skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
You can take anything out of context and present it as something else to make an argument, and it goes both ways. People can take something totally benign and present it as if it were a white supremacist argument.

It's not hard to imagine this being stretched to limit my speech. I'm white, and I'm also a nationalist - one who believes that nation states are the best means of managing humans who have a shared culture and traditions. How much of a stretch would it be to call me a "white nationalist?" I mean, lexicographically, it is an accurate use of two adjectives which describe me. However, I'm certainly not a "white nationalist" in the sense that might suggest I am in any way a white supremacist.

If white nationalist content is banned, does this mean that I cannot discuss nationalism because I am white - and therefore, a loon can trivially make the link that if I am white, and nationalist, then I must be a white nationalist? Doh!

What about white people who wish to celebrate their cultural heritage, peacefully, by suggesting that they should not have to give up or sacrifice their culture or traditions for fear that they might offend someone. Of course, it doesn't take imagination to think that a loon my consider this to be "white supremacism", because it is already happening!

The idea that there exists some large "exterminate nonwhites" network is a cartoon version of reality. There exist a small number of deranged humans who think that their skin color makes them superior, and an even smaller fraction of them who think that therefore, they must kill people who do not share that skin color. These are not at all representative of whites, nationalists, conservatives or free speech advocates, who are the real targets of recent censorship.

I mean, Alex Jones might be a nutcase, but I've not heard any evidence suggesting he has been calling for exterminating people. He has publicly apologized countless times for his handling of the Sandy Hook case which is the alleged reason he is banned. And Sargon of Akkad is an outspoken critic of white nationalists, but if we take this one word he said out of context then we've got him cornered!

You are the one pretending pal. You are pretending slippery slopes do no exist and that rules and laws only apply to the thing they were originally written to apply to. What utopia has this ever happened in? The only rules which can't be abused are the rules which don't exist in the first place. A rule which is in place is a rule which will be abused. Selective enforcement of rules also exists, and is commonly used to politically censor one side while openly allowing the opposing viewpoint.

Now if there are real cases of incitement to commit any crime against people because of their skin color, or anything else even, then I'm all for enforcement of rules and laws as they should be. This isn't what the censorship and assaults on free speech are about at all.
If you're into this kind of stuff the book Skunk Works by Ben R Rich is REALLY good! IMO it carries a lot of lessons into software development and startups also. Like they did random startup type things where for example the external starter motor for the planes engines was made from a couple Buick motors. They spent lavishly where they had to but were frugal and kept it simple where they could. Fun + interesting read.
You're just telling yourself what you want to hear.
> because we're out of land.

This argument is profoundly weird. There are more people living on Manhattan than in Montana.
There has been more left wing political violence in the US recently, the media simply disproportionately reports on right wing violence.

Why isn’t Facebook banning leftist propaganda when groups like Antifa regularly use it as justification for political violence?
Fair enough. And given that I also ended up as sports editor of my college paper for a year and had a sports column at another student paper, I'm one to talk :-)
I've been interested in using WireGuard for a while, though I don't really have a use-case for it currently.

In the interest of honest understanding, what would be reasons not to use WireGuard over existing VPN software (excluding the obvious legacy interop) ?
Can I suggest you find languages that solve problems you are facing?

Go is great if you do a lot of scripting or web dev. But wouldn't be so good if you're making chatbots.

A chatbot or real-time message passing would be great to use Elixir for.

Rust is great for WebAssembly or desktop programming as a replacement for C/C++.

Swift and Kotlin are the obvious choices for mobile development. Are your customers asking for mobile apps? Do you want to build mobile apps? These would be obvious choices.

Chase the problem you're trying to solve and use the right tool for the right job rather than trying to learn a language just for the sake of learning it. I find trying to learn a language I won't use to be something that quickly drops off my radar.
> What? There's no room to support the right of certain people to speak without "supporting" them?

When their speech is to advocate violence against every other group that isn't like them? No there isn't.
> This is substantially different from what is being talked about here: censorship versus deplatforming

What parent post was talking about is "free speech". The claim was that free speech is only about absence of governmental coercion. This is precisely wrong - absence of governmental coercion is one of the necessary conditions for the free speech to exist, but it does not equal it and does not ensure it.

> No one is removing white nationalists from the Internet,

We have already seen hosting companies to remove people from the internet for other reasons. Same with banks and credit companies cutting off certain companies from banking services, etc. I do not see how white nationalists would be an exception. I do not see how the ultimate goal is not exactly this - removing white nationalists from the Internet. Practical implementation of this goal could be hard, but getting within 99% of it - banning them from the space accessible by 99% of people without technical knowledge of darknet and such - is not.

If it is functionally impossible to speak in a way that anybody can hear you, is it still a free speech? Is "go build your own Internet" really a free speech?

I've recently read about the infamous "Green Book" - a guide for a non-white traveler in the US which specified which hotels, restaurants, gas stations, stores, etc. would serve them. There weren't many, and even when there was no governmental coercion (there were "sunset cities" but even if one avoided them) travel turned into a real hassle. Was that situation normal? I do not think so. I feel deeply disgusted by it.

You can create very bad situations even without governmental involvement. I feel that is what Facebook, Twitter and others are creating right now - even though for completely different reasons than those that gave birth to the Green Book. You could say the people being affected by it now deserve it, as they'd probably impose the same on their opponents if they could - and you probably would be right that they would. But shouldn't we try to do better? And the history teaches us these things start with the outgroups but never end there. Already disagreeing with any of the positions of transgender activists is verboten. How long before criticizing Green New Deal, or Keynesian economic theory, or the mayor of the town whose policies Facebook supports, or any other subject the benevolent overlords declare sacred becomes verboten?
Isn't the general argument that state taxes mean almost nothing to businesses like Boeing, Microsoft, Amazon, et al (in Washington State) but are actually a huge pain in the ass for small/mid-size businesses? The quote featured in this headline underscores an editorial bias that is pro-Microsoft (who keeps their campus in the suburb of Renton) and anti-Amazon (the scapegoat for rising Seattle real estate).
[For context, the post above, before all of its content was edited out, called for “enforcing” CDA Section 230 against tech firms by making them liable as publishers for user content]

You aren't calling for 230 to be enforced, you are calling for it to be abolished.

Which is already happening one step at a time (SESTA/FOSTA), each of which radically accelerates self-censorship. Actually, I suspect a lot of the self-censorship that happens that isn't connected to legal changes but is connected to popular mood is to avoid political pressure for new limits on the 230 safe harbor which would force even more drastic self censorship.
Just curious; what genre(s) would that be? I have found the most surprising things on there ...
Since it's based on web tech, is this going to be focused on async, rather than synchronous, calls?
Seems no more hypocritical and self-awareness-lacking than arguing that Facebook has the right to turn away white nationalists, but that a bakery must serve all the cakes.

Either way, it's conceptual gerrymandering to carefully carve out a wiggly boundary that -- strictly by coincidence! -- protects their own side and restrains the other side.
There are a few claims made here which I'd like to see clarified. In the spirit of transparency, let me declare upfront that I use Signal but I am not affiliated with them, and I don't really have a dog in the race here. I'll reference the published NCC security review[1] for this comment. Overall I'm happy to see a published cryptographic review of this protocol.

First, under "The Full Security Picture" heading in this article, it's claimed that forward secrecy is supported via time-based exploding messages. Pages 19 and 20 of the NCC report explain that, "The default chat protocol does not allow for forward secrecy since the same keys can retain indefinitely on a users device." So forward secrecy is not assured by default under this chat protocol, is that correct?

The NCC report goes on to say that, "Exploding messages introduce mechanisms for message deletion and forward secrecy; however, it is not clear to the user that keys and messages could remain on their device beyond the period specified during message creation." I interpret this to mean that there is a way to assure forward secrecy - which is exploding messages - but you're not making that explicit in this announcement. This seems a little disingenuous to me because in your FAQ, the first answer criticizes Whatsapp for compromising forward secrecy using the backup feature, but you don't have forward secrecy enabled by default in your chat protocol.

Likewise, this announcement makes a point of mentioning how other apps require you to trust the server due to resets, and why trusting the server is bad. But page 20 of the NCC report explains that, "While the default Chat encryption protocol does provide for message confidentiality and integrity, it does not provide for security in the face of device and server compromise, as keys and ciphertext are stored for a potentially indefinite period of time." So is it correct to say that unless users specifically enable exploding messages for their conversation (which is not the default), they actually do need to trust the server?

There are also a few drawbacks to the ephemeral messaging scheme NCC found that I think should be explicitly disclosed, because they don't require too much technical detail:

1. There is no deniable authentication on the default chat protocol. While exploding messages provide deniable authentication, this property fails in a group with more than 100 participants. It's fair to question whether that's a realistic place to expect deniable authentication, but it should probably be called out.

2. Exploding messages are based on the local client's system clock. Therefore it's possible for an exploding message to be indefinitely retained on another device by e.g. manipulating the local time.

___________________

1. https://keybase.io/docs-assets/blog/NCC_Group_Keybase_KB2018...
> You don't solve nazi ideology with reasoned debate.

How did you reach that conclusion?
I would agree with you only if those that choose prostitution are doing it completely of their own free will.

This means not only not being actively forced but passively forced through desperate circumstances.

I don't think our social safety net in the US is nearly strong enough to ensure that such passive desperation is not a driving factor in the decision.

The last thing in the world I'd want to see is a desperate single mother go to get welfare benefits and getting asked 'So...did you even /apply/ to the brothel down the street?'
> Let’s ask the largest companies in the tech sector, which are the largest employers of high-skilled talent, to do a bit more

I do not understand how people can not understand that a percentage tax, by it's definition, does have the largest companies pay more.
If you take all of this out of context, sure I see where you are coming from. But in context this is simply being pedantic.

Facebook is a US based company. When talking about Freedom of Speech in America, it's almost exclusively used to refer to the Constitutional protections around Freedom of Speech, as that is the only codified Free Speech parameters for the country at large. So in context, OP would be saying that they are near absolutist on Freedom of Speech as it relates to the Constitution.

I don't know many people that would interpret Freedom of Speech as a more generalized concept unless it was defined before hand.
I have personally worked on a GPL component that's a crucial part of a shipped Microsoft product, so I'm well aware that it happens. But compared to non-copyleft licenses, it's a drop in the bucket, even with the industry-wide embrace of Linux. And if Linux couldn't blaze that path for other stuff, I'm not sure what can.
What’s the opposite of results-oriented in this case? I.e. what should you orient toward, if not results?
No, free speech is free speech. The fact that, legally, free speech is handled differently if you're the US government vs. a private entity is immaterial to the definition.

But also recognize that (unregulated) private entities have a right to decide what speech they do and don't want to be a platform for. That's the big distinction here.
Store timestamp and convert it to whatever the user wants.
>calling it for what it is on a site had value,

The terrifying thought is that this might be a product of scale more than anything else.

Because of the bullshit asymmetry principle, it's easier to produce propaganda than debunk it and "call it what it is," so any sufficiently large and scaled platform will almost certainly eventually be flooded with propaganda bullshit.
My coworker is an older guy with a PhD. He's really smart (also a bit aloof). We do the same job (typical backend software engineering)
This is such a smug and pointless comment.

Flagged. This site never ceases to amaze me. I'm assuming flagged for ad hominem, while this guy just basically insults everyone else in the thread. Nice!
Exactly none of those things is racist.

You know what is undeniably racist, though? Affirmative action, a policy supported primarily by liberals.
In my experience there are two good reasons for hiring PhDs in some tech contexts.

1) you need specific, state of the art knowledge, and this person was actively publishing in that precise area with significant impact.

2) you need good general problem solvers with some technical depth in an area.

If you hire #1, you should build a program around them to capture the knowledge. This is probably the most efficient way to absorb this as institutional knowledge. The ratio of these people to other engineering roles should be 1:fairly big number.

If you hire #2, you should already understand that you are not hiring general tech employees, and define roles accordingly. If they are new to industry they will probably have significant skill deficits (as well as significant skills) and you need a plan to deal with it. They probably are strongly motivated by spending quite a bit of their time on innovation. Plausible exceptions for people whose academic work was long ago.

If you're hiring because you think "smart programmer" you're probably doing it wrong, and will probably both regret it, in my experience.

There is a third model which is essentially building a internal academic environment, but that is expensive and long term enough not to apply to most situations.
There is a fundamental problem with StackOverflow and I don't believe they can fix it.

Many "new users" of the service view (or want to view) SO as a "question and answer" site similar to ask.com or Quora. I don't think this is unreasonable at all as even Google will suggest that SO is one of the most popular question and answer sites on the web.

This flies in the face of the desire of SO leadership, many of its moderators and, the "old guard" to have the site be a curated programming resource akin to Wikipedia. This is also not unreasonable.

The rub comes with SO desire to invite questions to be answered rather than soliciting tutorials or documentation akin to how Wikipedia works. SO even had a failed attempt at exactly this (SO Documentation).

In essence, they (SO) want the benefits of both models while not recognizing the irreconcilable conflict. New users find the community hostile and belittling, seasoned users find questions condescendingly trivial and repetitive.

This particular issue (highlighted by the OP) should be of no surprise to anyone familiar with SO and the semi-annual crisis of identity they seem to have. A new user posts a first time answer that is not of high quality (principally the name of a library and a link to an off site documentation) with no real (SEO) value for SO. Then, rather than given a chance to fix things, their technically correct answer is deleted by a moderator. Note, the moderator could have edited the answer to expand on it themselves but rather chose to delete an otherwise correct answer from a first time poster.
I had a regular part-time job since I was a sophomore in high school. From that point I paid for all of my "incidental" expenses. In truth, I'm sure if I had begged for money for those books my parents would have given it to me, but I really liked the freedom and independence my part time job allowed me to have, and my parents liked instilling the sense of responsibility in me by having a budget, prioritizing my expenses, etc.
1940-1945
FWIW, I manually attempt to update to nightly (nightly-x86_64-apple-darwin) once a day, not because I need to, but out of curiosity. I find that clippy often prevents me from updating for a day or two before working again.

Today happens to be a day (and I think yesterday was, too) when I get: "error: component 'clippy' for target 'x86_64-apple-darwin' is unavailable for download for channel 'nightly'" and sure enough, I get the misleading "manifest for 'miri' is corrupt" when I try to add miri.

Surprisingly, I used "rustup component remove clippy" and still couldn't update to nightly, still with a complaint about clippy.

I'm not mentioning any of the above because it bothers me; I expect things to work tomorrow or the next day. I just assume this might be biting a lot of people (perhaps everyone on MacOS).
Doubt it. If it is remote controlled, you have to deal with latency and are susceptible to jamming and/or hacking and I doubt AI will be good enough for many years to come to be completely reliant on.
I ignore the ssh key not trusted only if i know why it isn't trusted.
> If someone could explain the difference between WASI and JVM the way you can explain the difference between C, C++ or Rust, it would help a lot.

I'll take a stab at it. While both WASM and the JVM aim to be portable virtual machines, WASM prioritizes sandboxing / security and a smaller runtime. A host should be able to easily set up WASM with restricted access and expect that the WASM program is secure. As far as I know, the JVM doesn't have an equivalent feature, or if it does, it's a lot more complicated.
And no, my standard of evidence is not hearing someone say the words - it is considering their actions and seeing if they align with a particular agenda.

That leaves the door open for a lot of hateful rhetoric excused on the grounds of 'ignore the speeches, look at the actions.' But in any case you could start by looking into the development of the 'muslim ban', anti-transgender policy in the armed forces, disregard for protected classes under title IX, and the so-called 'emergy' on the southern border.

Given the broad scope of your comment I'm not going to get into litigating those issues individually here, while understanding that you might not consider them as significant as other people do.
Your assumption being that Facebook presently serves as an effective platform for deradicalizing extremists.

Do you have evidence backing that up? Because from what I've seen[1], Facebook has been serving the opposite purpose: showing people things that reinforce their beliefs and trigger outrage reactions for clicks.

1. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebo...
> a mid-ranked public school

I suppose you can use any definition of "mid-ranked" you choose, but I'm not aware of any standard definition by which Texas would be in the middle among public universities. It's number 49 among national universities and number 15 among public universities in the US News ranking, and if you're from the state of Texas, it's a big deal to graduate from UT.
Guardicore Cyber Threat Intelligence Tool to Discover Malicious IPs and Domains
>This is equivalent to saying, why would anyone want a Starbucks to open in their neighborhood when the value of the Starbucks is captured mainly by Starbucks shareholders? (Assume, for the sake of example, you like Starbucks, otherwise replace with whatever you like.)

Someone can quite rationally not want a Startbucks to replace Jamba Juice if they really like the latter but won't ever drink anything at the former. It's not sufficient justification to block the Starbucks, but it's not a bizarre or inconsistent or misinformed preference.

Similarly, if I don't care that much about the streets being nicer, but it comes with much more payments for my living space, then I can quite rationally not like the changes, even as I continue to grin and bear and pay the rent.

That's not a good enough reason to e.g. block people from moving in or imposing rent controls, but it's not a somehow fallacious model that you've become worse off and someone else has become better off.
Note that India is similarly picky about maps concerning territory it doesn't control, though admittedly, it's happy with censoring maps or having people print disclaimers, and doesn't destroy them completely.

Economist maps showing the India/Pakistan/China boundaries in Kashmir are regularly censored.

Any country which claims land needs to never give up its claim as a bargaining chip. India and China just go to extremes over it including privately produced content.
Isn’t this pretty close to how Apple iMessage works? I agree it’s a decent compromise to give encryption to the masses, but it has its downsides if Apple is compelled by a government to manipulate that.

All security is compromise though. And I think Apple has done something amazing with what is provided given their install base.
Maybe because once you start going faster than that there isn't much point staying inside the atmosphere? If you want to count spacecraft that record has been shattered.
DHH on the Macbook Keyboard
yes, except this one allows to run the servers from the browser as well :)