skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
There's no such thing as a terms of service that gets you out of openly commiting fraud.

The issue isn't the ToS. It's fighting Google in court. If fraud is occuring, the ToS will not actually protect you.

You want to know what's keeping Jack Dorsey and Sundar Pichai up at night right now? They both recently openly lied to Congress and can be put in prison at any time for it. A powerful congressperson merely has to decide to act on it. Dorsey has begun walking back Twitter's aggressive deplatforming against the political rightwing because he's scared now, he knows they can get him on lying to Congress. They can get anyone on lying to Congress, all they have to do is get you to testify extensively, then you're fucked. It's why Google didn't want to send their CEO to testify.

The only way to deal with a corporation as powerful as Google is to get their executives in front of Congress or on record in front of federal agents and pin them to the wall. Once they've testified enough under oath, they're effectively in a permanent minefield. They have to be very careful with all related business practices after that.

That works when you have a hot political issue, like election tampering. I doubt it's possible to scare up enough attention for app store bans. The only recourse there is to pursue it in court and or hope some state AG will jump on board.
I think a lot of people seem to gloss over how much of an effect being free had on capturing far more market share than any paid title did before it. It doesn’t matter if fortnite was or wasn’t the first 100+ player battle royals game.

Gamers like to discuss the mechanics and gameplay and who copied who but all of this misses the major point- it was F2P first and foremost, in a category where there aren’t many if any free games, (+ was well executed, + multi-platform). But the F2P, that’s the real unprecedented aspect IMO.

If the App Store market has taught us anything about today’s game market, it’s that F2P titles (esp quality ones) will outperform paid upfront apps in sheer volume by multiple magnitudes (100-1000x if not more)
For what it's worth, I typed "vaccination schedule rationale" into a search engine and received many interesting results, several which did not seem to have been paid for by the insurance industry.
Russian town suffers POLAR BEAR INVASION, dozens of predators ‘won’t go away’
> Good regulation is certainly possible, but it is the exception rather than the rule. The more typical pattern is either the economic failure of an industry (over-regulation) or regulatory capture.

In the USA. It's highly unclear whether that holds for democratic regimes.
We mustn't forget, the War Media is always agitating for more military action. "State actor" gets them a lot closer to their goal than "fat dude in his mom's basement".
Balls, balloons and ballerinas: The weird world of Jeff Koons
Most henchmen don’t think their bosses are bad people, because they aspire to be their bosses, and people don’t think they’re bad themselves, even when they are.
> What is MY recourse?

Your first statement would imply that the photographer has some responsibility to gain consent for the picture and its use.
It's up to developer to weigh the risks and make an informed decision.
Financial incentives don't make something automatically wrong.

Google provides this explanation about a Blue Cross incentive program similar to what you describe that sounds modest, benign, and completely justified: https://vaxopedia.org/2017/09/24/that-3-million-vaccine-bonu...

My insurance program gives incentives for people to achieve a healthy weight, quit smoking, and get regular checkups.

I understand the financial incentives, but presumably a couple people in the firm think they might be helping people too.

Even insurers can't be sinister all the time.
Ruby is a little faster than Python in most situations these days, to nitpick.
And customers will just use VPN's so they appear from a different country and use bitcoin.
Not WaPo, that's for sure. Bezos might be more reliable when writing in his own name...
It was pretty clear that teaching kids to hide under their desk in case of an atomic attack was utterly meaningless. We still did it, and now have the occasional laugh about it.

It makes the parents and school administrators feel better. "Something must be done" in action.
I've been enjoying the Alpha of https://Tildes.net

It's like Reddit for thoughtful content, no fluff.

And so far it's full of hackers and people who think like hackers.

Email the founder for an invite code. He's friendly and engaged.
Might not be legal. Check your state's FOIA statutes. There are usually stated limits to the charges an agency can put on fulfilling requests.
> For a non-JS solution

How do you use this library with JS disabled?
There's a good free audiobook version on librivox.org
This is just an ignorant response. The history of the internet is littered with pragmatic solutions to standard vs. non-standard approaches for exactly these reasons. See: <image>, Referer header, the HTML standard as a whole.

By the way, if your standard contradicts a popular methodology, it's probably a bad standard.
Every new version of Py has speed improvements as well.
I've seen huge things being built in/with PL/SQL, running stable, fast, nearly bug-free and containing all the features needed, for decades, sometimes upgraded to a new database major version.

I've also seen multiple attempts at replacing those PL/SQL systems, reimplementing the same functionality with Hibernate/Java (and I recall one instance of PHP being used) and they've all been slow (to use and develop), buggy and always lacking in functionality compared to the original. Basically all three of the previous problems or a disgusting combination of them.

In all of those replacement cases, there has been no objective reason to replace the entire system, maybe give the UI a facelift.

So here's my question, why rewrite it all, what's the reason these "rewrites" and "stanglings" are done to nicely working systems just not complying with what the newest fad is? Is PL/SQL or DBs such an arcane knowledge your devs did not understand it enough to give it a facelift? I'm genuinely just curious why these things happen, if I knew the reason maybe I could stop another service I have to use being turned to excrement.
It's already illegal to take certain kinds of photos. For example, upskirt photos or bathroom/locker room photos. The victim may never know the data was captured, but a crime still occurred.
Ruby 3 is specifically going to address speed issues, among other features. However in a lot of cases that’s usually not where the bottleneck is.

Using rails-api as a backend with your choice of frontend is still a viable option. Perhaps it’s not one’s first choice these days but it’s far from obselete.
Okay, I was thinking they were referring to the country adjacent to the US border, and small parts of it

Different way of reading it
Texas Bill to Stop Throttling Internet During Disasters
Or, ya know, it's kind of normal around here to link to previous discussions.
Wait, I've heard this one before!
Not if the server is setup correctly.
Right. Now imagine how it would feel if you made your entire living off those apps, the ban was for life, and they didn't even bother to explain to you what you did wrong.

Many people are in this exact situation. That is why they are upset.
I think you’re conflating two different things. The US has one of the strongest traditions of free access to judicial proceedings. You can walk into pretty much any courtroom to watch a proceeding. Even when it’s a big corporate disputes involving confidential information, the court will only be sealed for so long as the confidential information is being actively discussed. And the court will force the parties, at their own expense, to carefully redact filings with confidential information so that they can be available publicly. In one court I practice in, the Federal Circuit, you need special permission to redact more than 15 unique words in a brief, even if it’s a big business disputes with tons of confidential information. That level of access is not the norm in Switzerland as I understand it: https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/society/understanding-the-justi....

> However, no other initiatives are anticipated to make the justice system more public. The judge is, for example, not too keen on the idea of publishing all judgments online. “That would require far too much effort to make things anonymous,” he explains. But the court does already publish the most interesting judgments.

But the government here is also not big on paying for things. Building a whole electronic system to disseminate these filings costs a lot of money. Philosophically there is a strong trend in the US that having a right to do something doesn’t mean the government has to pay to help you exercise that right.
I'm terrified by the idea that people like that are allowed to indoctrinate children's mins from early age on. Just because a child had the misfortune to be born to a crazy person shouldn't allow them to mess them up for good.
It looks like only a few top logo images are used for all randomly generated cards. And theses logos are often boring.
Interesting time to release this article: EA just released their own battle royale game (Apex Legends), and 10 millions people already played the game in its first 72 hours[1]. Plus, the reviews seem to be unanimous about the quality of the game. It got 300,000 concurrent viewers on Twitch right now, vs. 140,000 for Fortnite[2].

Curious to see what's the future of Fortnite now.

[1] https://www.ea.com/games/apex-legends/news/apex-legends-10-m...

[2] https://www.twitch.tv/directory
It would be interesting to see a list of pro-lobbyist. Who is pushing for this to pass? (not speaking about a list industries, but actual company names, association names, etc.)
There are certainly positives, namely the weather and access to a lot of outdoorsy activities. However, my issue is more that people are unfriendly, it's much more expensive, the tech scene in the Bay Area is full of pompous/arrogant douches, etc. I definitely likes minneapolis and chicago much more than the SF Bay Area (east bay is nice though). I also like San Diego and Santa Clara as they're "sleepier" and not as fever as the SF and Silicon Valley areas.
This is an awkward study poorly described in the journal paper. They are studying two groups, one that is CIN+ and HPV+ and the other that is CIN- but HPV+. They are applying the same treatment. It's essentially two studies. They provide no treatment control groups but seem to rely on control statistics from a previous, similar study, and only mention it in passing in the discussion. The control that should be covered is for CIN that naturally regresses, which is clearly a significant case as they exclude women under 25 because they "easily regress." They note that their final regression rate with treatment is the same as previously reported natural regression after two years (57% vs. 58%), but indicate their rate of regression to that point is faster (6 vs. 24 months), but not statistically significantly so - they only had 12 CIN+ HPV+ subjects. They also seem to rely on, but make no mention of, natural HPV viral clearance by the immune system. They similarly indicate that the treatment group's clearance rate of HPV is similar to previously reported, but un-cited, rates of natural clearance, but with a sharper slope to the clearance rate among the treated patients. They offer that this might be due to coincidentally specific immune response to the treatment that corresponds to the necessary immune response for effective natural HPV clearance.

In many respects, this is a report of negative results, and they don't really hide that. They just wait until the discussion to explicitly mention any of the key information. But respect for publishing negative results.

EDIT: changed "article" to "journal paper" to avoid confusing the published research paper with the news report of it that was originally linked and which I didn't bother wasting time reading.
Just put the big fines on anti-vaxers and force them to vaccinate anyway (unless there are medical reasons of course). The only missing piece is a political will.
It’s an advertorial. An advertisement posing as an editorial opinion.

The editor was paid to form an opinion about the subject, and ramble on for a few hundred words.
I don't know if this is true or not but either way why would anyone want to refute this? Insurance companies paying doctors to make sure patients are vaccinated according to the recommended schedule is a ringing endorsement of vaccination.

Insurance companies would in effect be saying with their wallet that vaccinations are safe and effective. Effective enough that paying doctors ten's of thousands is cheaper than paying for the increased costs of care resulting from a significant number of patients not being vaccinated. Since insurance companies would also bear a significant part of the cost of care for patients that were negatively affected by vaccines, this also implies that the rate of and impact of negative effects from vaccination are low.
What you should get out of it is that Chinese companies are effectively a proxy for the government.

And the Chinese government operates the largest and most effective censorship program in the history of humanity.

So maybe we don't want to sell them a stake in media and entertainment companies.

>As far as Hong Kong.. they've got a pretty fair reason to be oversensitive about westerners implying it's not part of China.

Maybe we should have let the people of Hong Kong vote on the issue.

Regardless, they did the exact same thing with Taiwan.
Is it from Ron Hubbard novel?
Oracle revealed Google's Android revenue was $31 billion in 2016 with $22b of that being profit. AT&T, Comcast, Amazon etc suggest it is possible to support a few million developers/customers within $22b.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2018/01/06/apples-ap...
Taking a step back, I'll try to explain where I'm coming from.

My read of Waterluvian's comment is that:

1. "Problems" (e.g., violence) quantifiably differ in magnitude between Mexico and other places. And,

2. Those differences matter. That is, the dismissal in the form of "well, everywhere has problems" is disingenuous.

To illustrate that, he provided three specific salient examples (armed guards at gas stations, mass graves, and rampant corruption).

My read of your response to that comment was that you dismissed the idea that armed guards, mass graces, and rampant corruption are a level beyond the violence in e.g., Canada and Sweden, because "what about aboriginals?" By dismissing Waterluvian's comment, you made a statement normalizing Mexico's level of violence.

So I tried to clarify that the difference in level of violence matters, and, here we are.

> i didnt say anything about mexico.

Sure you did. Denying "A != B" says something about A.

> im replying to someone who says there arent parts of canada or sweden comparable to mexico.

That's not what the comment you responded to said. Violence and corruption is quantifiably endemic to Mexico. Small populations in Canada and Sweden see outsized violence, but on the whole, those countries experience less violence.

To put some real numbers on it, there were 611 homicides in Canada in 2016, across a population of 36.26 million. That's 1.68 per 100,000 people. The homicide rate in Canada peaked at 3.03 per 100,000 in 1975.

In contrast, the homicide rate in the US peaked at 10.1 per 100k in 1974 and now hovers around 4.5 per 100k.

Mexico's homicide rate in 2016 was 19.3 per 100k. And "as of 2014, Mexico has the 16th highest rate of homicides committed against women in the world."[0]

If you're trying to illustrate that Canada is just as violent as Mexico, you picked a poor example.

[0]: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cedaw/docs/ngos/CDDandC...
We are outside Europe. Actually, I see this as an opportunity to buy assets of countless condamned European small and medium companies/start ups. Sad day for the entrepreneurs in EU.
Don't forget:

- Rationalizes the creation of a massive bureaucracy to control (and centralize) what beforehand was considered normal and local in scope.

- Rationalizes universal surveillance by unaccountable individuals in federal bureaucracies against the entire population. This can and has been abused in the case of bank disclosures required by anti-money laundering laws:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/us-arrests-treasury-...

(Note that the so-called "suspicious activity reports" she leaked were merely transactions that met some criteria like being above a threshold amount).
There is something called PII. Your face is not secret.
Your heavy emphasis on the idea that fields are closed under addition and multiplication is very counterproductive here, because the integers are closed under addition and multiplication.

The integers violate the field axiom that every element in the field (other than 0, the additive identity) must have a multiplicative inverse in the field. But that has nothing to do with the requirement of being closed under multiplication.
There are lots of examples of programs where payers (insurance companies, medicare, etc) pay doctors who are meeting various measures. This could be anything form ensuring patients who are at risk for various diseases (cancer, diabetes, etc) get screened for those diseases, to making sure high blood pressure is well controlled, to making sure patients are getting vaccinated. Check out CPC+ as just one example.

There is nothing inherently bad about these incentive models (they are trying to address a number of issues with the current fee-for-service model). If anything, they are proof of the efficacy of these actions. The "evil" insurance company's primary goal is spending less money on care, so if they're willing to pay doctors to vaccinate at the recommended rate, then clearly it's in their financial interest to do so (i.e. vaccinated patients cost the insurance company less money, which is a pretty good proxy for "vaccinated patients have fewer health issues").

Can you articulate why you would want to "slow down" the vaccination schedule? The current guidelines are based on a significant body of research. What evidence are you basing your decision on?
This should be a pro-vaccination point. Insurance companies can only be benefited from this if they make short/long term return on it. i.e. people fall less sick reducing insurance claim. Isn't this what vaccines are for? Or, is there some theory that companies are in bed with NSA/Illuminati to make the world impotent?
Except for crystal-lang, which is compiled Ruby, more or less, and smokes all the above mentioned interpreters, no?
It's not that black and white. There's "no support", "lots of support", and somewhere in between is "more than what Google has right now."

I think that, when you are the gatekeepers to some people's livelihoods, there's some amount of ethical responsibility to exercise judgement. If you can automate judgement, then great, but if you can't, you should probably implement it with humans.
Alternatives to Google Play Store
Ownership isn't a physical property of atoms either, but we don't have any trouble handling that.
If you make a deposit of $10,000 in cash that's considered suspicious money laundering. That's one third of the median US salary. I would hardly consider that kind of surveillance to be limited to the 1%.
WASM maybe.
This is an interesting use of Cloudflare Workers.

My unsolicited advice is to list some specific SEO fixes and improvements in the app description. It's not clear to me what it does and the screenshots are hard to parse.
When dealing with a bureaucracy (ie, not Google specific) a "review" might not mean "reconsider the issue" instead meaning "check the process was followed".

In an extreme example, lets say that a bureaucrat takes an action because they have an unreasonable personal dislike of something. A bureaucratic review of the situation will confirm that the person had authority to act as they did then close the case. The reasoning behind the decision may not be examined at all in the review.

A symptom of things getting bad is that reviews will never seem to achieve anything, because a bureaucracy won't take unauthorised action, so any action is by definition going to pass a review. Very frustrating to deal with that sort of system. This sort of thinking is so screwy that it makes sense for the reviewer to report directly to the original decision maker, because the reviewer isn't supposed to challenge the decision, they are supposed to make sure that the decision was made by the person they report to!
Yeah but people grew up in different perspectives on media. As a teenager I've seen Bowling for Columbine in the movie theater and also read books from Michael Moore which are highly manipulative already. Still, everybody hyped his work at the time and on first sight this was hard to get. At that time (early 2000s) other revealing documentaries became popular, for instance Zeitgeist. At the time it seemed a bit shallow and repetitive in context of similar productions, but I wouldn't ever have called someone watching this Conspiracy Theorist.

Today the landscape changed totally, those kinds of "documentaries" produced today are created at much greater pace and still reasonable professional quality, probably because both tools and creators got more professional. But what didn't change is, when you watch one of these films, I guess, it still seems reasonable to a degree. Of course they build on something tangible, like how currencies are created, what Fiat money is, the really crazy stuff comes then in subsequent episodes.

IMHO this is like a cult because a whole (social) network of websites is associated to this nowadays. But when stuff is hosted on YouTube etc. their rating system should at least provide an appropriate scam flagging on a community level.
> as far as I know, there haven't been any widespread attacks using browser vulnerabilities since sandoxing was introduced (except maybe Internet Explorer, which doesn't really count).

While non-malicious, jailbreakme.com seems to come back once every few years or so.
> Or never ending games with repeat buys? (snip) That tells me that whether or not what gamers 'want'... what they spend on is cloud based.

That's not what cloud based means here. "Cloud based", in this context, refers to video streaming of a game rendered within a data centre, remote-desktop-ed to your computer like a YouTube video. (The article calls it a 'cloud-based streaming solution'). Lots of companies offer this (GeForce Now, PlayStation Now, etc). But almost no players actually play that way today.

Lots of players are spending money in online "never-ending" / "repeat-buy" games. (Fortnite, Apex, Blackout, Destiny, Warframe, Path of Exile, WoW, etc). But approximately 0% of players are spending any money on "cloud-based" ones (using the articles definition of cloud-based).
No I'm not being sarcastic, I'm amazed that Americans put up with the level of government intrusion in our financial lives.
The US is not the only country in the world -- all my vaccinations were free and there was no profit motive built into the system for it.
The topology part of these textbooks is the hardest for me. Understanding the 2d representations of the shapes. Where can one get a more bottom up explanation of the crucial topology concepts? Also bad at geometry in general
Not the parent, but I assume people do it so they don't have to use Oracle anymore (for either cost or ethical reasons).
With RDS instances in AWS, it’s the same behavior: destroying a database instance removes all of the automated backups that were made. Make sure to take a final snapshot!
What I am really scared of is mutation of certain disease due to a lack of heard immunity. I thought it was logical that mutation of certain viruses poses a threat, even to vaccinated people within the heard, in a population where heard immunity is compromised?