skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> All of these are just people having opinions. If you don't like their opinions, don't associate with them. That's the freedom that you have.

At the risk of starting a tangent, this doesn't work when it comes to business. Businesses (or any relationship of dependency) should not be allowed to have "an opinion" because before long it becomes collusion and shunning.

How well did "no, no, you have the freedom to go somewhere else" work for blacks just wanting to buy a hamburger in America pre-1968? We had to pass laws telling businesses to get the fuck over themselves and indeed, it's still challenged to this day when gays try to buy wedding cakes.

If you don't like mandatory arbitration clauses in every single contract you sign, you literally can't do business anywhere. Everything from your job to your car purchase has them. If you don't like being subjected to credit checks, you literally cannot procure the utilities required by law to make your dwelling inhabitable-- all utilities run credit or make it prohibitively expensive to go without.

It's an imbalance of power. You can't just "go somewhere else" when you depend on the service being offered or provided, that you are denied for arbitrary reasons.
But then what do you think of the McCarthy era, when private companies (Hollywood majors) wouldn't touch someone who was suspected of communism, making it impossible for them to find work?

By your standards it's all OK, because it's not the government?
I saw this a while ago and noticed how none of the darker skinned individuals have nappy hair.

Not sure if I feel it's offensive
I think it's easier to have Stockholm syndrome when you're remote since you really want it to work. It sounds great on paper, where commute times are cut, office space is free, etc, but except for a small amount of people on a small amount of tasks, it's highly inefficient. Having face to face, knowing the person a couple offices down, and working on any collaborative tasks are far worse remotely in my experience.
You believe it’s an unfair privilege that they have?
Why is C++ so complicated?

My initial hypothesis was that the language was evolving to simplify how a someone can stitch together multiple libraries to create an application. If the complexity can be reduced (by say, adding garbage collection), then the quality of programmers a software company would need to hire can drop from the Donald Knuths of the world to someone who is more likely to submit their resume at an average software firm.

However, at this point, it is safe to claim that the complexity of keeping up with C++ far exceeds the complexity of the original problems it was trying to solve.

Does anyone have a good argument for making C++ so convoluted?
I argue that by your own ideal state of decentralization, the current system should be working perfectly fine for you regardless of private companies censoring X, Y, and Z.

The "fully decentralized" internet can (does?) already currently exist today alongside our usual youtube/facebook/cloudflare/etc centralized internet. The state of centralization is entirely by user choice, not by force.

Literally the only necessary component for a decentralized internet is net neutrality - that packets are delivered without systematic blocking or throttling on the basis of content. And net neutrality, while in danger, hasn't AFAIK devolved to blocking sites for objectionable content (not yet in the west anyways)

In other words, theres a very clear answer to your conundrum of "at what point do we accept that we have different viewpoints and live and let live?". Regardless of political views or whatever else, your content ought to be routable on the internet. Everything else that we as a society have built on top of that (edge caching, content platforms, delivery systems, heck throw in DNS while we're at it) are unnecessary for a decentralized internet, so if you piss off society and nobody wants to do business with you, maybe it's fine if you're on your own.

Of course, you also argue "there are problems that people have, and things that need to be talked about, but they aren't allowed to say anything about it". That's an understandable position, but should be considered unrelated to the issue of centralized vs decentralized -- I would still not want to argue with some race-baiting troll, even if I hosted my own content instead of uploading it to youtube. I would still ban them, ignore them, blacklist them, or whatever options exist in the decentralized internet.

>The societal norms are shifting to a place where there are certain topics that are not allowed to be discussed at all even if looking at them from a critical lens

This isn't really any different from the majority of human history. Private speech - available through a text message or a DM - is still pretty unregulated (and likely will remain that way - for example iMessage is end-to-end encrypted and I suspect any chat service that moderates private messages would run into issues maintaining users). Public speech has always been heavily regulated by those who hold power - whether it's the FCC regulating TV content or being snubbed from the community when you advocate a particularly unsavory opinion at a town gathering.

So then maybe the problem is that more and more of our speech is "public speech" (like a facebook post) and not "private speech" (like a facebook direct message), and hence in practice more and more speech is being censored. I could agree with this. But that's neither a centralization problem nor a censorship problem.
"The runtime bootstrap uses a simple HTTP based interface to get the event payload for a new invocation and return back the response from the function."

Interesting. I had the impression it would take more to get your language of choice up and running.
I'm always a bit surprised by people who want to bring up historical analogies without admitting that the US has a long history of censorship; if anything, the type of hard-line free-speech stance assumed by many internet forum posters is an incredibly recent development in American law. And both public (enforced by law) and private (enforced by industry associations or the like) censorship regimes continue to exist in the US today.
On the contrary, I think it makes accountability more valuable. If citizens had a beef, and protesting was as easy as finding the handful of people who are in charge, then people would be more inclined. However when the government is so big and becomes secretive, then accountability becomes more than a chore, and eventually futile.

You make it seem like when government is small, that there isn't Justice. That's entirely mistaken. The court system will still work without authoritative government control in every aspect of our lives. In fact, I believe it would work better. Take for example the secret FISA court. That's not something that's created from a small representative government, that's created from a government that became so big and unchecked that it can do what it wants, regardless of human rights or the Constitution.

Corporations come and go like docker containers, and we have a choice to do business with them. We literally have no choice with our government.
Huh, I think I got confused when reading it, thanks.
In theory yes, the algorithm could be changed or even moved away from proof of work and towards proof of stake (I think ETH is doing this?)

In practice bitcoin is somewhat resistant to large changes or forks, most anyone who would consider any type of alteration to the existing implementation forked off with bitcoin cash for a relatively minor change (block size). That self selection has left a staunchly "traditionalist" majority in the remaining bitcoin community.
Yes, "The idea of free speech predates the existence of the United States."

The idea of the freedom of association also predates the existence of the United States.

The freedom of association means that organizations get to exclude people from the association. Including because of their speech.

The phrase 'deplatform' rejects of the freedom of association.

Quoting from John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty", chapter IV, "Of the Limits to the Authority of Society Over the Individual"

> It would be a great misunderstanding of this doctrine, to suppose that it is one of selfish indifference, which pretends that human beings have no business with each other's conduct in life, and that they should not concern themselves about the well-doing or well-being of one another, unless their own interest is involved. ...

> We have a right, also, in various ways, to act upon our unfavourable opinion of any one, not to the oppression of his individuality, but in the exercise of ours. We are not bound, for example, to seek his society; we have a right to avoid it (though not to parade the avoidance), for we have a right to choose the society most acceptable to us. We have a right, and it may be our duty, to caution others against him, if we think his example or conversation likely to have a pernicious effect on those with whom he associates. We may give others a preference over him in optional good offices, except those which tend to his improvement. In these various modes a person may suffer very severe penalties at the hands of others, for faults which directly concern only himself; but he suffers these penalties only in so far as they are the natural, and, as it were, the spontaneous consequences of the faults themselves, not because they are purposely inflicted on him for the sake of punishment.

It is indeed possible "to extend the bounds of what may be called moral police, until it encroaches on the most unquestionably legitimate liberty of the individual", but what I'm pointing out is that you cannot simply look at "freedom of speech" as the sole or even paramount freedom under discussion.
I’m not following how the death of print books would lead to better copyright law.
Otherwise known as the “latent surplus capacity ratchet”.
Refusing to take military funding does not prevent war, or even make it significantly harder to prosecute such that there will be fewer wars. You cannot induce some sort safe stalemate by not accepting military funding. This no-military-funding meme prevalent in tech circles is virtue signaling writ large.

War happens when leaders choose to go to war. Technology does not directly lead to new wars.
> Things change fast but not that fast

Things barely ever change - engineers just love solving the exact same problems over and over again ;)
> Not in Europe.

I don't believe that for one second when it comes to nebulous "quality of life claims".

Check out this Nutella commercial (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-nM3EjYEks) where a family is consuming mass quantities of Nutella (a palm-oil, hydrogenated fat, and sugar concoction). Ferrara has been pushing this stuff for years as a wholesome breakfast ingredient. In fact, Ferrara was sued in the USA for making dubious claims about Nutella! (https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/04/26/151454929/nu...)
> If we use Japanese names in Haskell, which is the type: the one starting with katakana or the hiragana one?

That sounds like the wrong question to ask. Neither script has uppercase, and you're not mixing them in a word. A better question would be: should scripts without case support be valid Haskell identifiers to begin with.
I would also like to see a source, but judging from all the stories I've read about crows, I wouldn't doubt it.
NwAvguy of ODAC and O2 amp fame...

TLDR: https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-history/silicon-revolution/nw...
I choose to see it as an opportunity for the players that wish to take on the challenge of providing another platform that will cater to those who wish to pay for a given service without concern for the information being posted, assuming it does not violate the values behind the Golden Rule. As long as there is no coercion, let people come to their own agreements.

I appreciate free speech, it allows me to read/hear opposing viewpoints so I can reevaluate what I currently believe so I can make sure I still have confidence in my chosen belief systems.

This is why I will make the time to talk to people of faith different than mine, as well as why I pay attention to news/conversations from other countries, as well as differing political parties in my own country (USA).

I enjoy critical thinking, and it can only be done thoroughly with ample sources of data.
Micro-fundraisers and parental engagement to solve school fundraising problem
> Certainly none of it is censorship.

I politely disagree. You're right in that it's not government censorship, but it is certainly cultural/corporate censorship, and my thesis is that this is a growing movement.

Yes, nothing is legally wrong here, or even morally wrong. Nobody is doing anything wrong. I do agree with you there. But zooming out and looking at the picture as a whole, I believe there is a growing tendency to silence ideas we don't like. I don't believe this movement will stop once it reaches some arbitrary boundary defined by law or private property. Yes, I am citing the slippery slope argument because I think it's actually applicable here.

The libertarian idea of "well, it's private property so it's not an issue" is an extremely simplistic way of looking at a much larger cultural phenomena that I think is a growing problem.

There may be a day when the deciding of what is acceptable or not does not stop at your private property line, so citing the first amendment and plugging your ears afterwards doesn't really work as a counterargument to what I'm saying.
Banksy, TISM are both creators of work and use/used anonymity.
Off the top of my head, the tools I used heavily for the last project I made are:

digitalocean

ubuntu 18.04

zsh

byobu

tmux

nvim

nginx

let's encrypt certbot

gunicorn

redis

postgresql/postgis

django

sentry.io

celery

Considering how this is all off the top of my head, I think now would be a good time for me to consider learning this reproducible environment stuff (docker/ansible/etc)
I agree my statements should be backed with some solid stats, I'm traveling for holidays and on my mobile so, I won't be able to provide this, my apologies, if you wish to disregard I understand.

But if we are going to compare or discuss this, I don't think the music industry is a fair place to start, as stated that was always a pretty crappy and controlled sector for individuals. With that said, from what I have read streaming as a whole hasn't provided better opportunities to individuals either, but again admittedly I can't cite sources to back up this claim.

But I think if you look at journalism, photography, marketing and advertisement, etc. These have all gone from careers to gigs, none of which provide for a long term path for securing a future.

When you calculate the tradition benefits (medical, dental, vision, retirement) as compensation it's a pretty obvious that the gig economy cost workers a lot, Including the peace of mind of knowing you'll have a career that will be a viable path to retirement.

I like many of us, are pretty isolated from these problems in tech because of demand, but I imagine 30 years ago, a senior writer at sports illustrated did to.

If you aren't concerned from a high level, look at where the money in our economy is going, it's moving away from individuals and into corporate profits, all while corporations are removing long term responsibilities to their workers.

And example of that would be, that almost no one has an active pension system any longer.

This is basically the core thoughts behind my troubled times response.
> On the one hand, Patreon shouldn't have to do business with people they don't like. On the other hand, at what point do we accept that we have different viewpoints and live and let live?

Why are those different hands? I can accept that you have a different viewpoint, and that you should be free to express it and people should be free to do business with you, without myself choosing to do business with you. That is, accepting Patreon’s action here is a model of accepting different viewpoints with a live-and-let-live attitude, not an opposed alternative to it.

> To me, personally and anecdotally, this seems to be happening with increasing velocity.

It's not, it's just now sometimes biting the right-wing ideologies that historically have for decades directed private and public censorship in every institution of American life (and whose values are still codified in many systems of private and public censorship), so it actually stands out from the expected background more.
I'd add that I can't help being frightened by the psychology of someone eager to control other people's speech. It is a really toxic behavior in a liberal democracy.
They really aren't if you think about it. Going straight to a URL for a version of a dependency is the same as pulling it from a registry, except it's decentralized from a single source (NPM) and removes the extra hops in between the package vendor and the package consumer.

On the flip side, that extra hop adds a ton of convenience in the form of name-resolution, security and governance. It's the age old double-edged sword of centralization.
No, it's still shitty towards blacks if a black person says it, but I'm not going to get offended on their behalf in that case.
Nice article, that explains why sometimes it's important to let it go.
You’re comparing apples to oranges.

3D models vs. app code.

You will be hard pressed to find any Electron app that exceeds 200 MB in disk space. Most are ~50 MB. Overall in 2018 that is not a big concern.

In gaming, high definition graphics are going to result in massively larger files. That’s not going to change anytime soon and no gaming company will prioritize a small download over better graphics.
Free State Bottleneck
I wouldn't be too torn about this case.

First of all, unless you're a free speech absolutist (who believes that literally nothing supercedes free speech) then recognize and accept that someone, somewhere has to draw a line across a continuum of grey.

So we're already in the morass, whether you like it or not. You're right to worry about this question:

> But then, who decides what's bad?

But in this case, it's Patreon, trying to look out for its own best business interests. It's almost ideal. Since this is their core business they are pretty strongly incentivized to be liberal about what they allow.

You can imagine some kind of net neutrality regulation, but please realize that for it to have any effect it must be enforced. So we're talking about regulators, investigators, rulings, fines, appeals, legal defenses, etc., along with the attendant politics, of course, not to mention, soon you'll have entrenched interests to bog down any reforms or improvements to the system. Maybe as a left-leaning socialist you will be happy to hear about all this but just note that it doesn't resolve the fundamental issue. In the end, there's still a mixture of policy, enforcement, process and precedent deciding what's OK and what's not. Passing a law doesn't solve this issue, it just moves it around and probably makes it more complicated.

> The societal norms are shifting to a place where there are certain topics that are not allowed to be discussed at all

I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Anyway, this case seems to be about vigorous use of the n-word and homophobic slurs, which certainly can be discussed (and, unfortunately, are well accepted and encouraged in certain circles).

Also, keep in mind: moving the line of what is acceptable (whether to something more liberal or more conservative) doesn't change the situation at all. There are people who will test the line, wherever you draw it. In fact, for many, that's the point. They get attention (in their own circles) by testing the line and it's not bad to sometimes get banned as a result.
So we should do away with them?

Your comment is illogical.
< I'm aware of what he said. He also said: ‘I was being anti-Nazi,’

If someone constantly spouts Nazi talking points while insisting they're not a Nazi, you need to consider the possibility that they're lying to you.

And it's awfully dangerous to claim that you can't compare someone to the Nazis until and unless they publicly call for large-scale genocide. Modern racists know they can't get away with openly flying the swastika right now. The Nazis themselves started off talking about patriotism, jobs, defense. By the time a fascist group has secured enough power to start calling for open genocide, it's too late. You need to learn the lessons of history enough to recognize those dog-whistles.
light on content, not sure what the point of the article is besides filler (I stopped reading half way through), so I'll go by the title. This must be a story about a guy with a liberal arts degree, who exaggerated on his resume, got hired as a joke, didn't get the joke (due to lack of iq), and just started writing crap.

James Geary mesdames et messieurs. Calling his work and career a joke would be an exaggeration.
> If people don't like what you have to say, or how you are saying it, they are free to walk away.

Yes, but it's funny that we're now deliberating conflating 'people' with 'private corporations', a conflation that folks on the left vociferously condemned when it came to Citizens United.

I think we should look at ourselves a bit more carefully in the mirror - are private corporations supposed to be held to a higher standard or not? Especially when they have de facto monopolistic control over platforms that everyone uses.

For example, it's all very well to say that Google is a private corporation free to censor you if it wishes, until you're a content creator that is de facto knocked off the air because of Content ID, without any of the due process that copyright law actually demands.

Put in another context, should we get rid of net neutrality because Comcast ought to have the right to decide what content goes over its pipes?
Certainly not any SEC laws. Jay Clayton, SEC Chairman, has explicitly said that Bitcoin is not a security: https://www.investopedia.com/news/sec-chair-says-bitcoin-not...

If they were in violation of SEC laws, the parent comment is still be inaccurate since Bitcoin's immutable ledger would mean the SEC would absolutely be pursuing violations, like they are with other ICOs.
There is a long history of sophisticated applications being written in less than a hundred megabytes, so where's the budget going? Hero images?
ASA regulate content after it's appeared based on complaints people make. Did you complain to ASA?
>This just isn't true - for some algorithms we are simply not aware of any way to effectively parallelise.

That just means we need new algorithms, different habits, and languages which make conncurency more accessible.

The vast majority of research into algorithms and computer science in general over the past 75 yeas has focused on single threaded linear computation.

I think the thing we can do right now is spin up threads as often as possible. It should be your default approach when writing a new function to consider how to make it functionally pure. If you can, spin that out into a new thread (Depending on the overhead in your language).
Even If you can't make it functionally pure there still a good chance you can write it in a way that prevents a potential deadlock or race condition.

My argument is basically this:

1) we will find more algorithms that are better at exploiting concurrent resources.

2) as programmers we need to change our default behavior from writing linear programs and then trying to make them take advantage of concurrent hardware to writing concurrent solutions at every level of application design by default from the ground up.
Report shows $200k+ compensation packages for entry level engineers in SF
You should read up on fascism and what that means.
Tech Book Face Off: The Seasoned Schemer vs. The Reasoned Schemer