skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Rembrandt's Sampling Officials comes to mind[1] and several works by Jan de Baen[2] because he painted so many portraits. If you ever go to a Dutch Masters exhibit at a museum look for portraits titled along the lines of "Portrait of a Merchant" or "Portrait of a Banker." You'll notice they often include things like coins that are in the middle of being counted with one hand and writing instrument in the other to symbolize the accounting.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syndics_of_the_Drapers%27_Guil...

[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_de_Baen
A Survey of Computers with Hardware Stack Support
He seems to have made his 'career' (if you can really call it that) on commentary about politics, with a heavy emphasis on American politics. I don't think he can plausibly plead ignorance.
The question is; where does it end?

Sure, I guess you could say Patreon has the right to ban people from its service. But people have found its not easy or practical to compete with them. They've found everyone from their domain registrar to their website host to their payment processor refusing to do business with them.

And at some point, that means it becomes virtually impossible to express yourself if your views are unpopular enough. No one wants to be a service or common carrier, everyone buckles under controversy when it occurs. Should some views only be expressable by millionaires or people with enough resources not to need services from anyone? It's not legal censorship, but it's de facto censorship none the less.

As the likes of SubscribeStar found out, offering a 'free speech' alternative to Patreon is now virtually impossible because of it.

https://www.ft.com/content/7c4285b2-fe2f-11e8-ac00-57a2a8264...
Most people don't care about decentralised money.

Stop the on/off ramps they currently use for speculation and the vast majority will stop speculating, as they were only in it for the get-rich-quick factor.
I thought you robbed Piotr to pay Paul...
Ridiculous. I have a 256 GB hard drive, which is pretty common even on new machines. I’m constantly having to delete stuff to make sure I don’t run out of room. It’s absolutely an issue.
Why doesn’t Slack write an actual Mac app in Swift? For small companies with limited resources, I understand the attraction of “cross platform,” but it would seem that performance and uasability would be vastly improved by writing actual native applications — especially for a billion dollar company that can afford to do it and especially since Slack is one of those apps that is constantly open and performance and efficiency have a real benefit.
Any recursion. The problem is that, without tail call optimization, you create one stack frame per recursion. In Nokinside's world, you have to prove that you will never exceed the stack size. To prove that, you have to prove an upper bound on the number of recursion calls, and multiply by the size of a call's stack frame. Proving it for iteration is much easier, partly because (under the MISRA C rules or similar) iterations must have fixed bounds, but mostly because you don't create a stack frame for each iteration.

My turn: What's a recursive scheme?
The BTC/USD market on Kraken is pretty liquid. I think trading $10m wouldn't have been a problem if you spread it over a few days. They are trading $34m/day now and it would have been far more 6 months ago.

Not sure what paperwork you need - as long as you could document the source was legit it would probably be ok.

Also changing BTC/USDT would at least protected against the decline in value.
But that is ultimately a problem of monopolization.
I suspect you have to read between the lines here.

Kuipers says that "the goal of the military is to settle international conflict through violence", but of course, as someone of far above average intelligence, he understands that if you have no military, then (1) a hostile, belligerent foreign power has no incentive to use the tools of peaceful conflict resolution with you no matter how available they are and (2) your sovereignty may well succumb to violence.

Rather, I suspect, what he really means here is that the goal of the American military is to settle other countries' international conflicts through violence, participating in conflicts in which the USA is not even remotely under attack.

If you believe such a thing, then you have a rationally founded reason to refuse military funding of USA origin.
If you do that people will think you're exiting and your company will tank massively.
I'm less pessimistic. IMHO an increasingly big factor is the amount of single core hardware out there that people have tended to optimize for at the cost of not properly utilizing multi core machines for the past decade or so. As quad core CPUs are becoming more or less standard, this is changing already. With 16-32 core CPUs becoming more commom, the pressure is on to utilize those as well.

The use cases are much broader than gaming. I'd argue any kind of creative work involving graphics, audio, video, already utilizes any amount of CPU you can throw at it. Also, software like Firefox is leveraging multiple cores with their ongoing Rust rewrite of Firefox. I tend to use multiple CPUs when running software builds. There is a lot UI code that these days is written asynchronously from the ground up; meaning utilizing multiple CPUs is less of a big deal than it used to be.

But yes, you need langauges, frameworks, drivers, operating systems, etc. that can facilitate this. I'd say there is quite bit of room for improvement here still.
If I was running a platform like Patreon I wouldnt moderate it.

I cant relate to leadership teams that do this, much less passionately do it with blog posts and explanations. It is arbitrary. Its within their right whether the specific cause is something I agree with or not. I can say that I wouldnt be interested.
The reason why Patreon et. al. are deplatforming people who make reprehensible statements, it's because they risk losing ad revenue. Other companies will stop running ads if they risk them popping up on Uncle Joe's Lynchin' & White Sheets page. It's a purely profit-motivated move.

As long as people and corporations are motivated solely by profit, you will see this move to "truth in the middle" milquetoast centrist presentation, in order to not offend the advertisers and shareholders.
That almost sounds like a Ponzi Scheme, of sorts

Realize it doesn't meet the true technical definition, but more the idea of passing the buck (so to speak) and someone getting hit pretty hard, in an inevitable / unavoidable sorta way. Also, because this also (to me) feels less like investing and more like a timing game.
And my point is that there are people who conveniently "know" people's intentions as a way to silence, diminish or discredit them, like you're doing right now when you say things like "faux-consequences." Getting de-platformed (and losing revenue) are faux?
To be clear, I wasn't really expressing much of a personal opinion, just thinking about the difference between the two and thinking about the profound shift in acceptance of gays in society in even the last decade.

Personally... I'm not religious, I was raised an atheist, I don't like religion, and I don't really think it should be protected, but I sorta kinda understand why it is, religion seems "special."

Veteran status is also protected under employment discrimination law, and military service isn't an innate attribute, however, its in the best interest for a country to protect those who have served it, especially those who were drafted.

Family status is protected under housing discrimination law, and having a ton of kids isn't innate, but some can say that the urge to have children is actually innate. (Though as a person who never felt an urge to reproduce, I have a hard time actually understanding this)

So yeah... we aren't 100% consistent.
What's weird about private enforcement of censorship is there's no transparency into how a bill becomes a law or an idea at a meeting becomes policy. How exactly did they come to their conclusion to censor these people? It was likely a secret trial, with secret evidence, secret witnesses and secret laws that being a confidential meeting between department heads. When we move more governance decisions to the private sector we embed more secrecy and arbitrariness into our governance.
This one is fine too: https://bl.ocks.org/jinroh/7524988
I don't think this is a well-defined question, at least as you've posed it.

I'm not waiting. I'm taking advantage of the fact that the chaotic redistribution of spending power - caused by the introduction of bitcoin into the world economy - has made funding available to do work that I have long wanted to do. I plan to work full-time at NuCypher for at least another year.

People who are actively using this technology to purchase forbidden fruits over the internet aren't waiting - they're using this technology in life changing ways all the time.

People who (and I know this is a silly one) play cryptokitties aren't waiting - they're making use of this tech, even if it might seem meaningless to you and me.

Maybe you're part of the much larger portion of the population who are still waiting for something that is personally interesting to you to come out of blockchain tech. That's totally cool!

I can't meaningfully ask you how much longer you're willing to wait, because I already know the answer: you'll wait until something that speaks to you becomes available, and then you'll consider it. Right?
The fact that you take joy in people being punished because of the horrible behavior done by other people years ago is disgusting.
> Centralization isn't the problem here, if you look back at history there are more platforms for people to speak their mind than ever before.

But there aren't. It's an illusion of diversity.

They're all owned or being bought up by the same centralized handful of outfits-turned-conglomerates that have always controlled the means of distribution. Haven't you noticed the flurry of mergers (successful or not) in the last 10-15 years?
I think that's plausible but ambiguous.
I kinda support your point, but at the same time I'm not sure it's entirely realistic. Here we assume that everything will have competition given the free market. But this is hardly true, some markets are biased towards having a monopoly. Because of the economies of scale, because in practice some services have only so much demand and, the most importantly for our discussion, some services are the more valuable for the user, the more users there are using it. This is especially true for all social-network-like services, like Facebook and, yeah, Patreon.
Do they no longer mean "pedantry"? Seems that they meant it and mean it.
It would if it was a Scrabble dictionary.
Firstly, I'm of course happy for anyone to write their software how they like -- I should say if you want to write "business ready" software, then that's great. Often such things are backed partly by company.

A better phrasing might be, fun Easter eggs, like wishing users Merry Christmas, might be a good way to denote software which is free, but is not designed to be slotted straight into a for-profit business critical situation -- certainly don't come crying if something breaks on IE 11 or whatever.
Male writers also write under female names, not sure of the point. It's about $. They all take the credit when it's due.

Prince used a symbol at one point

> So I'd argue that many past inventions that are credited to men might actually have been achieved by women scientists publishing under their husbands / colleagues / friends name as a pseudony

If this is true why is the one example 100% incorrect?

Since when did we make stuff up just to fit the world the way we think it is?
> Centralization is the real evil, here.

This is the crux of it. I have a very low opinion of all these people, "anti-feminists" and whatever else, but this sort of drama does illustrate that we have a problem with just a few entities being in a position to stifle the speech of a large number of people. It doesn't seem great, regardless of whether some of its present manifestations appear to be good.

On the flip side, these marginal voices never really had an effective mouthpiece in the past, so maybe the net effect is not significant. But I worry that we will miss opportunities for unique individual expression that the internet, in theory, could provide.
My System for Choosing Tech
I'm ok with the line being "dont host the Daily Stormer"
Apple needs to change iPhone’s call UI because robocalls are killing us
Thank you for mentioning the post office. The post office is a great example of a service that could just as well be private and should, in that case, still not be allowed to discriminate.
Article and Spreadsheet: Items Entering U.S. Public Domain on Jan. 1, 2019
seems that most posts dedicate first 1-n paragraphs for unnecessary background and/or rehashing of the title.
it's as if writers feel the need to ease into the topic as if it was a bucket of ice water for the reader to avoid being startled by
Well that seems overly broad and meaningless. Care to expand on that?
Imaginary Property has a number of drawbacks [0]. Among them, the fact that it trumps real property - IP will prevent you from using your own real property as you see fit. (For example, playing music in your garage without a broadcasting license [1].)

[0] https://mises.org/library/against-intellectual-property-0

[1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/424...
But who ever said anything about an advantage? The argument about free speech is that censorship is bad, so there should be some minimal level of speech that anyone can produce without worry. This comes down to "the government can't regulate me". Some people broaden this to a moral imperative of "we shouldn't needlessly censor", which is a fine moral imperative.

However, moral imperatives are not things we should legislate as they aren't universal, and "the government cannot regulate me" is a far cry from what some are calling for now, which is " the government must regulate you".
I remembered the article you were describing and knew I would recognize it if I saw the title. I just Googled "run a startup advice site:news.ycombinator.com" with time set to "Past Year", visually scanned for visited (purple) links, it was the second result for me.
Pascal lost the language war, just like countless other "good" languages. Fantastic that it is working out so well for you, but you are the exception here. You're visible because(at least today) you've managed to post about it 3 times on HN that I have read. Maybe you've posted even more that I haven't seen yet.

Random searches in "dice.com"(pick any job site you want) for "Pascal" yields 5 positions. "Python" yields 8,950. "C++" yields 6008. Even "8086 assembly" yields 1,378 jobs. "Java" yields 17,000+. There is a trend here if you care to see it.

You are obviously passionate about Pascal. That's awesome. Keep using it, and squeeze it for everything its' worth. Please don't be disheartened when technology moves on without you though, often in directions that feel "wrong" to us. Electron feels wrong to me, but it doesn't matter. Technology is going to move where technology is going to move, and sometimes you have to get on board with choices you dislike to avoid being left behind entirely.

PS: I cut my teeth on Pascal in the early 90's, and wish it had become more popular as well.
Political views are, in practice, immutable. Once they reach young adulthood, people's political views are less likely to change than their religious affiliation. While it's tempting to see political views as something that is chosen, it's not really the case. For example, if I told you to believe that gay marriage should not be a right for the next year, would you be able to do so? I can't. I could not do so for any amount of time; the fact that I believe in it is not something I can consciously change. In that sense, political views can be seen as innate rather than chosen.
Is that the ghost of Robert Greene typing?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Greene_(dramatist)
Then you see counter-arguments, like "well if you don't want to get banned, don't say bad things!" But then, who decides what's bad?

I've been banned from or chosen to leave multiple platforms. The crux of the issue: I have an incurable medical condition that I manage with diet and lifestyle. I've gotten off all the drugs I'm supposed to be on.

I get viciously attacked by others. When I complained to the mods on other platforms (not HN), I have been told their ugly attacks, in clear violation of the rules, are fine and I'm the problem.

I've been told I'm crazy. I've been told I have Munchausen, never mind that Munchausen involves faking illness for attention and my claim is I'm getting healthier. I've had people maliciously suggest that my son, who has the same diagnosis I have, is a product of incest.

I mean, this is ugly stuff. There's zero justification for some of the things that have been said to me.

I've worked hard at trying to figure out how to tread lightly, be very polite and respectful, etc. But, when all is said and done, the unforgivable offense appears to be that I'm a dirt-poor former homemaker who spent several years homeless who claims to have solved a problem that doctors and scientists can't figure out.

So, basically, speaking the truth about my life makes me persona non grata. I can find no way forward for what's an acceptable way to try to talk to people about any of this. Even without trying to promote solutions or make money from it, simply trying to talk to people in public forums about this stuff is essentially a bannable offense in many places.

I've spent years trying to not end up like Semmelweis:* committed to an asylum and dead because of it for trying to say "Hey, world, I think I know something medically useful."

I don't know what the solution is. But every time I see an article about someone being banned from a platform and saying they really don't have other options and this is a threat to their livelihood, etc, I'm extremely sympathetic. I was homeless for years and asking how I can make money online and essentially being told by a lot of people to STFU and GTFO, people who like to see themselves as good and kind and generous and making the world a better place.

This was a potentially life-threatening situation for me. This was tantamount to attempted murder by shunning.

If you have no ability to access income and everyone tries to send you away, when you run out of places to go, you know, death becomes a very real possibility.

I don't have solutions. But I'm reluctant to say "Well, those people just need to behave." What does that even mean if you can find yourself in the same shoes as them for getting healthier and trying to figure out how to discuss that with people?

* https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis
is that too few or too many?
I legit registered aistockphotos.com when I first saw that paper.
Get the home project completed, so it goes out of head and checklist.
1. I am building am application using firebase, AppEngine & Cloud functions using node.js, Java previously used to be personal desktop reporting application using mysql(stock analysis), now trying to learn GCP and implement it there. Since my GCP free days are going to be over soon less that 60 days and reading too many articles make me wanna think. Can I do a google certification with what I know or even attempt. That's point 2.

2. Do Google or AWS certification. Well everybody I know of in office or friends are doing AWS certification, I never heard of any body doing Google certification is it hard or less job opportunities. I am professionally a mainframe Db2 DBA certified and being a DBA liked the concept of RTDB firebase started learning it and love it that how I got lured in gcp. Anybody here on any experience on GCP certification and what are thing I should learn to Even attempt ?

3. Get back to running marathon & exercising. This was scratched to get point 1 completed in 2018. I should try walking in 2019.

4. Have to get the thought process aligned. I would say I am a bad designer or architect. I plan something write it down and write all the steps and do it and after some time redo that entire thing in some other better way sometimes entire thing is changed and gives better results. Frustrating thing is double the time to do one thing. So have to focus on practical things rather than too much details or fancy things.

5. Meet friends often, this was also scratched to get point 1 completed. Whenever we meet we drink that takes away 3days(hang over day + pending things from previous day + sometimes destroys ideas & motivation). One thing happy about is keeping myself occupied and less drinking (only two times this year. Thats equal to sober). Next year hang out with friends and keep off alcohol.
This does not go unnoticed, but with so many interested people who are actually contributing, it is hard to avoid the clutter.
Bjarne Stroustrup (C++ creator) on this: http://www.stroustrup.com/P0977-remember-the-vasa.pdf
That still allows you to refuse fair amount of customers. Because here, the condition is "most or all potential customers want exclusively things you don't want to do" which may happen, but is significantly less likely.
I’m not sure if 100 question isn’t accurate enough although the biggest problem with these is if they are written to be to generic like a horoscope where someone can find something they relate to regardless of the result and that the result could essentially match nearly anyone.

The 2nd part of your post isn’t exactly an argument against its validity but against how the results are applied in a specific environment this is like arguing against the validity of genotyping because insurance companies might increase your premium.
I feel that the Deno project's goals to get away from NPM/centralized registries is causing developer experience pains that it feels like you're trying to sweep under the rug.

Maybe it's time to take a look at building a replacement package manager.

The convenience of having a single package manager that handles name resolution, versioning, governance, and security is why NPM is as prolific as it is today.

That being said, the reason NPM even received any traction from the start was because Isaacs bundled it with the Node distribution.

In my opinion, this is the clear chance for Deno to provide its own, better package manager, built on top of IPFS/Dat or some similarly decentralized protocol, and correcting the many mistakes that have been openly accepted by Isaacs and others in the lineage of Node/NPM.
Microsoft Word for Windows 1.0 Postmortem (1989) [pdf]
> 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.

Patreon want to prevent the expression of certain thoughts. For example, they are against "negative generalizations, of people based on their race". However, negative generalisations are sometimes true. For example the homicide rate in Japan is much lower than in Jamaica; from this it follows that Jamaicans are on average more homicidal than Japanese. That's a negative generalisation. It's also true.

I wouldn't mind that Patreon are censorious, if there were lots of alternatives. But that brings me to your other point:

> Centralization is the real evil, here.

This is the real problem, plus the fact that internet-based services tend to become centralised, due to network effects, high fixed costs and low variable costs.

I'm not sure what the solution is. Encouraging decentralisation seems to me a bit like trying to make water run uphill: you can do it, but it's an effort and as soon as you stop, the water just runs back downhill.
What is the point of sharing the article then?

If I choose to behave in a certain manner but don't care how you behave, why would I tell you how I choose to behave?
The Hitchhiker’s Guide to Serverless