skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Since Apple didn't catch Facebook either, but reacted half a day after the media report, I don't think taking this 3 hour old story as "Apple isn't doing anything to Google!!!" is reliable: We'll see what happens.
It does get exponentially more expensive, which is why you have to pick a certain level of ~perfection~ and then stop.

Also, the robots would have to bash at the speed of a human: The point is to mimick human inputs not necessarily test every code path (Which you could do in software)
What gets me is that when there was a really blatant attempt at voter suppression last US election using Facebook ads falsely warning North Dakota hunters they'd lose their hunting licenses if they voted, by the official North Dakota Democratic state affiliate no less, only a few really right-wing outlets called that voter suppression. Hell, I don't think most of the mainstream news outlets even covered it.
https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/30/googles-also-peddling-a-da...
Why isn't fashion more fun and weird? Everybody is wearing jeans ...
Interesting, I honestly will swear up a storm as soon as I hear their crappy automated system. Then be extremely nice to the actual person. And rate them afterwards on the survey very highly. A few times I've actually gone out of my way to ask for their manager to tell them how great the CSR was.

Somewhere my customer records at some company must say: "this guy really hates voice prompts, but is also very pleasant and amenable to working through a problem with patience"
That confetti button is addicting! Well done. I also totally agree that the MySpace era was one of the funnest on the internet.
This is an amusing comment. You're trying to attribute social problems to underlying technological "problems". This is something an engineer would try to do, but I think the social problems of the internet have nothing to do with what framework a website was written in or whether or not software is proprietary.
We were working on the new commercial services in both client and server components. So perhaps the most interesting aspect was the general tension between those who felt strongly about the original intent and purpose of the service, and those who felt that it needed a commercial function that would appease the music industry rights holders. That said, I met many great engineers there , many who have gone on to their own fame and fortune. From a technical perspective it was quite enlightening also. I had never even heard of non-blocking io before I worked on that stuff. The scale was nothing I had ever seen before. Largely taken for granted today. Most of what we understand and experience today about consumption of music was really determined by what happened there both from legal and technical perspectives.
What is the shell company?
Could those stars then potentially have thoughts or actions?
I'd agree with #1 and #4, combined— "regular" people are very much siloed into apps that narrow the kind of media that get to them. Sure, the videos and photos are better than before, but that's just two types of content.

In my mind, weird/interesting internet died with the phrase "link in bio."
I think this is a bit confused? <span style="font-weight:bold">bold text</span> would be appropriate for a span of text that is to be set in bold for no semantically-relevant reason, otherwise you would use something like <strong class="important">this (please read carefully!)</strong>, and then use CSS to style the "important" class as bold. The <b> tag has actually been revived, but it is reserved for a span of text that is to be clearly set apart from its surroundings for some semantic reason unrelated to emphasis, importance or anything that's covered by other HTML tags or features.
How? Planes won't not have cockpits for decades surely.
The Changelog 332: A UI framework without the framework
Thanks @PaulHoule, I agree. Not very keen on competing with the big boys, if something is useful people will use it.
anti-intellectualism has been a strong part of American history from nearly the beginning. It only went away for a while when the entire country was being drafted for wars.
Facebook keeps growing despite scandals and privacy outrage
"Services and Other" from the consolidated statement of ops shows:

Q4 Services and Other Revenue: $531 MM

Q4 Services and Other Cost Of Revenue: $668 MM

Which would suggest a loss on services of $137 MM.

Is this the same 'Services' that Bloomberg is referring to? I cannot find any other mention of Services in the letter.
Not that I found. There's a link to the older ones at Channel4.com. And they refer to the newer recordings ("In explosive recordings that Kaiser made in the summer of 2016, excerpts from which are published exclusively by openDemocracy today...") but no link.
Mine is called dinner.
If someone pulled the SDCard out of my Raspberry Pi they would have my wifi credentials too.
I really like this idea.

I'm looking for new opportunities in the market and one of the things that I would really love to do is work 100% of my time with opensource projects (as I had in the past until management decided to make my main repository private - one of the reasons why I'm thinking about moving forward) and I really believe there is space for donation-based systems to grow because most I have seen so far seems good enough but something important should be missing because I don't see too many projects getting donations and many times the total amount is just barely enough for going to a nice restaurant once a week.

Maybe something better integrated with GitHub and someone else would be responsible for reaching out people who benefits from the project to ask for donations would work out better.
That is a "soundness theorem" and maybe even a "[static] type soundness" theorem (if you like the word "unityped"), but the point is that's not really saying anything about conclusions drawn by the classification of values into dynamic types.
That shadow of the beast track ... oh man!
Well.. that doesn't really add any value ;-)
> The whole "efficient market hypothesis" to me seems much more like a religious belief among neoclassical finance types than anything actually scientific.

Let's ask the creator of the efficient market hypothesis [1]:

What is the efficient-markets hypothesis and how good a working model is it?

Gene Fama: It’s a very simple statement: prices reflect all available information. Testing that turns out to be more difficult, but it’s a simple hypothesis.

Richard Thaler: I like to distinguish two aspects of it. One is whether you can beat the market. The other is whether prices are correct.

Gene Fama: It’s a model, so it’s not completely true. No models are completely true. They are approximations to the world. The question is: “For what purposes are they good approximations?” As far as I’m concerned, they’re good approximations for almost every purpose. I don’t know any investors who shouldn’t act as if markets are efficient. There are all kinds of tests, with respect to the response of prices to specific kinds of information, in which the hypothesis that prices adjust quickly to information looks very good. It’s a model—it’s not entirely always true, but it’s a good working model for most practical uses.

[blah blah blah]

The point is not that markets are efficient. They’re not. It’s just a model. The question is, “How inefficient are they?” I tend to give more weight to systematic things like failure to adjust completely to earnings announcements, or momentum, than to anecdotes, which are curiosity items rather than evidence.

------

This does not sound like "religious belief" to me.

[1] http://review.chicagobooth.edu/economics/2016/video/are-mark...
I had not, but it seems to back up my point.

From the Overview section: "F/OS software is developed by online communities of globally distributed contributors, the majority of whom are volunteers who rarely meet face to face."

And it uses KDE and GNOME as case studies, which are both very large, entrenched projects that are subsidized by companies like Red Hat and Canonical.

What I'm getting at, though, is that if you pick 1000 arbitrary repos on GitHub (or BitBucket or GitLab), 999 of them are not going to have any paid contributors. Once you start filtering by user and/or contributor counts you're removing a large amount of projects that aren't popular, but never the less count as open source projects.
I think we are in a funk part where there are now so many people and so much info available it kind of washes everything out with no personal touch. The natural response to this will be to form ever and ever more specific communities.

I had an idea for social site. You can only belong to a single group of traditional common evolutionary size, say 30-50 people. All these groups self organize and people can leave or be voted in/out. The groups form goals and plans to get stuff done, like testing recipes or anything they have fun doing. Groups could communicate if they wanted, and based on the abilities of each group you'd form these abstract chains of interdisciplinary volunteerism. Inter group communication would be more meaningful as each communication could represent the knowledge of the entire group.

Our brains are pretty much designed for a close knit group of that size. Our current way of living is kind of nuts. By keeping the group to a size that the mind can actually grasp and form relationships within I think is the powerful part. A lot of people are living lives now where that might add serious long term value with meaningful relationships, as well as crazy efficiency on hobbies.
Hmm, I’d add that being owned by corporations does not always equate to being controlled. Editorial policy will be set by a range of people within these organisations, it can be very complex this chain of command, and the degree of influence that the board will have will vary considerably. I’d also posit that the current negative press around Facebook is of its own making to varying degrees and is the result of various substantive academic studies. The media would be doing us a disservice if they did not report on such things, as they are there to mediate, create awareness to the public against malpractice, accountability etc. This generalisation of ‘MSM’ is reductionist and not an entirely helpful to me. It is also the language that Trump and Alex Jones use and that is something that makes me very wary.
Oh and they were busy in Kenya as well.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2018/...
I am more perplexed by the necessity to have Apple's approval than anything else here.

As I understand it, it’s because the apps were being distributed using a method that is supposed to be used only inside the company. Like for beta testing software, or for in-house applications used by employees only. Anything going to the general public is supposed to go through the App Store under Apple’s terms and conditions.
Standards - In the early days of any technology, you have an open playing field in innervation, with this you get some quirky and diverse solutions forward. Take the early days of computing, every one was unique and today, standards give you a narrower choice. Sure, you will always have the option to innovate, but the market will be more standard and less openly receptive to such change. But to advance, you need to draw lines in the sand, and standards are just that.

So in the early days of the web, each page was unique and crafted with minimum standards and lots of opportunity to innovate. Today, much of those early layers of innovation have become templated, and the majority of what you get are just that and less quirky. But there will be exceptions, just less of them than the pioneering days, proportionally.

Not saying standards are bad, and indeed without them, we end up stuck at one point in advancement and there is that point when a line in the sand has to be drawn. Hence a focus shift from hardware towards software.

But then, anybody today looking at yesteryears solutions will call them weird, amongst other things. That's progress for you and for that, lots of small lines in the sand moving forwards tend to happen over big leaps. Though they do happen, mostly in new advancements of technology, the early days when the foundation standards are written, which we still have.

Though I'm sure in a decade or two when people have phototic processors with optical memory coils or whatever the future holds for computing. They will look back upon today's computers as...fun and weird.
That's definitely good to know -- I appreciate the insight! We were indeed headed down this route in the early days with these integrations. In another life, I might do this. Particularly, having a simple format (like plain text / Markdown) that could then be interpreted in its own ways by all these platforms was the original dream.

But the consumer space is our sweet spot. I can genuinely talk about why I care about building a $6 / month blogging platform for consumers -- I wouldn't have that same passion building something I don't have much personal interest in (even if there was more money involved).

From a business perspective, this space is very under-served, as far as platforms that writers can rely on still being here in 10 years. And we have plenty of avenues to business customers, from support [0], to more API access, to larger community hosting [1]. Mostly, I personally want everyday people to have a service they can depend on, where they aren't being mined for data, they get their digital freedom back, etc. That's not something many others can say or even have interest in.

[0] https://write.as/pricing

[1] https://writefreely.host
Back in the 90s (at least in the second half) you didn't need how to code. You just used Dreamweaver or Frontpage and you got your site! The only technical bits were to use FTP to upload it to your free hosting provider.
(replying to the reply of my comment, since threading doesn't go further)

Do you think apple does not have reports of the number of users that have apps installed via an enterprise cert?

That's pretty much the basic type of stats you would gather when having an enterprise licensing/authority system. Fact is, they knew about this, this was not hidden by google OR Facebook.

Apple decided to release this the DAY after they had a huge privacy flaw in Facetime.
Shutting down Google+ for consumer (personal) accounts on April 2, 2019
You seem to be operating on the assumption that you're defending something other than the status quo.

(A quick example of this brand of individualism that offers the individual right, non-declinable, to be analyzed and sanctioned by the government: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18704330)
Weird. Thanks for confirming.
Same situation here - the vast majority of my day-to-day searching has been handled by DDG for the past few years without any issues apart from the odd !g search for really specific things (that google is not much better for either).
The second theorem (the generalized Pythagorean theorem, which uses inner product spaces) feels incomplete to me. The exposition is fine, but I don't think the explanation should have concluded with the regular

a^2 + b^2 = c^2

equality. You wouldn't use that in the context of an inner product space. The generalized Pythagorean theorem actually looks like

||x + y||^2 = ||x||^2 + ||y||^2 + 2<x, y>.

I think it would be better if there's less editorializing of the equalities and more relating of their abstract forms to their "simple", familiar forms. Otherwise I don't really understand the exercise - if the first page has a theorem involving inner product spaces, this is clearly targeted at people with at least a full course of linear algebra under their belt. Unless the audience is already aware of how that second equality implies the first equality, this explanation doesn't capture the heart of it.

As another commenter said, this is not a self-contained exposition (and I don't think it realistically could be). But if it's not going to be self-contained, I think it could be improved by more completely showing how the elegant abstractions imply the things we're already familiar with in a neat way.
You mention solar is a big nothing burger. I remember when the acquisition happened there was quite an outcry about Tesla basically bailing out Musk's other company. Do they have a liability here or is it just going to disappear into the ether?
The only reason this works now is that people behave naturally (or at least natural enough) when posting on social media. If social media profiling becomes more prevalent (like this article suggests), everyone is going to be much more careful when it comes to what they're posting. All their real activity is going to be driven into pseudonymous (or at least private channels) that can't be easily monitored, and their "real" accounts is going to be so carefully curated that the signal to noise ratio is abysmally low. Or at least, this is my hope. I could be overly optimistic, and people will continue posting their true selves against their own interest.
I think iframe is used for security reasons, see https://stackoverflow.com/questions/8004001/how-does-jsfiddl...

it allows third party scripts to run in a contained environment.
Raising taxes on the rich means you can fund the government without raising (and ideally by lowering) taxes on everybody else. This is objectively a social good (the rich can bear the burden of incredibly high tax rates, whereas current tax rates are a very high burden on a large percentage of the population). I am not an economist but I would also assume it would benefit the economy by stimulating spending. I believe this is in fact the basic idea of the tax cuts so favored by Republicans, except it turns out that giving rich people more money doesn't do this (because they already have enough money to cover all the spending they want to do), whereas giving everyone else more money does.

The goal of taxes has never been "raise as much money for the government as possible", it's "raise enough money for the government to fund government operations, hopefully without hurting the economy in the process".
> Cookies

Yessir, how could there be a problem here? And all those third-parties consented to their communication intercepted and stored by, well, another third-party?

No, this is some CFAA federal crime trojan stuff.
Sql and Regex
Both Java and C# tried to break the web (silverlight and Java FX) and both ended up being considerable failures.

We still don't have a reasonably easy way to write cross-platform applications (Mac/Win/Lin/Phone) in a native-first language. The reason JS has taken off is because it filled a rather HUGE hole.

If there is a chance that is changing, let us know, but right now, the hole isn't being filled with anything else.
> Thanks to the work Nandan is doing the world is moving closer to the day when everyone will have access to an official ID

So II guess this is mission accomplished? /s
The Internet is still fun and weird!

You just need to know where to look.

Dig into https://neocities.org/ to recapture the feel of those home-spun web playgrounds of old.

Look at the amazing things the https://glitch.com/ and https://repl.it and https://codepen.io/ communities create.

Check out the buzz and creativity in the communities gathered around YouTube creators like Daniel Shiffman on The Coding Train: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvjgXvBlbQiydffZU7m1_aw

Discover amazing indie game creators doing wacky things at https://itch.io/.

Visit the front pages of http://giphy.com and https://imgur.com/ for a dose of silliness and creativity.

Hack around on a hundred different coding challenge sites like https://www.codewars.com/ and https://www.codingame.com/ and https://exercism.io/.

Get free education and meet other learners on https://www.freecodecamp.org/ or https://www.khanacademy.org/.

Browse new and interesting projects to contribute to at https://github.com/explore.

And these are just fun nerdy tech sites — there is something fun or weird for every walk of life.

It's easy to get nostalgic about the internet of old (and I appreciate the OP is writing to promote their own neat creative coding/blogging playground), but the premise that the Internet is no longer as fun somehow because you can't inject crazy JavaScript into your Facebook pages seems misguided.

Outside of those strictly controlled communities, it has never been easier to join a group of people who like to make and break weird shit online.
I like the idea of using a 'enter code' (where code is pseudo randomly generated) to request your number be added to the white list. This could be done for all users not in your contacts. Then, the user could leave, say a voicemail, which is converted to text that goes into a list that you could later scan for valid requests.

I currently use the "Should I Answer" app, mentioned below, which is about as good as it gets in terms of pissed off people working together to fight the good fight I think.

However, all of this crap is still jist a bandaid for a lack of our governmental ability (at least in the U.S.) to hold phone utilities accountable for the illegal use of phone numbers.(1) Fine the phone companies hard and the problem goes away.

1. https://www.consumerreports.org/consumerist/phone-companies-...
1) The applications you develop/design (I infer) have a very limited kind of interaction, or have no need to support offline conditions and/or real-time data. This is not the case for the rest of the world.

2) what you propose is completely different from the proposal in the link. I’d be ok with a JS-off-by-default world (or a cookie-off-by-default too!!) but having a limit on file size is just… miopic.
So. I figured you were probably right so I went and checked Apples websites for their largest products to see how bad it was.

The largest sum of JavaScript was on the Mac Pro (2013) page with just under 200kb.

That’s a lot less than 1MB
"uTest" - see the original article: https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/29/facebook-project-atlas/
What? <strong> is a tag defined in the HTML standard (with a bold default-styling in browsers). There is absolutely no need for frameworks to do anything to it, especially not with JS.

<span style=...> vs <b> vs <strong> have different semantic meaning, and all have valid uses in modern HTML.
> People had possessions long before the state ever arose.

Having a possession isn't the same as having property. Property is the legal right to deny other people some set of actions regarding a thing.

That people did things before the state arose also, in any case, doesn't establish a right to those things. People were, after all, deliberately killing each other without provocation (often to secure possessions) before the state arose, too (by any definition where “before the state arose” is a coherent concept, which it arguably is not under one of the more common ones used), but virtually no one argues on that basis that theft and murder are natural rights.

> It is incredibly naive to assume that anything ever belonged to "the commons".

No, it's not: the commons consist of everything in which no one is vested exclusive proprietary rights (and if there was no commons, then instead of alienation from the commons property—which unquestionably often involves conversion of something in which the property holder did not ab initio have a property interest—would generally involve theft from someone in particular rather than alienation from the commons; that property involves state-licensed alienation from the commons is the only alternative to “property is theft”.)
I think the non-dualists in the parent comment here would agree, saying something vaguely Alan Watts-y along the lines of "consciousness and matter are merely two sides of the same coin and imply each other mutually."

Come to think of it, "does consciousness arise from matter, or does matter arise from consciousness" is a modern Koan par excellence. FWIW, the last time I grooved on that for a while while on a psychedelic, the answer I came up was...decidedly spiritual. Caveat lector ;)