skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Getting banned from YouTube is not a violation of individual rights. Forcing a company to host videos for free sounds like a violation of individual rights though.
I'm not sure why we should give them a pass on censoring ANY legal political content, including racism, homophobia, anti-semitism, or any other political stance outside of the corporate mainstream.

The fact is that YouTube has become one of the primary places (along with Facebook and Twitter) where people not rich enough to own a newspaper or television station engage in political speech. Preventing people from meaningful participation in the public political debate is a precursor to real world violence, because you leave people with little other choice to advocate for what they view as their interests.

YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter, and all other corporate entities attempting to regulate political discourse are driving us toward a civil war. There is no good reason for us to allow them to do that.
I believe they were breached relatively recently. If your jurisdiction doesn't require reporting you might not have gotten notification currently or in the past. They may also not know they're breached.

Reach out to support.
Phishing attacks that bypass 2-factor authentication are now easier to execute
I'm fine with freedom of opinion, but not fine with things like threats to individuals or groups.
I'm starting to think that comment sections on news sites are a really bad idea. At first I thought NPR and the like were cowards for removing theirs.

It's bad enough that NYT can be pretty biased on its own, but the comment sections are always full of low-tier thinking that just push whatever narrative is currently in the Overton window.

What I find distressing is how people remark that a telecom and advertising giant acting as a de facto government over the public square isn't a violation of free speech principles because they're a "private business", as if that's an original thought that's profound. Funny how people say "it's a private business" when it suits their own political interests.

We wouldn't blindly allow company-owned cities or states to pass laws, especially vague or undefined ones, that potentially violate our rights, so why do we allow "states" in cyberspace to be run in such a way?

Ban people promoting violence? Sure, why not. I'm as against hate and violence as the next person. But not only is censoring "hate speech" becoming a slippery slope at the company level, it's bad for the public in general because it sets a greater precedent for what the big corporations that run our everyday lives can tell us what we can or cannot do, and with no forgiveness. I don't find it hard to imagine a world where individuals can be instantly and permanently banned from doing everyday things, just like they are on YouTube, because they said or did something off the platform.
> YouTube is a privately owned and operated proprietary delivery platform.

Are there any public online social platforms? There literally isn't the equivalent of a "public space" online so many view it as a de facto public space.
dang, could you please flag this post, people are disagreeing with me here and this post isn't technically stimulating.

I think we should keep politics out of HN at this point, I don't want it to become reddit.
Considering the astonishing density of defects in Linux we can treat its author’s advice on software development as anti-advice.
Robotics Is a Team Sport
>getting radicalized on YouTube by pretty benign sermons

Which is it? You're contradicting yourself here.
They're real in the sense that the dude in the P90X videos is real. There's a difference between a personal trainer who works with you, and a remote team of drill sergeants relaying instructions to an indeterminate number of strangers following them online.
>Competition with China, where no comparable restrictions exist in the patent system, may have motivated the lawmakers, Rai says.

Isn't that backwards? If they don't have comparable restrictions, why hamstrung American companies by making them respect patents that Chinese companies don't have to respect?
As does Gmail. But not all services supports the + on login forms.

I believe this was part of the email standard?
Noted, edited... Time to buzz the server tower?
In the winter I let my PC search for Mersenne Primes when I'm not using it.
Nail clipping is humane. However, just like with human nails, if you clip too close to the quick (the blood vessel), which can happen for myriad reasons (accidentally, it's good to know Corn Starch can be used as a styptic in a pinch, and you can also purchase styptic powder. Ideally, if the blood vessel is cut you should get the wound looked at so it can be assessed and cleaned by a veterinarian.
You are deranged if you think we are remotely on the course to civil war.
I think it's still the majority of developers that first deal with databases outside a cloud environment and then want a managed version of it in their environment (which btw, Amazon does offer in RDS Postgres/MySQl, but it's their forks that have these problems).

And being behind the bleeding edge is problematic at least these days that databases are incorporating great features, but the bigger problem is incompatibility and subtle differences. Those are the truly annoying issues.
IRC/Slack/etc is great because you can have informal conversations in a channel where your whole team can observe and participate in a more asynchronous nature.

Human conversations are fine, but you generally don't get a durable record of them after the fact, and only those present will have a chance to participate.
I personally don't understand the anti-censorship argument wrt racism.

YouTube has always been free to remove any content they'd like for any reason. When they more specifically define the content that they will be removing, it somehow now becomes controversial? This surrounds the argument with uncomfortable undertones. The idea that your message deserves equal treatment despite the content seems to be a value promoted by racists.

Also, Google/YouTube, Facebook/Instagram, Twitter, etc, don't owe anyone a platform. If this were not true, I don't quite understand how corporations could reasonably comply.
The article mentioned that the judge threatened to stop Carnival from docking in US ports. That seems like it would have been pretty effective at getting companies to pay attention.
This is only a sensible argument if you define censorship as violating the letter of the law of the US constitution or of another constitution that does require individuals and companies to respect basic rights. But if you consider the purpose of freedom of opinion -- to enable the public discourse necessary for a democratic society -- this is absolutely censorship.
>The most talked-about example of what I am talking about is to consider that McDonald’s has uniform french fries throughout the US.

Granted I haven't been to Mcdonalds in a while, but from what I remember this is 100% not the case. You get fries of all different sizes.
The irony is that Jason is the "big company screws the little guy for no reason" with his own work.

He licensed his work at "Do whatever you want with it, absolutely no restrictions, and no permission
necessary.".

Then when someone started making money off his work, he turned around and started litigation.
I work in a 10 person open office with lots of separation - 1200sqft, 7 would be better but there is no comparison to a 50 person bullpen with everyone within arms reach of another.
I assume based on my own use of it and pretty much all the memes and anecdotes from everyone. I make no assumptions about what people are exposed to outside of YouTube. It’s not the platforms job to challenge one’s views, rather one’s views are naturally challenged when in an open marketplace of ideas. YouTube isn’t an open marketplace of ideas. It is effectively a curated presentation of ideas, customized to each individual by the platform. For the economic profit of the platform, at the expense of community goods such as civil discourse. Your snark didn’t add anything to your argument, btw.
Ah. I'm caught up now. That jives with my understanding.

(this was meant as an edit to the prior comment, if it seems out of place):

Looking into this more, I think what you're saying is that you can request both a content script and a host permission for the webrequest, and the user will approve both at the same time. But you have to specify them differently in the manifest, ie. it looks like

permissions: [
"declarativeNetRequest",
"<all sites>", // old way
],
host_permissions: [ // new way
"<all sites>"
],
"content_scripts": [
{
"matches": ["<all sites>"],
"js": ["contentScript.js"]
}
],

My (limited) understanding is one of the points of the new manifest is to make things more declarative so that they can be statically analyzed. So that, for example, host_permissions "<all sites>" might be allowed, but would require manual review, and content_scripts: ["<all sites>"] could be flagged even more strongly, etc.

If you don't specify the content_scripts portion of your manifest, you don't have the ability to write content scripts, so there isn't a security concern, you're limited by the declarativeNetRequest sandbox, and can't do the snooping.

For reference, uBlock, which I use, requests a ton in the manifest[0], and there are valid reasons for that (the userscript is, iiuc, for using the content picker). But a minimal ad-blocker could declarativeNetRequest, host:<all sites>, and nothing else, if I'm reading correctly. And that limited footprint can be statically validated. You know that extension can do nothing but modify requests, the way the requests are modified is statically verifiable. That sure sounds more secure to me.

[0]: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/blob/98271f6140bb188222e21...
Interview with Christian Szegedy, Google AI, Inventor of Inception, BatchNorm
I don't like the bootcamp model. I also don't like what a lot of graduate programs have become, insofar as they're jockeying to become souped-up bootcamps by making ever more grand career promises while trying to minimize the amount of time it takes to earn a degree.

Just no. Schools shouldn't be selling jobs. They should be selling education.

To that end, what I really want to see is more schools than just community colleges allowing you to take classes without being enrolled in a degree program. Once upon a time I contacted a university to see about taking some additional classes to fill in some gaps I didn't manage to fill while I was getting my bachelor's, and they told me that I couldn't just take a few classes; I'd have to enroll in a bachelor's program, become a major in the school, and go through earning a second bachelor's degree in a field for which I already held a bachelor's, just to get access to one or two classes.

That's ridiculous. And anachronistic. It's a model that's designed for an era when postsecondary education was primarily reserved for children of a privileged elite class, and a very few people who were trying to break into the wealthy elite class. There's a huge gap between that model and what we actually need nowadays. In failing to adapt, the orthodox educational establishment is doing society a huge disservice, because the only other people to address it are a bunch of for-profit organizations who see the demand, first and foremost, as an arbitrage opportunity to exploit.
they did neither.
> The article doesn't say whether these arrangements were randomised in each image.

It is a popular science retelling a story. In the original scientific article we can read

We used sets of stimuli with controlled surface area (set 1) and equal element size area (set 2) with achromatic properties (black elements on white background; electronic supplementary material, figure S1). The choice of stimuli for each trial was pseudo-randomized with regards to set (1 or 2), shape and arrangement of elements. Thus, bees were trained on both set 1 and set 2.

In Group 1, this test consisted of showing a sign as the sample and then a randomized set of abstract objects not previously seen by bees (set 3: random set with chromatic properties).

Your proposed possible mistake is a way too stupid for a modern experimental psychology.

> For instance - the number "3" could be _always_ associated with the same arrangement of any symbol. Say, a triangle formed by three identical symbol.

It is more interesting, I believe. I had not read the original article thoroughly enough to find out could this be as you describe. There is a figures with some stimuli, but I'm not sure that it contains all the stimuli (to be sure it needs more reading, not just skimming).

Maybe this issue needs more testing, but in any case it is impossible to catch all the mistakes like that. For example, our ability to see a figure formed by a changing symbols, it is a property of our visual processing. Bees could have some properties which we do not have, and it could be that their properties could allow them to see some shapes formed by symbols, where we could see just randomly placed symbols.

> The fact that neither of the two groups trained on the two different tasks (character-to-quantity and quantity-to-character) could generalise their learning to the opposite task also doesn't bode well. It is exactly what you would expect to see if the setup for each task had some other, uncontrolled for, variable that the bees "overfitted" to, rather than learning what is theorised they did learn.

Yes, it is the most interesting part, because it goes perpendicular to a common sense, and thus gives a direction to a subsequent research. It always work like this: an experiment (a good one does) reveals something about nature, but poses new questions. Then researchers all over the world start to spend their grants on a sequels for the first research. At some point the number of articles becomes overwhelming, and several especially proficient scientists read all of them, studying methodology, combining data from different research into one big data set, making statistics, and finally they'd write a meta-research with a few hundreds of references to experimental articles, trying to make sense of data.

Media just cherry-picking articles with a clickbait titles, and makes them even more clickbaity. The most interesting articles for a newcomer would be a meta-research articles, which do no sparky experiments itself, but analyze all the data they could reach.
In my opinion, sites like YouTube that rely on user generated content should drop any pretense of being neutral - they aren't and never have been. What they have been doing is dodging responsibility for being the publisher of racist and harmful material.

I'm sure that YouTube would say that they don't play favorites but even if that were true, as we have seen there are organizations all the way up to nation states that are hell-bent on corrupting platforms like YouTube for their own ends. And they don't require much corrupting.

Moderation is key. Sites like Hacker News work only because of strict moderation by humans. Similar sites without such moderation quickly become a haven for trolls and spam. Automatic systems can always be gamed - what is needed is a strong editorial hand.

I don't want YouTube to end - there are thousands of hours of great content. But if it is to survive it needs to make a choice of what kind of site they want to be. Letting itself be anything its users want is turning it into a cesspit.
> White supremacy is a much bigger deal with a worse tail risk than Islamic extremism.

Wait... you're saying that white supremacy is worse than islamic extremism? Is you opinion perhaps a manifestation of your perspective? I'm sure there are some people in Syria, Afghanistan, etc... that would disagree with you.

BTW, I'm not saying one is worse than the other, just that they are both bad, both a problem, and both should be removed from social media.
I disagree, and could reasonably take offense at the notion that the only possible reason I might disagree is that I'm confused. I don't think this is censorship by its common, colloquial definition. It is indeed censorship if you take a broader, more literal definition - in which case private forums deleting hateful, illegal, or simply forum-rule-breaking comments also counts as censorship, and such a broad definition is simply pedantic and not really useful for conversation.
Should add "Repeated" to the title. They had already gotten in trouble in the past for dumping in the ocean, and continued to do it...
How easy is it to shut down decentralized systems like mastodon, ipfs, bitchute etc? because i feel they are going to become quite popular
The point is, awlakis sermons were not even “extreme”. They didn’t call for violence. They just talked about how great heaven was. YouTube rightly removed those videos because they were inspiring suicide attacks by teaching pretty mainstream Islamic beliefs like: martyrs go to heaven.

Would be for or against YouTube removing videos that encouraged suicide in depressed individuals?
You’re just being snide and snarky now.

I don’t know why people think it’s extreme to say that I don’t want my public broadcaster quoting their own opinions in the news reports. The article would have been complete without a quote from themselves, or could have used a quote from someone else qualified. Really easy solutions.
Do you have some good reason why we should not change the regulations so that they are "otherwise regulated"? No one is claiming they are currently breaking the law by refusing to conduct business with e.g. gab or the daily stormer or whoever else.
I appreciate the desire to get both sides of the story and not taking a random strangers opinion, but I'm also sensitive to connecting the internet hate machine to anything personally tied to me so I'm going to pass on providing supporting evidence.

Feel free to ignore my anecdote. I know it isn't much good without that connection, but it also isn't good to remain completely silent about bad behavior. Frankly I don't know how best to approach it either.
I made a content website with talks about design. What talks should I add?
Seems like the last part is pure speculation.. Islamic extremism, is what happened in Syria, and the root of pretty much all terrorism in Europe and parts of Africa..
Do you have any examples of the sort of front end work your doing with Rust? I've been toying with an idea using Rust but I haven't started really working on it.
I use my road bike (~$1,500), a Wahoo Kickr Core ($900), and I pay for a Zwift subscription ($15/month).

I love a good spin class, but like my setup just as much. I can also take my bike off the trainer and ride it outside.
Lefty here. Most of us understand the difference between a nazi and a fool.
The good MBA programs basically require professional work experience at a reputable firm. Generally, you graduate perhaps at age 21 to 23, then work for a few years, then go get an MBA, and finish around 26 to 28.

Edit: See Wharton class stats, shows a mean work experience of 5 years.

https://mba.wharton.upenn.edu/class-profile/

MIT/Harvard/Stanford show similar:

https://mitsloan.mit.edu/mba/admissions/class-2020-profile

https://www.hbs.edu/mba/admissions/class-profile/Pages/defau...

https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/programs/mba/admission/class-pr...
What you said is called the slippery slope fallacy. Just saying.
Sadly that's what happens when the "penalty" is a laughable fine in their big picture.
I strongly disagree banning anyone or any video that does not call for violence. I think it's a slippery slope and smacks of book banning. The information is out there, right or wrong. Who is it to judge what the public should see?
its a well established practice to establish compensation partly based on employee cost of living.
The Case for Wearing AirPods All the Time
I must be reading the situation wrong. Would you mind describing how situations detailed in this article jibe with your account?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/agricultural-giant-battles-smal...
Detecting obfuscation and spin when biotech companies announce study results
White supremacy was the cause for the worst wars of the 20th century. A white nationalist uprising in Europe would be deadlier (again) than Islamic extremists taking over most middle eastern nations due to the resources that will be available to them.
I have had cats for years.
it is easy to train them not to scratch things - without resorting to throwing stuff at them.

When I have adopted senior cats who are resistant to change I have just buyild scratching posts that sit beside the couch.

Just like kids and dogs, you need to not only say NO, but to also say YES to what they can do.

If you value your couch over your cats well-being you do not deserve a cat.
Nazis don't support the free speech of other people, or even their freedom to exist in many cases. 'No smoking' signs in gas stations sorta restrict freedom too, don't they?
There's no such thing as unbiased journalism.
Really a bit confused by the "abject poverty" bit you threw in there.
>Schools shouldn't be selling jobs. They should be selling education.

I think that is what we have now... the education is disconnected from the jobs in the sense that the price makes no sense.

I think a lot of what you describe is what happens when an education system thinks they're just selling "an education" without consideration that their student's are can't afford it.
Germany isn't the U.S. Germany has a 5th article[1].

Germany acknowledges that there are human rights (plural), that they occassionally conflict and that there are tradeoffs that must be made to achieve some balance and maintain all human rights in some reasonable form.

[1]: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/englisch_gg.h...
"Miami-based Carnival pleaded guilty Monday to six probation violations, including the dumping of plastic mixed with food waste in Bahamian waters. The company also admitted sending teams to visit ships before the inspections to fix any environmental compliance violations, falsifying training records and contacting the U.S. Coast Guard to try to redefine what would be a "major non-conformity" of their environmental compliance plan."

So not only did they knowingly dump plastic waste into the ocean, but they also actively tried to cover it up, implying they were fully aware of being guilty. And they get a paltry fine with no one going to jail for this criminal charge?

At this point the judge is just as guilty for allowing this behavior to continue.
Wait, Cockroach Labs accepts external code contributions? How are they able to pull the rug out from under you and relicense the code without your consent? Did you sign a CLA giving away your rights?
What is it you like about cube farms so much?

Individual offices I understand completely. Cubes? Seems like a very cheapskate version of a real office. I've never worked in one though, so I guess I can't quite understand it.
Whether recovery leads to (almost) useable data depends on what byte you modify. It's entirely possible that a single corrupt byte in the compressed data leads to a single corrupt byte when uncompressed. When you are dealing with images you may not even notice that a single pixel is wrong. But it's also possible that you completely destroy the data such that the decompression algorithm can't even deal with it and has to give up.
What up James Damore?!
Touché. Guilty. I didn’t read. Thank you for pointing out. Pessimistic me says that not much will change because as the other person’s comment says, algos are there to maximize the viewing time of people, and that have their views challenged etc, they aren’t gonna watch as much.
At first I'm sure you would be.
Isn't this the same as https://haveibeenpwned.com/?
Nitpick: at this point, Microsoft is also an enterprise software (and services) company. What software are they making for consumers? Windows exists as the client to lure enterprises into Azure; Office is a subscription that only makes back its development costs from volume subscriptions.

(You could say the operating system of the Xbox—but they’re not selling that. It’s a free complement to a consumer hardware play, just like any of Apple’s OSes are.)