skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
What's your objective with this continuing discussion? Are you hoping to convince me to take a specific action or something?

Wikipedia describes Memetics as "the study of information and culture based on an analogy with Darwinian evolution". A body of study is not an abstract concept. The thing being studied is the abstract concept. So, by Memetics, all along, I have meant the collective body of (academic) study/scholarship of memes. Since you say "Memetics is a label assigned to an abstract concept", it seems that's the root of the understanding. You're talking about the concept itself, while I'm talking about the study/literature of that concept.

My objective with my original comment was to counter your claim that Memetics was high impact. I consider the objective moot now, since it's become apparent you're using "Memetics" in a nonstandard sense, and the rest of the audience is long gone.

Memetics (the study of memes) is a useful path which has apparently led you to enlightenment and made you realize we're all laboring under illusions. It's not the only path, and now that you've reached enlightenment, you should realize that Memetics itself is just one more of those illusions you're opposed to. (In the same way, Buddhists say, "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him.")

Trying to rid yourself of ignorance by your own willpower is futile. There is no solid ground to stand on, because everything is ignorance. "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." Dawkins and his type are priests of a religion based on trying to rid oneself of ignorance by one's own willpower. This will never work, and you'll always be miserable. Jesus said: "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." You will never come to the ultimate truth via your own intellectual exercises. It's as futile as trying to write a dictionary with no circular definitions.
> Good luck "translating" that into anything except an apologetic error message.

I'm going to have to steal that line. :)
This sounds like Ocean State Job Lot, Surplus Center or Marden's but with just food. The business model is well proven (be flexible about what you buy, buy stuff suppliers need to unload at a steep discount, pass some of that discount on to consumers). There's some extra complexity coming from the fact that food needs to be handled more carefully and sold more quickly but I don't see that as being insurmountable especially since they've clearly been successful at it for years.
Well, I don't.
> China is no longer a developing country.

Any justification? China's GDP per capita is lower than Mexico's.
> It's extremely dangerous to continue to erode the spirit and meaning of free speech by narrowly defining it as a government only concept.

What spirit is that? No country in the world gives unrestricted speech as a right to citizens. That includes the US, which merely forbids government retaliation.

But what's more, this principle is applied very selectively. Why wasn't it free speech to be an openly gay scoutmaster in 2014? Well, for the same reason that Twitter can ban Nazi speech now: they own the platform and restrict membership as they see fit.

Similarly, you cannot demand the Washington Post print an arbitrary story. Nor can you force a radio station to broadcast your show. They get to make editorial and resourcing decisions for their content.

What's more, social media is not as restricted a space as these prior examples. It is a product. You can to buy it. You can elect to use Mindz and Gab if you want! YouTube is full of extremely bipartisan channels ranging from "Libertarian Socialist Rants" to its dual with "PragerU".

The only one attacking free speech is the folks who want to restrict editorial speech because it gets in the way of their ability to project their message onto people who don't want it. And being able to project yourself onto people actively avoiding you is not and will never be a reasonable definition of free speech.
Sure you save long term but 4 in 10 Americans can't come up with $400 let alone however much this roof will cost. It's a problem of a lack of cash on hand more than electricity costs, solar pays for itself in x amount of years no matter how much you pay per kWh, and in some cases you can sell excess back to the grid.

https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/2018-economic-we...
The other thing about hospitals is that, in a place like that, the nearest hospital is probably in the closest small city, but that hospital is staffed with incompetent doctors because who wants to work in a place like that? So if you have a real emergency, you want to go to a good hospital in a larger city, but that's much farther away.
Apple Reversal Allows Valve’s Steam Link Streaming App on iOS, TvOS
Creating a Free VPN Using Google Cloud Platform
Insurance Covers Mental Health, but Good Luck Using It
New Offensive USB Cable Allows Remote Attacks over WiFi
Build Android Apps with JavaScript, HTML, and CSS Based on Node JavaScript
Reaviz: ReactJS Data Visualization Library Based on D3.js
>It sounds like you were located in a terribly run county.

That describes most rural counties in America.
Your question was well-answered by the quote you are replying to.

Put more succinctly: It is the full time job of law enforcement to use these tools to solve crimes. Even if literally everyone protests them next month, if you wait 10 years, people will have moved on with their lives, and it will be implemented anyway.

Here is a concrete example:

Back in high school, a holocaust survivor visited our class. We were told the fundamental difference between the US and Nazi germany was that in the US, you could travel without carrying papers (which meant that people could keep the inevitable failings of democracy in check, since privacy while traveling and meeting people basically implies freedom of assembly and press).

That difference no longer exists in the US in any practical way because technology has obsoleted the legal mechanism of “you can’t ask for my drivers license without probable cause”.
That’s not entirely accurate. They have the power to stop and search where they believe you have been involved in a crime or are carrying a prohibited item.

They must have grounds to suspect they will find what they are looking for.
This was actually my thought. Looking at the mockups he submitted, it is clear that this was 30-40 hours of work minimum. And depending how fast/slow they worked it could be much more than that.

If I asked a candidate to spend 4 hours on something and they come back to me with 40 hours of work, it isn't what I asked for. Despite it being potentially amazing, that person ignored the task.

A 4-hour task would probably yield 1-3 mockups. Maybe a launch/splash page, the home leaderboard page, and then a page showing the details of a specific user.

Even these 3 pages would be pushing your 4 hour time limit, but that is really the most I would expect.

So if I was interviewing and comparing candidates and one candidate submits a 40-60 hour project while the other candidates submitted a 4 hour project. I can't really compare the two. I would probably throw out the guy that ignore what I asked them to do by spending 40-60 hours of work on something I only wanted 4 hours of work on.
Making Google Shoppable
I guess grudges aren't held, but I do find it humorous that even after being rejected, the product's website "tona.fit" uses GSuite.
https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/1345095-gun-control-debate
Yes, but I put it into category of "unsafe things that defeat the point of mechanism"

For example, you can put your spare house key under doormat. This effectively makes a lock on your house door require "something you know" (you need to know where the key is stored).

However, that does not mean that we can say that all keys are "something you know". The fact that many people decided to compromise their security does not reflect on other intended use of locks and keys.
I find it kind of amusing that the same political party that believes internet service providers do not have obligation to neutrality believe internet content providers do.

Edit: spelling mistake fixed
The grocery business is, and has been for a very long time, a low margin business. You’re not going to get phenomenal service at any grocery store.

That said, anecdotally, I do the grocery shopping and prefer WalMart. The produce is better, there’s a larger selection, and I can get the odd household item while out for groceries without paying an extortionate price. I’m saving at least 10% on my grocery bill without even trying. Hell, Walmart even does free curbside pickup where the other grocery chain wants to charge me.
> 50% of participants in the token sale purchased less than $1000 of Kin, which seems more consistent with a consumptive use vs. investment purpose argument.

So 50% purchased more than $1000. To do what, buy stickers and themes?

I'd wager than even the "under $1000" crowd will be 90% cryptocurrency investors holding it as part of a "balanced" portfolio.
Huawei willing to sign 'no-spy' pacts with governments
There is something wrong here, this is not how it's supposed to work. Clearing on one device definitely clears the rest for me.

Perhaps you should try logging off and logging in again.
So, on one hand, I see people hyping half-baked AI through the roof, cherry-picking good examples, refusing to study and discuss its limitations and even outright dismissing the idea that AI failures are, in fact, failures, rather than some kind of "different way of thinking".

On the other hand, I see the same crowd engaging in ridiculous alarmism that's not grounded in reality. They place technologies in far-fetched scenarios, completely ignoring that the same scenarios can already be enacted without AI. The usual conclusion is always that technologies needs to be kept out of the hands of the public.

Someone is drinking too much of their own Kool-Aid. But regardless of how much they believe in what they're posting, this behavior is disgusting and unethical.

---

>Here are some examples of what might happen if the technology got into the wrong hands

Since when do we start a discussion with the assumption that a piece of software will be restricted in distribution? Software tends to get in the hands of everyone who wants it.

>Spam callers impersonating your mother or spouse to obtain personal information

News flash: this is already happening without AI. All you need is a bad phone connection and someone who sounds vaguely like the person being impersonated.

Moreover, it's already trivial to change the pitch of your voice in real time. With some simple audio engineering, you can alter timbre as well (e.g. filtering, equalization). If that's such a big deal, why is no one using this already? It's way, way, way easier than collecting lots of voice samples and training a model.

>Impersonating someone for the purposes of bullying or harassment

Why would someone need to impersonate someone else for bullying or harassment? Bullying or harassment seems to work pretty well as is.

>Gaining entrance to high security clearance areas by impersonating a government official

If someone can get access to a place simply by using voice coming from computer speakers, it's clearly not a "high security clearance area".

>An ‘audio deepfake’ of a politician being used to manipulate election results or cause a social uprising

Media organizations already do this every day, in plain sight, via selective editing.
You can have unclass internet access in a SCIF - i can't imagine not having that while sitting there all day! Maybe it was a program requirement for your team?
Refusing take-homes is a reasonable stance but refusing to whiteboard strikes me as overly critical. It's a pretty standard thing to do in an interview... while whiteboarding may be a little silly, walking out of an interview after someone's already blocked time for you because you think whiteboarding is silly is even more silly than whiteboarding is. If I were the interviewer I'd be concerned that you can't be even a little bit flexible with things that you personally don't like.
I'm with you here, I wonder if it encourages people to shout even louder as "these people aren't listening as much any more"?
Sure, in a world where replacing a DIN norm by the successor EN one on the drawings can take 6 months, sure. But things are moving, which is good thing.

And at least regulations are worked on in advance. That Airbus is also working on a similar project might help to speed things up with EASA as well. Just what that means for Lilium remains to be seen.
> "neccessarily"
Dont have all the answers but a real life example of a locally targeted social ad campaign for a big 2 letter brand that starts with "3" that targets the automotive aftermarket crowd in a 2.5M city has a monthly budget of 5-15k. That's a very niche market. The consumer products division is much larger. The medical devices division is even larger.

You get the idea. The deal are high and that's just ad spend budgets. Design. Creatives. Social media management. Production. Really brings the prices up.

A social media management service that takes care of all the responses and post generation (images, design, etc) across Instagram, FB, etc can easily charge 3-10k/month.

A small business for example a successful crossfit GYM pays $400-600/month. But a larger business commonly pays 1.5K/month just for social media management and some social post productions (photos and edits) and maybe some ad campaign management.
That will work, at first. It is not a long-term solution, as algorithms and technology will simply evolve to recognize in spite of that. The solution, at least for America, is to remind the feds that they have no constitutional power to use facial recognition, for a similar reason that mass surveillance is unconstitutional. It's a breach of the Fourth Amendment Right to security in persons and papers, I would argue (as is TSA), as well as a violation of the Due Process Clause, because it makes every one a suspect (same issue with fingerprints, DNA, etc.). The bottom line should be that law enforcement has no right to do anything, hold information on you, surveil you, or put you through airport security unless you commit a crime. Quite frankly, there should be no such thing as a "watch list" -- they don't get to make you turn over information or treat you as a suspect (note their use of the term "suspicious behavior" - behaving like a suspect - as a justification) when you have done nothing wrong.

There was a comment I read on another thread about some one who bought about 20 pressure cookers when they were accidentally marked down for a dollar apiece and had the police called on him. Is that really okay? I have also heard that the FBI is notified if you buy more than a certain quantity of fertilizer.

Can a Brit enlighten me as to if there are similar protections or justifications against this technology in England?

As mentioned in another comment, this is the gradual erosion. They say "we want to compromise", get some ground, then push more and "compromise" again to push the line further. Trading liberty for security is a risky game.
Surely that should raise massive red flags and you should realize almost immediately that this is problematic - basically don't do business with them?
The funny part is that one VC firm proudly names their podcast “996 podcast”:
https://996.ggvc.com/category/podcast/

Talk about out of touch
>For that matter, Trump has been pro choice for essentially his entire public life.

Then why don't you explain why he's appointing SCOTUS justices who absolutely aren't?
... and now his face is all over hackernews. Great.
Alex didn't use any rope going up El Cap so...
> Climbing without protection has more to do with being a daredevil than a climber.

I think it's important to recognise that there are many different ways to get up a piece of rock, these are a choice in "style", and each style has different challenges, different qualities etc. No one style is better than another, they are a personal choice, and this is part of what makes the sport so great... if you want to invent a new style, you can, it can be completely made up and personalized and obscure, perhaps it is even a one time thing, climb route x in slippers on christmas. People only argue about the validity of the most common styles, but they often forget they are only a style.
What’s New in Node 12
Economics is amoral. It doesn't know good from evil. The biggest mistake on the right is thinking that capitalism is Good. The biggest mistake on the left is thinking that capitalism is Evil. It just is. It's like thermodynamics. If you get burned by a hot stove, it doesn't mean physics is evil. And it doesn't mean getting burned is just your imagination, either.

Without intelligence guiding them, such systems can easily destroy themselves with feedback loops. Power differentials etc, in an amoral environment, lead to low-level employees getting screwed and owners/upper management getting rich. This feedback loop can eventually destroy a company, or a society.

So what I find hard to understand isn't that employees go along with this system that screws them (they need to eat, y'know?), but rather that they think it's good, that it's what's best for everyone, that maximized profits will be equitably distributed. We have an angry, populist working class that has completely accepted the systematic inequalities of neoliberal-flavored capitalism, and the socialist welfare-state hacks that come with it mostly to keep the whole thing from self-destructing this year at least. They're mad they're getting screwed, but think their bosses are completely right to screw them.

It's really hard to grok that.
True, that's a weird thing. One side wants ISPs to be neutral, the other wants platforms to be neutral, but neither really want both to be neutral.
There's much more technology involved than Cochrane acknowledges. Alex didn't on-sight that climb: he practiced, over and over again, using ropes and gear that have existed in their current form for 60 years at best. The same goes for how he got so good: he climbed with ropes and gear (well, sometimes), and learned from people who used gear nearly all the time.

Much of that technology looks old, but isn't: ropes have been around a while, but modern climbing ropes stretch so as to drastically lower the peak forces on your protection. For example. Modern climbing exists in large part because we developed technology that lets you try to climb hard high stuff without dying.

Now, you could also get good just by bouldering, staying close to the ground. But that's not how actual existing climbing developed: bouldering grew out of crag climbing, which grew out of mountaineering. It's a little silly to wonder why people weren't very good at a game we just invented, before we invented it.

Another point. We don't actually know how good the best climbers were throughout history. There's a clear upward trajectory to 19th-century British mountaineering and its descendants. But how good were the best Incan climbers in 1350?
It would be interesting exactly what sort of union some tech worker groups are planning on working on / how they think it would operate.

My experience with US unions is that they're largely just another layer of bureaucracy that can be as unresponsive as any management structure, and in many cases you can't quit the union in the sense that you still work in the system / rules they negotiate. The reliance on seniority in US unions (granted not all do) tend to result in limited prospects for new people and protections for older workers who often see little value in expanding skills since time alone provides all the protection / advancement they need.

Also the exact protections you get from a union are negotiated and not necessarily what you want / expect ...
Many gun owners train more than the average cop or sheriff. The army could beat them in war, but it is more about logistics (which the army is a master of) than ability with a gun. One on one at the range the edge goes to the gun owner over a trained soldier (it will be close, the best of both are equal, the worst soldier is better than the worst gun owner), but wars are never one on one, and never at a range.

Depending on your scenario, the army might or might not be a factor. The army is made of the people in a civil war situation many of them will defect.
Talking to them doesn't change the economic incentives. No matter how stern of a talking to I give them, they'll still be making a large personal profit at the expense of a larger cost spread across everyone else.

Do you think no one has tried talking to any of these people about climate change yet?
Might be that non-www doesn't get redirected. Thanks for letting me know. Try this https://www.racketjobs.com.
Are you saying that the social context when the bill of rights was drafted is the Only True Context and anything that happened before or after didn't actually lead to the need for more rights? Because you can't have a right to bear arms when no arms exist.
There's an even stronger argument that Twitter's misgendering rule is ideological, I reckon. See, it used to be that all the right-thinking, connected feminist and feminist-adjacent folks thought that referring to people using anything other than their biological gender at birth was not just misgendering, but misogynistic and patriarchal - and even once this shifted somewhat, folks were expected to defend the people who still held those views until around 2016 or so. For instance, when Wordpress banned someone using wordpress.com to outright dox and harass every prominent trans woman out there, there was a successful campaign to unban her and no counter-campaign, because all the left-leaning groups fighting to make Internet sites ideologically correct supported this back then.

Twitter choosing to act against misgendering now isn't simply the result of some abstract belief about respecting people. It's a direct reflection of the changing views of activists in one particular slice of political spectrum.
I haven't at gate, no. At Newark a couple months ago they had an automated TSA-type check at security which was capturing fingerprints, but I can't quite remember the specifics (feels like the last few months have been either a state of experiencing, or recovering from, jetlag).

Inverness is great btw!
If your business is only viable when paying people below what they need to live, then your business shouldn't exist. The fact that you can do that now is simply people in power exploiting the weak.

Effectively what is happening is that those without power are subsidising the business by supplying them labour below cost. Generally in economics, making a business only viable through subsidies is a bad thing. It is much more efficient to give that labour to better businesses.
I don't know which dictionary definition you're referring to, since there are many. But most define it in terms of speech or communication, and tweets are most certainly both.

Colloquially, I think most people would agree that e.g. the Hollywood blacklist was an example of political censorship. And yet it was implemented entirely by private parties.

ACLU also refers to this sort of thing as censorship in general, while also drawing the distinction between government and private censorship, e.g.:
https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/internet-speech/facebo...
Apparently in 2014 Hellman & Friedman, a private equity investment firm acquired 80% of Grocery Outlet from Berkshire Partners. (Page 6 in the S-1)

Hence the possible pressure to realize a RoI.
That does not mean they have to carry said stuff with them. Also, credit/debit cards do not store the same kind of information an ID card stores, particularly as there is no photo.

Do you really think we ought to have a society in which no one can leave his house without his dog tag?