many, many, many, many great artists did too -- Shakespeare, Tolstoy, Dostoevskiy, among countless others.
AI creativity and demystification