skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Guess who pays the most lobbyists. That on the point of moral hazards.
and you're all going pretend to be surprised by this?
Ah, the 'L' is for 'number'!
Oh good, even less chance to catch murderers. Removing your citizenArmTattoo[1] would mean a field day for criminals all to appease a few tinfoil hat wearers.

How would we ever hold people accountable if every person, every thing isn't tracked, documented, sorted, profiled, and predicted? These privacy advocates really should be called what they are: criminal protectors and that in and of itself should be a crime. Good thing we've been tracking everyone, it'll be really cheap to round them all up. /s

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identification_in_Nazi_concent...
Facebook is absolutely terrible at optics, and I'd love it if someone with weak enough morals to be involved with the PATRIOT ACT was unable to find work again but... I honestly don't care that much, this is just a drop in the water compared to the revolving doors between the government and defense firms.
> Encryption keeps communication private, talking to someone directly keeps communication private. The analogy is extremely simple, it seems like you are intentionally trying to ignore it.

The analogy breaks down when considering that direct communication in a confined private space is not the same thing at all as creating virtual private / untraceable spaces on a global encrypted communication network, as it pertains to natsec.

> Do you think the government should be able to listen and see all of your communication?

It depends on context. Confined private spaces aren't the same thing as remote communications through the internet or airwaves. Globally deployed mass 2-party strong encryption meant to entirely lock out the ABC's at scale isn't the same thing as not stopping those who seek to use already-available 2-party strong encryption tools. Designing a system that still allows an "in case of emergency break glass" mechanism to stop terrorism/acts of horror is a good, responsible policy.

FWIW, I completely disagree with the actions of Edward Snowden. He should be executed.

It would be something if the NSA really is fighting to give privacy back to the people (stolen by corporate and entrenched government interests) while still being able to protect us. What a tough challenge that must be, to secure our comms while still having a way to perform sigint. God bless patriots who can see the bigger picture.
> See, the thing is, and why I wish we had more like the original Bill of Rights, was they weren't legalese.

Yes, they were; they may not seem that way because in many cases they have shaped common usage and understanding of terms beyond the legal space, but they absolutely leveraged existing specialized legal terms of art.
See the tit for tat between Facebook and lawmakers:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-made-m...

Zuck is losing on purpose here by admitting they screwed up, so that he can pivot into a negotiating stance to determine what level of control government will get. This is not all decided yet, it is still in play but this hire suggests that some progress was made in the negotiation.
I don't disagree. I am just saying that thousands of dollars to bring a farmers business online to consumers shouldn't necessarily just be seen as a success thirty years after AOL.
Legally, it does. If they use my information in a way that is not allowed, I am not required to use arbitration. I can sue. Users cannot.
I think it was a combination of:

-People don't value privacy as much - outside of a niche.

-Building hardware companies is hard. Its harder when you're competing against big brands like Apple and Google. Its really really hard when you're trying to displace something as personal as a smartphone.

-There were key strengths missing in design, branding and marketing which counts for a lot.

Something thats less ambitious might have succeeded, but this seemed like an all or nothing play.
You clearly did not watch the video stream
What makes companies like Google valuable is that they can tell whether the user searching "football" should be shown an ad for "American football" or soccer.

For that, you need tracking.
I think that my comment is pretty much the relevant thing to discuss based on the article. If you disagree please explain why.
"He was banned from two (albeit popular) dating apps. There is no shortage of other dating apps and sites out there, including ones that cater specifically to a 2nd Amendment-friendly crowd. A cursory search reveals "Concealed Carry Match", "Pro-Gun Dating", and "Date a Gun Lover", for example."

Using this exact logic, should a website only allow people that are one race or sexual orientation..because there are 'plenty of alternatives'? What if a company decided to deny access based on the fact that they believed in Gay marriage?

Many people agree with this only because they don't like the guy and don't care if he gets banned, but would most likely take legal action if it was something that hit too close to home.

"So lets not go overboard here"

This is just one example of a changing culture that is perfectly happy allowing companies to deny access to a subset of customers based on political ideology and personal vendettas.

Twitter is a great example of this: It's pretty well-known that they regularly ban more right-leaning/conservative users and allow horrible users to continue to have accounts, because they don't want to upset the left-leaning mobs.

You can tell those people to find another site..and they attempt to...until they are banned from their payment provider and hounded/kicked off every other site as well.
Want to Build a Side Business? Just Buy a Great Domain Name
That’s less sinister than you might think. New legislation is more common for new industries.

Consider the internet began as the Arpanet is just 50 years ago. For much of that time the idea that the average person would be online from their own home would have seemed like crazy science fiction.
> Notepad couldn't open CR/LF line endings correctly

Those got added last year.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/05/08/windows_notepad_uni...
At least 15 years ago you could drag a marker that hides above the vertical scroll to create multiple views of the same document. I didn't know it carried into other windows, so that might be newer.
That does not give any moral right to corporation to suppress clear facts. No matter how bad they are for their PR.
The problem is many jobs with high socialiability and variability as mentioned in the article are often very time demanding jobs that require constant coverage. There are also financial realities in that people are often expensive to add, train, and retain in order to enable enough leisure.

Automation if anything makes this worse since people will often decrease to fill the need instead of hire more.
I agree, which is why I put the "or rebellion" bit, at the same time, it's not like the people parking are paying someone to go around rubbing chalk off so I can't say they're "abusing the system" as they have no expectation of getting away with it.

Regardless, it's story a friend of a friend told somebody, who knows how true
+1 Pinta. I use it all the time. Would be overjoyed tho if Pinta got a little more love. It's pretty stagnated but still a great tool.
The key to this is that you need to think of your "online identity" as something that is not directly controlled by you, ever. It's like a collection of related "behaviors" and heterogeneous data points on the internet that can be associated together with some amount of confidence that they are all from the same person, through a myriad of tracking processes.

You actually creating an account (username data point), and logging in and using the service (actions) are actually minimally relevant to the process of ad targeting. All they do is slightly bump up that "confidence" score I mentioned earlier, and even then only for that specific set of behaviors/data for that page/service.

Your user accounts are only transient links between sets of behaviors and targeted ads. The actual account is easily replaced by just making it a generic "entity" not related to accounts and then link any accounts that do end up being created to these "higher level" entities that you already have.

For a simple example: "A web client hit our tracking pixel on X service from the same ip address as a hit on our tracking pixel on Y service, so let's assume these two behaviors are the same person for ad targeting purposes, and we'll just use that address as the unique indicator, regardless of any existing (or not) user accounts on either service. If we get a user signup action that originates from the same address, then we can link in the specific service account/username to our existing tracking entity for this person."
> For most of its life, KPCB had a web around the firm. [... Then they didn't.]

Was this an organic thing of their own doing, or was this due to disruptors, like A16Z?
Depending on the years you grew up in, 70k was rich.

Inflation and skyrocketing cost of housing and health care made sure that 70k isn't rich anymore, especially if that's a household income for a family.
I thought they used Piper (based on Airflow) for workflows at Uber. https://eng.uber.com/managing-data-workflows-at-scale/
I Used to Work for Google. I Am a Conscientious Objector
I disagree strongly with this, if FB manages to continue pissing off politicians they'll get the full unjust wrath of the US government turned on them for petty reasons. Just a little while ago Zuckerberg got schooled on why he should've been paying a lot more money to lobbyists.
"We are a small - as-of-yet unincorporated - nonprofit providing pro bono consulting on algorithmic and policy issues arising from the proliferation of: Statistical inference / Automated decision making - often called 'AI', ..."

From the author's website, listed at the bottom.

Imagine if journalists and other people posting to the www called "AI" what it actually is, instead of constantly portraying it as something futuristic to capture people's imaginations.

Even terms like "statistical inference" and "automated decision-making" could probably be explained using more common language to be comprehensible to the general public.
I admire Samsung for creating one of the first foldable phones. It is not the prettiest or the slickest design and I personally can't say that I would be interested in buying one.

However, I don't quite understand the bad press that Samsung is getting with this phone. I mean, sure it has some issues but it is the first generation of this new type of phone.

If you are going to buy this product, then you must be aware that you are going to be one of the Beta testers. There is no way around it. You just have to accept it and then when the Galaxy fold 2 comes out in a year or so, hopefully, they would have sorted out all those issues.
Now you can use Win+Shift+S to capture a screen region, which will put it on your clipboard and also put a notification in the notification area which opens the capture in snipping tool when clicked, where it can be saved to a file.
They say the registry info is available via API, so perhaps a simple bash script that calls curl would suffice
At least they won't be handed solutions to make their dictatorship more effective and harder to avoid. Much less to combat.
Show HN: Icebreaker Game for Online Teams
No, it's not premised on that only. If that was the case they wouldn't be talking about JEDI and Maven.
I don't think this is really correct. From August 1965, multiprogramming was offered using DAT (Dynamic Address Translation)--what they called MMUs back then.

And this feature was used to support not only many programs running at once, but also TSO (Time Sharing Option) which by definition is mutually untrusted code.
Minnesotan launches social media site The Horn as Facebook alternative
Arguing against the mainstream position can even get your comment flagged. Doing it a few times (even about unrelated topics) will get your account banned for being "incendiary". HN is an echo chamber. But that's not surprising, all Internet communities are an echo chamber to some point.
YES! And moreover, I am actively using it in production, we've added lots of new functions, and made it PG 10 comatiable
He was forced to create a fake profile, because when he created a real one, mobs of people found it online and started a crusade against him and put pressure on the dating sites to remove him.
But they don’t answer the question of the role schools play in social development. There is also the question of how to effectively test students outside a supervised exam - online makes cheating plenty easier. And last is how to replace classroom labs which require special equipment. These are not impossible tasks for MOOCs to account for but all that I think these courses have only shown compelling methods of providing instruction and information on-demand and the ability to replay this instruction. School is a lot more than that.
No not everything the Chinese government does unethical.

I think it's fair to say most of the surveillance technology they're buying is not being used to help people.

Do not forget, the Chinese government is, right now, using surveillance technology to imprison Uighurs.

https://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?stor...
> It's fine to say "let's clear this question up" and proceed to clear it up.

I think the issue is that no one had the expertise to clear it up. So how do you move forward?

Someone has to get called in and there's no process for that. Or the person pushing the feature needs to explain the security implications of the feature.

Maybe some sort of 'requires security triage' tag could get applied to issues like this, and the rust security wg or whoever is qualified ot make these calls could review.

Ultimately, my opinion is that if you're making a PR with security implications, and there are people saying "I'm uncomfortable and don't understand the security implications", it's on you to explain them.

Otherwise progress should not continue.
That is for data workflows (your etl jobs basically). This is for services.
The thing is, the legislation is tweaked to the benefit of the giants, not against them. At least in general.

Not even federal government with their delusions of absolute control can do anything. (Say, FISA insanity.)
Net neutrality was a contest between two big corps. Patent battles ruled to support American business despite clear violations? (Qualcomm et al.)
The used to be laws considering encryption to be munitions. Silly attempt to sabotage it AKA Clipper. Yet somehow AI systems to discriminate explicitly sold to opposing regimes are not despite being much more applicable.

On the other hand, there is Comcast and Time Warner.
This is a concrete action that is happening right now--
Tulsi Gabbard's bill to have all votes secured by PAPER BALLOT BACKUP:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1946...
Say a savant in your neighborhood has been able to memorize everyone's license plate, when and where they park. This violates a privacy law on data retention. Do you advocate fining and imprisoning the savant for the facets of her mind? Would you advocate that if this information ended up in a book, that the government should start collecting these books and destroying them? Maybe in a fire? like a book burning?
>For the last 6 months my mind has been preoccupied by this. I can't stop memories coming in on how I would just laze in the afternoon, enjoying the breeze. Even recalling the boredom is a "good" memory. I would read a lot more books. I would sometimes play with toys. I would attempt solving puzzles. I would doodle with the calculator and learn interesting properties of numbers. And fun stuff on the computer - be it games, or programming, or playing with Fractint and POV-Ray.

I can really relate to the feeling. The famous Okkusenman[0] really puts it into words better than I ever could really: that feeling of being chased by something as you get older, that being bored isn't allowed and that you must be doing something at all times; just sitting back and enjoying the scenery isn't allowed. I'm not sure where it comes from, and it's ironic how useless it is at actually making you a better, smarter, more well-rounded person. The only consolation is that it's clearly felt by so many others.

[0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lsj0mY13t9s
But that's not the "optics" you're likely to see. Those kinds of things only come to light much later, and FB has historically shown itself to be very amenable to such backroom deals: https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/facebook-data-...
Separating Key Concerns in Query Processing [pdf]
My preferred metaphor is to the RISC revolution. Just like RISC decoupled CPU design from programming language design (in the sense that hardware was often designed to make assembly coding easy), Vulkan has decoupled shader language design from driver writing. OpenGL was designed under the assumption that the general game-dev public would be writing shaders for direct consumption by the driver/hardware combo; Vulkan, on the other hand, seems to be designed to be a) written by a narrow group of game engine developers, and b) generated by compilers from higher-level shader languages.

(NB: I Am Not An Expert and these are my Uneducated Impressions.)
This is one of the discoveries that you see then slap your forehead saying "Duh of course!"
No Democrat any where opposes properly identifying voters.

One's identity and eligibility to vote is verified upon registration.

One's identity is confirmed when being issued a ballot.

The current system works so well, until recently [1], that there have been very few cases of voter or registration fraud.

If you are you unhappy with forms of identification accepted to be issued a ballot, then you should advocate that all voters are issued a government issued identification for free. Which is pretty much standard practice in most other developed countries.

Requiring government issued ID to vote that is not free is called a poll tax. And that's unconstitutional.

[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47323556
1) Asserting the presence of an "American Great Firewall"

2) Asserting the development of an American "social credit system"

3) Describing America's political atmosphere as an "authoritarian regime"

4) Describing Facebook as a "defense contractor"

Come on, you know what you're doing
I dont consider Facebook inherently evil and even their more recents f-ups around user privacy and security I had attributed to incompetence of the employees (anyone working at a large co would know - this is all very common).

But when they hire people like this, I dont know how to excuse them anymore...
"Filter bubble" is almost right but some of those seem somewhat intentional - the phenomenon here is that even if a porn studio wants to have its employees' prudishness reflect the general population, it can't. Even if the military wants to hire chaplains whose views on just war reflect the general population, it can't. You can usually turn off a filter bubble and you can usually actively avoid self-selection because you're doing it yourself: the phenomenon here is that the selectees are doing the filtering for you.
Made me a little nostalgic for our old Sniffer™️. Edit: from Network General.
The Cloud in Your Pocket
I'm sure they were all guilty and deserved to die painful deaths. Hail to the Saudis!
Absolutely, I'm waiting for a real leader to get into office who will actually strike these recent security theatre laws down. My comment wasn't greatly worded, but in no way is Obama innocent or deserving of defense here - but at the same time Bush definitely deserves the biggest blame, Obama and Trump share blame equally.
What horrifies me is that the iPad still doesn't have a basic Calculator built-in, while the iPhone does.

PS - I'm familiar with the Spotlight Search trick (and asking Siri) but that is pretty limited.
Really? All the situations you mentioned were people who were trying to save others. My point is the engineers needing to review their work that killed others. That's different. A doctor can't save you from a heart attack, that's tough. A doctor accidentally kills you while removing your tonsils, that's kind of a big deal. A doctor that kills 100 people by prescribing the wrong medicine, maybe goes to jail, gets sued to oblivion, and is probably an emotional wreck.

I'm talking about, what if you had to watch only your mistakes, out of hundreds of millions of interactions, where your code caused a car with a passenger but no driver to have a fatal accident.

It seems to me this is worse even than military members who sign up knowing they will kill people, and struggle with worrying if they killed the wrong people in the wrong way, or should have hurt anyone at all.
The original comment is relevant and very much on the topic, so what are you complaining about? The above article is about Facebook hiring a lawyer who worked on a law that took the USA in an authoritarian direction. The original comment simply emphasizes what is already implied.
> but they managed draft the foundation of modern day democracy anyways.

American democracy. It makes absolute sense that the founding fathers of America are the basis of the modern American democracy, but let's not pretend that they lay sole claim to modern democracy.
right... sometimes I think the NSA is the true leader of this country
The faculty in question should unionize! Would be a great way to test the administrators' commitment to social justice.
I recently came across this nice intro into how to get started with ML on Graphs [1]

https://medium.com/octavian-ai/how-to-get-started-with-machi...
I also planted the store bought green onions and it worked fine until the aphids showed up
- how do you control them? (they reproduce profusely and asexually basically cloning themselves)
What you're doing is far worse
And then the police departments sell the information to 3rd party advertising companies to make up for shortfalls in their budget.
Warren Buffett Sees Most Newspapers as ‘Toast’ After Ad Decline
Bingable startup comic – can you relate?
I have not read the report entirely so I can't say if it does, but I don't know for a fact either which is why I left it as a parenthetical. I am fine with my comment being interpreted without the parenthetical.
People expected the early-adopter compromises to be things like the price, the lack of waterproofing, the thickness, and the small screen on the front. For $2k, even an early-adopter device should not simply break.
Paint.NET and IrfanView represent the best-of-best for simple image creation and viewing, and I cannot believe that they're free.
It's a bunch of vague analogies, asserted without evidence. This isn't useful. We already know lots of people hate Facebook.
Anyone is free to draw a line in the sand to claim that my statements are hyperbole. I don't consider them so. When we read about China, the narrative of American Exceptionalism tells us that it is reasonable to think that China would seriously implement a social credit score but America would not. I think it is foolish to believe that kind of stuff. Let's just look at the facts.

We must ask how a social credit system would be useful to any government and wonder how any government would turn down the chance to obtain one. There is already hard evidence that the US Government wants to influence FB's news feed algorithm. Strictly speaking that is not a firewall, but the effect (censorship) is the same.

So feel free to belabor the difference between government meddling in the news feed algorithm to promote/demote various ideas and the technology known as China's great firewall. In my view that is a tangential and distracting discussion.
Cory Doctorow: Terra Nullius
I wrote an article on why this kind of thinking is naive a while back. I still think it is naive.

https://ctsp.berkeley.edu/ethical-pledges-for-individuals-an...