skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
louis Rossman did an episode on the macbook keyboard problems:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KuVvb9DTaU

It's insane what a mac user must go through even to attempt to repair this themselves. Another reason it's important to support right to repair, https://repair.org/.

There's also a lawsuit for the keyboard defects:

https://www.classlawgroup.com/apple-macbook-pro-keyboard-def...
It's OK to say you believe that you are pro free-speech only in cases of government/military/police censorship. It's not OK to redefine free speech to mean "government censorship", especially not to call your position "very nearly absolutist".

You believe that private companies have the moral right to censor and filter user-generated content. That's your opinion/morality. But it's not "free speech absolutism" in the common English language.
I definitely remember doing this at OA.
I'm confused as to your point - how does Austin Texas prove that you can develop new cities in a modern setting?
I think it's close.

As the article explains, though, present and past timestamps can be impacted too - your timezone library may be out of date at the moment you save the timestamp, or in some cases the legal body defining the timezone may reach into the past with a timezone change.
Show HN: Scribble is a simple, no BS blog-writing subscription for busy startups
Hey guys!

About 6 months ago we launched the first version of Scribble on Hacker News & Product Hunt. Scribble (https://hiscribble.com) is a simple, no BS blog-writing subscription for startups, small businesses, and indie makers.

Since launching our 1.0 we’ve learned a lot about how to run a service like this, and today we’re launching a huge revamp:

We’ve about doubled the amount of writers on the team (all native English-speaking, all based in the USA)

We’ve optimized our pricing & ops models to make us the most affordable premium writing service available (without outsourcing or white labeling)

️ We've put together a new dashboard for you to track your order status and SEO / keyword rankings

Content production workflow optimized more for SEO and keyword targeting

If you want to give Scribble a try, you can use the discount code EARLYADOPTERS at checkout for 20% off forever. This code expires in 3 days!

Would love to hear your feedback, and happy to answer any questions. We're also featured on Product Hunt today (https://www.producthunt.com/posts/scribble-2-0)!

– Matt & Aaron
Funny thing about the Sputnik magazine. In a lot of the West it was seen as Communist propaganda (which to be fair a lot of it was), but in the late 1980s it was actually banned in East Germany because it wasn't Communist enough as it wrote favorably about Perestroika and Glasnost, which the leaders of the GDR weren't happy about.
> OK you answered a few of my questions and I still don't see why WASM is a requirement for any of this to happen.

It's _not_ a requirement, but at least to me it seems like a pretty good _possible_ solution.

I sense you're pretty jaded about web development, and I get that, but I don't agree this is "web people" trying to do things outside the browser, but rather I see it more as "systems people" trying to bring _some_ order to the chaos.

> nearly all developers are terrible at thinking about preventing security vulnerabilities

I totally agree. Which is why you should have a solid abstraction between the sandboxed code and what it's allowed to do, which WASM seems particularly good at (by only exposing services as syscalls). In theory, sandbox escapes in WASM should be the same level of difficulty as modern kernel exploits, so still _possible_ but _pretty hard_. And if multiple runtimes are using WASM for different things, if one is exploited it can be a learning lesson for all the other WASM runtimes, vs. the bespoke scenario where each custom VM has to go through the security bug discovery process by itself.

If _think_ what you're against is some sort of future where a "WASM-based-Electron" becomes the de facto standard for modern apps, and _that_ I largely agree with. In fact, re-reading the WASI standard I do feel like they are already "baking in" too much w/ WASI-core; I was expecting the core to just focus on a simple syscall ABI, not to include syscalls like filesystem reads and writes.

Some maybe what I'm really looking for is a "wasi-minium-abi" that just standardizes _how_ syscalls are made without actually standardizing any actual syscall numbers.

In summary, I feel like syscalls are a _very_ tried and true way to specify the API/ABI for a runtime, and that I hope we see more runtimes use WASM and a syscall ABI vs. rolling their own VM, but I agree that I'm in no rush to see WASM/WASI become the "Electron 2.0" of local app deployment.
Life expectancy gaps in US states between longest- and shortest-living counties
Wow, Joanna really carried that bit till the very last word. I love it.
This. I don't do any dev work on my 2018 mbp. It's essentially useless until I plug in an external keyboard.
In fact your main problem is descoping a large number of ideas to get to a small, coherent set.
Oh, I feel you. It's ridiculous.

I have an original keyboard without the membrane on my main machine and I've been thinking about taking it in to get the upgraded one. But I really don't want to go through breaking in another keyboard if I get a new one with a few wonky keys.

If anything what Apple really needs to do is find either a new material or a new manufacturing process that allows for more expansion of the key and mechanism under heat stress without sticking. This doesn't fix the particulate issue, which ultimate triggers the problem, but it does allow for a lot more particulate to accumulate before the problem renders the keyboard unusable.
A few months ago I deleted Facebook and part of doing that looked into what messaging app to move to. I needed something easy to use as I wanted to get my family on it but also really didn't want to link my phone number.

I ended up landing on Wire and so far have found it to be really good. You can register with phone number but it is not required and you can register with an email instead.
Yes, because farm equipment is the only durable, expensive good that plays a key role in peoples' survival and well-being. SMH.
I am in agreement with you on this point. FB isn't obligated to give anyone a publishing platform.

People with hateful, racist rhetoric are can certainly attempt to fully self host their shit content on their own servers. Essentially all they need to do is figure how how to run their own authoritative DNS servers, and their own http daemons. Various publishing CMS that work on a common LAMP stack server are GPL/BSD licensed and require no external connections to any platform services.

Hopefully, ethical ISPs will refuse to host their VMs or dedicated servers, so they'll have a bit of a harder task to find a publishing platform. But if you spend 30 seconds googling "russia VPS" you can find VM services which don't even disconnect customers for hosting virus/worm/trojan/botnet command and control sites, so the racists can go there.
Good old Chomsky. I really like his views on this topic. However the question leads down a rabbithole.

Absolute freedom is a contradictory concept. How can you kick an unwanted visitor out of your house because you don't like what he's saying? Aren't you infringing on his rights? Someone needs to draw a line.

So what about a social media oligopoly? How dominant does Google need to be before you have to tell them to allow freedom of speech.

What about network neutrality?

Etc etc...

It's not so easy to answer this question.
I switched to Chromebooks from OS X almost entirely because of Apple's keyboard fail.
I've never been but from what I've read it's best to think of Backpage as a Cragislist circa 2015. It allowed for a bunch of different types of posts but charged and made the majority of their income from their adult section.
But does it really work that way? I.e. the effect may be real enough, but among the non-landowners, who actually considers that the net effect of improving the city would result in them personally paying more to live there?
I pay Google each month for Google Music, phone service, and for hosting. I'd say I'm a customer of theirs.
Show HN: SocialAmnesia – Open-source tool that auto-erases old Reddits/tweets
The trouble is that today, these companies have a monopoly on distribution. People who are banned go to other sites that capture extremists views (Gab/Voat/4chan).

At some point, platforms need to realize there is a moral value in allowing different view points so that they can discuss and be seen. Otherwise, people leave for more "open" platforms that breed exclusive extremism. It then further divides the split.

The other issue is that these platforms are so big that they literally dictate narrative in many cases, or at least to their audiences.
Techstars Starburst Space Accelerator
I don't know about that particular description, but it kind of makes sense - two bills passed on 27th March parliament session are passed on the same "business day" even if that day gets long and one of them was voted on five minutes before midnight and the other was voted on five minutes past midnight; and if there are some mandated legal delays (e.g. you have x days to before they'll be in force or something) then both bills will be treated as if they were passed on the same date.

This also matches common usage - if I tell you what I did on a friday night, it'll include both things before and after midnight.

There are also parallels in banking where business days don't align with calendar days, and you may have (depending on regulations and agreements) either a "long friday" or "long monday" where an action that's physically performed on a sunday will be treated with an effective date of friday or monday respectively; or possibly events after the closure of a business day may be legally treated as happened in the day after.
Does this include policing the debate about EU expansion to Turkey or Morocco?
Jokes' on the electorates. They probably don't even know who's representing them in the EU councils.
That's very ignorant to say that attention or convolution is anywhere close to the expressivity of RNNs(LSTM). Instead of reading a few cherry-picked results from a model with extremely tuned hyperparameters, pick any random set of tasks and experiment yourself. Based on my experience, LSTM always performs better than all unless you brutely search over hundreds of hyperparameters configs.
BS in physics 2014 (minor in CS)

my research in undergrad and applications for grad school were for computational neuroscience (sort of the whole what would Feynman do if he was still alive route)

1. Didn't get into as many programs as I wanted.

2. East Coast schools even explicitly told me that wetlabs were more important (I semi-agree).

3. West Coast schools were all being gutted for ML/Data science work.

4. all the post docs and grad students I had worked with had switched to doing ML

I deferred for a year and worked at a biotech startup doing neural network simulations to prove the product worked and scrappy hardware startup things.

I've since been at a startup doing NLP for the last two years.

Don't regret the degree which to me is like a STEM liberal arts degree.
Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court, in which it ruled that a state trespassing statute could not be used to prevent the distribution of religious materials on a town's sidewalk, even though the sidewalk was part of a privately owned company town. The Court based its ruling on the provisions of the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama

> "Ownership does not always mean absolute dominion. The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it."
I'm going to caution against people using the phrase "free speech" as a thought terminating cliche when discussing this.

Banning speech can and typically has been harmful, especially when governments get involved with doing it. No one is ignorant about this fact. But we're collectively discovering that not doing anything about what can be published and said is just about as harmful, if not more so in concentrated circumstances. There will be irrational people who act irrational on fundamental erroneous information. It's a practical matter, not an ideological one. White supremacist ideas aren't up for debate. There isn't a point in debating them. And the people adhering to these ideals aren't looking for a debate and most definitely won't consider other ideas. You can't debate rationally with someone who hasn't arrived at their position in a rational manner.

There's also something else at play here. We're seeing new systems that replaced old ones re-implement "lost" functionality they thought wasn't needed. Turns out it was, in fact, needed. The old media empire of yesteryear was always subject to regulations around the content they spread.

If bitcoin is an exercise in why we need financial regulations, facebook and other social media networks are an exercise in why we need content and publishing regulations.
Matrix handles this by exposing the device keys to the user so they can make decisions about whether to trust new devices (and I believe identity key changes mean you wouldn't be in your rooms anymore -- but in order to change identity keys you would have to delete you entire Matrix account on the homeserver).

If a new device has shown up, your messages will be blocked from being sent until you verify the new device. To be fair, it is too easy to blaze past the warning -- and it can happen often in large rooms. As a result, it's a little bit cumbersome at the moment, but with device cross-signing coming down the pipe and the new verification system (which is much better than Signal's IMHO -- you just check both devices have the same string of 7 emoji on their screen) it's getting a lot better.
The notion is that the history of European colonialism and imperialism "justifies" black and Chinese nationalism as a countermeasure to white supremacy.

There's a "punching up" vs. "punching down" model that pretty much explains most "hypocrisy" on this issue. For instance, even subtle hints of anti-Semitism expressed by white Westerners (e.g. being anti-George Soros in particular) are condemned far more vehemently than anti-Semitism expressed by black people or Muslims, because of the perception that Jews, being perceived as predominantly white and Westernized themselves, are more privileged than blacks and Muslims but less privileged than white Gentiles.

I don't agree with this mentality myself because the tides can turn a lot faster than your ideological model of privilege and oppression can change to reflect it, but it's similar to the ideas that are commonly expressed on the left and serves as a decent predictive model of their attitudes.
Eventually white people are going to figure out they want healthcare and black people are going to figure out they want guns and all hell will break loose.
In a test by a credible German org, Startpage.com crowned top privacy browser
I see what you mean, but it does seem different because FB or YouTube are not publications, but public forums, public communication spaces to publish as a person. Things published on youtube are not on behalf of youtube. Basically FB and Youtube and things like it form space where content fills in.
Concerned about election security, oppose requiring photo ID to vote, got it.
> despite the fact that we as a society have said hate speech should not be tolerated

Here's your problem. Free speech isn't about "we as a society".

"We as a society" had decided that the earth was the center of the universe before Galileo decided to defy "we as a society" to state something unpopular.

I'm not suggesting that there is any value in white supremacism like there was in Galileo's speaking of heliocentricism, but his lack of access to free speech protection meant he was persecuted for speaking the unpopular - the idea that you can ban "certain kinds of speech" is going to do precisely the same.

Where exactly is the line drawn at what is considered "white supremacism?" What if somebody says something which isn't a white supremacist viewpoint, but some loon misrepresents the view as if it were? You don't seriously think it will end at white supremacism do you? This is just the first step towards incrementally dismantling your right to free speech.

The solution to "bad speech" is "good speech", not attempting to issue bans. The Streisand effect is in full force, and each time you try to ban it, you accidentally give them more leverage. The solution is to ignore. Stop advertising for them! That's all you're doing.

That doesn't mean that we should ignore actual hate crimes - but can we get back to a sane world where people are innocent until proven guilty, and where we have a legal system where judge and jury get to decide the punishment for crimes - rather than bored, virtue signalling keyboard warriors.
Mad-Science IQ Enhancement
As I see it, we are basically putting more and more energy into these particle collisions and hoping something unexpected happens.
Vivian Maier's photographs are so overrated. She'd be completely forgotten today had she simply exhibited her photos throughout her life instead of being so dramatically and romantically "discovered" at the end.
I miss old Tumblr. It was the last true bastion of a lot of different ideas. Now it's just like everything else: trying hard to be advertiser friendly.
How did you land your first job? I'd assume that Chinese companies won't easily take the risk to sponsor a visa for a foreign graduate without relevant experience, especially if they don't speak the language (edit: I see you added a note, so feel free to ignore that last part).
A pattern is not specific to a language. Read again.
You'll see plenty of conversations on the topic here if you hang out long enough. I'm not a billionaire either so I have to store my cash in a swimming pool like everyone else.
> Are you saying that hate speech comes off of a vacuum? These two concepts do overlap.

In general, that logic calls for deplatforming every topic that people get outraged over.
In fairness, they've been censoring middle-eastern terrorist content (Al Qaeda, ISIS, etc.) for quite a while now.
The vast majority of both conservatives and liberals are passive about the vast majority of issues. It would make sense that if you are actively seeking out specific conflicts, you can add an anti- prefix. If the parent specifically seeks out and engages with racists then they are much more anti-racist than the average person irrespective of political alignment. The conservative side definitely does not include "arguing with people on voat" as a platform.
This.

A big problem is oligarchic in nature: if you believe that ISPs should be classified as common carrier utilities that should not be permitted to limit or censor the data you receive within reason, then the oligarchic content hubs should similarly be common carriers of speech.

I don't have a rock solid argument on this, this is just an equivalence I'm asserting.
Is google fiber (which, afaik, was not contracted by the government) private infrastructure in your model then?

(Both yes and no are certainly valid answers, I'm just curious about how you view this)
The problem isn't the rent, it's that we're renting. Even if your economy is strong, if the citizens don't have equity, market volatility puts them at significant risk, which then puts your economy at risk. As more and more labor is shifted to cities, more people have to move to cities, which puts more of the economy in a dangerous position when the market can no longer support those people.

I think we need to increase people's economic security by increasing home equity, and stabilize the labor market to make it easier to get and keep a job regardless of where they live. This will require other changes, such as methods to encourage businesses to spread to neighboring cities, improvements in transportation, and probably legislative reforms to de-incentivize landowners' ability to destabilize markets.
So it is not a meme, like a song or some group of active people from the past or anything like that?
They ALL have a known vulnerability. Works like this:

Pretend the machine is a person in a secure room only they are in, and only they know the contents of.

You approach a window, tell them your vote. They say it back and optionally hand you a piece of paper.

Then, in that room, they do whatever they want, and the final tally, winner of the election is determined by whatever they did in the room.

Voters have no chain of trust between their expression of intent, and the record used for the final tally. When voters make physical expressions, and those expressions are counted, voters know the election, on a basic level, can be trusted to reflect the collective intent of the people.

When they use electronics, they have no idea. They push a button, or mash a screen, and the display will tell them something and that something could be anything. They cannot know.

None of us can without forensic level examination of the machine. Even then, we can only verify function and infer a voter intent was correctly recorded and or used for the tally.

Secondly, should there be error, or controversy, the enduring record of voter intent both walked out of the building and or is a collection of grease smears on input devices.

Useless in a court of law.

The only way around this is to make vote records personally identifiable and basically use the systems for banking. (Who gets around this problem with multiple, redundant records created at the time of transaction)
It’s interesting that Facebook chose to focus on the problem of white nationalism when the national press is talking about an actor faking a crime to incite hatred against white people and create a false narrative about white nationalism.

What steps is Facebook taking to prevent racially motivated hoaxes meant to incite hatred, like the one by Jussie Smollett?

Ive seen repeated and consistent misrepresentation and lies on the issue by public figures, such as Mr Smollett or the case of the media harping about police shootings massacring unarmed people, only to find shooting unarmed people is rare and the breakdown corresponds to who commits crimes. Or the consistent representations of the police being violent, only to discover later they acted with appropriate force.

Im not sure I buy the narrative that this is a problem, rather than lies for power.
Might sound good in theory, but in effect it means that some low ranking Facebook employee will have to decide whether Jordan Peterson is allowed to publish on Facebook or whether he is to be categorized as a white supremacist, a decision the outcome of which will vary according to ideological disposition, the ability to read and comprehend texts, and the power to navigate the realm of ambiguity and conflicting interpretations.
They don't want the city to be as shitty as possible. They want to be able to get what they can afford.

Here's an analogy: Imagine if Apple drove all PC competitors out of the market, fair and square, by making a lovely product that is expensive, to the point and PC makers couldn't sustainably sell low-cost lower-quality PCs. Imagine you can't afford an Apple Mac, but you cold have afford a low-cost lower-quality PC. You'd suffer becuase the world is passing you by and leaving you out. Would you be wrong for opposing Apple's business in any way you can? If you are exlucded from the social contract, you have no obligation to uphold it.
Of course! But when China says you're free to discuss the Free Tibet movement in any other country but China, we rightly call it censorship. What makes this any different? Or, I suppose, what makes the differences one of kind and not of degree?

In a lot of ways, Facebook is as much of a country as the Vatican is.