skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> I think the smaller differences are also large enough to rule out extraordinary claims, like the ones I’ve read that say writing a compiler in Haskell takes less than half the code of C++ by virtue of the language

Specifically the "by virtue of the language" part:

Seems to me like it's unreasonable to claim the languages are on equal footing because fancy parser libraries aren't allowed to be used for the project. The fancy parser libraries exist for certain languages specifically because the languages enable them to be written. (For example in Haskell: monadic libaries, libraries that take advantage of GADTs, etc.)
I think the main takeaway from the Sokal Squared hoax was that reviewers in this field are either a) extremely biased and approve any results that agree with their beliefs, or b) anti-science, or c) scientifically illiterate, because they couldn't even spot the painfully clear methodological problems in the hoax studies that were inserted on purpose to test exactly the quality of review.
I'm going based on OPs description, which nobody on either side of the debate seems to object to. A different list of facts could convince me of something different, certainly.

What were the libelous comments by the college, specifically? I looked at the link provided and didn't see any actual comments from the flyer or dean of student's speech.
Yet another reason to upload your (La)TeX source as well rather than only the pdf output.
Which begs the question, why did they push out an update or a configuration change in the middle of the day?
I find Walmart at 2 AM to be the best time to buy groceries
Here's the statute: http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2315.21

I find it hard to parse, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of room to remove the cap. Maybe if they conclude that the acts of the school amounted to felony libel?

> (6) Division (D)(2) of this section does not apply to a tort action where the alleged injury, death, or loss to person or property resulted from the defendant acting with one or more of the culpable mental states of purposely and knowingly as described in section 2901.22 of the Revised Code and when the defendant has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to a criminal offense that is a felony, that had as an element of the offense one or more of the culpable mental states of purposely and knowingly as described in that section, and that is the basis of the tort action.
How much waste do the molten salt and fast reactors create?
The owner is based in the Philippines who also owns one of the largest Japanese imageboards and some of the hosting infrastructure. Not to be confused with Frederick 'Hotwheels' Brennan who used to run it subsequently quit and moved back to the US after selling his interest.
WebDev here, this is correct.
> block the UK from making Hong Kong democratic for over 60 years

Citation needed. Also, the UK is extremely famous for intentionally or unintentionally leaving a mess when it leaves, any sane government will not just let the British do whatever they want.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/18/opinion/india-pakistan-pa...

> nearly impossible to learn in Chinese media

It is also nearly impossible to learn anything about the opium wars in Western media, or how the governors of HK are all appointed by the British monarch directly. So I guess we are even here.

> Also the claim that these protests were caused by foreign influence is wrong and insulting.

Then what is this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Endowment_for_Democra...

BTW he/she said "largely encouraged".
I don't think monadic parser libraries have a real claim to be that difference. All the languages listed have excellent parsing libraries that make things similarly easy, if not by language power than by grammar DSL with embeddable code snippets.

I think if any library could make a real difference for Haskell it's most likely to be http://hackage.haskell.org/package/lens, which a Haskeller friend of mine claims could likely make a lot of the AST traversal and rewriting much terser.
Very well put. Regarding history and its own past battles with this illusory search for "correctness" and mathematical-like precision, I'm really surprised that the author seems to have completely ignored Popper's pretty well known "The Poverty of Historicism" [1].

I'd also strongly recommend the author to also check Raymond Aron's "Introduction to the philosophy of history : an essay on the limits of historical objectivity." [2], a book first published in French in 1938 and translated into English in 1948.

I find it sad that some people still open up this discussion about trying to make history more "exact", more physics-like, I thought we had already proved that that is an impossible task.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Poverty_of_Historicism

[2] https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-philosophy-history-histo...
> I'm not the only person I know who would like a newer vehicle, and could afford one, but has opted for something made in the mid 90's.

Just so you know, the safety improvements since the mid 90's have been quite substantial.

There was a discussion recently (on HN, I believe) where a video was linked showing a collision between a mid 90's Accord and a modern equivalent.

The results were quite astonishing, to me at least.
Plus, what if multiple state actors penetrate a system and each lay their own "implants"? Mutually assuredly destruction only works if you can attribute an attack. Unless you're planning on destroying non-guilty actors too. What if NK, China, and Russia all hack the same system and then eventually the system fails catastrophically as a result of malware and no one takes credit. How could the US respond? What if the perpetrator were an adversary that wasn't even known to have penetrated the system?
Once buried is it solved, or is it that we can’t see it? Waste plasticn needs a solution, but I don’t think that burning it is the answer. We badly need to reduce the volume created.
A "software" penalty. Okay, Dan. Why don't you just come out and say someone modded it, rather than hide behind the veil of some dubious natural language processing or ratio analysis.

That's like blaming the dog for a fart.

The truth is that everyone operating HN would rather keep users in the dark about how and why stories land where they do. The idea being that if we could predict what the software might do, we'd try to manipulate the narrative, and if we knew when the hand of god intervened we might dare blaspheme.

But that gives up the truth anyway, because if we cannot know what "the software" will do, then we are prevented from knowing such facts, only in service to a false narrative, and that, in and of itself, is an unnatural intervention and willful deception.
Would you trust such a company over AWS or Azure?
https://developer.holochain.org/guide

https://github.com/holochain/holochain-rust/blob/develop/doc...

https://github.com/holochain/holochain-proto/blob/whitepaper...
> suggests to me that oil companies are funding politicians from their own states

This makes sense. I assume they're expecting more out of this package than some stubborn climate change denialism.
I have never gone through the sales dance, but couldn't you try to provoke this by asking all potential suppliers, keeping them aware you're considering all options?
With my background in computer science and ML, I worked with genitesists to automate some of their observations.

A lot (almost everything) what they do routinely is still done manually. In genetics there are about 10 model organisms (I forgot the exact number) that most work is done on. Examples I have come in touch with are C. Elegans, D. Melanogaster and mice. A huge amount of work is done on these organisms and a huge amount of time is spent by grad students and post docs, repeating the same boring tasks day in and out. This is a big factor in deciding the breath of studies (you can only compare as many conditions as you can evaluate). Some things biologists do are subjective or prone to bias (even objective tasks like counting stuff becomes kind of biased after fatigue sets in if you have to count a lot of things and have to do it very often)

If you can automate their tasks, what will happen is that you will enable them to increase the breath of their studies drastically and potentially create more consistent measurements as well.
Fantastic article. Thank you for sharing. I'd come across some of her writings many years ago, but this motivated me to take a more in depth look. Just as I was looking for something new to read.
Defamation has long been deemed to be speech not protected by the first amendment. Because of the risk to freedom of expression, such claims have been limited in numerous ways, and are exceedingly difficult to win. But where a plaintiff does manage to overcome those hurdles, it is not an indicator of the fragility of the first amendment for the defamation claim to actually succeed. It’s simply applying well defined outer limits to freedom of expression, no different than ones for fraud, false advertising, and other malicious conduct that incidentally involves speech.

Two points @grellas mentioned are key.

First, this case involves falsehoods. Factually untrue assertions are generally outside the scope of protected speech: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/lying.h.... (Otherwise, the first amendment would swallow claims for fraud, false advertising, etc). This case, moreover, doesn’t fit the scenarios where false statements can be protected expression, such as hyperbole or satire.

Second, the speech was against a private party. The first amendment restrictions on defamation claims are less stringent when it comes to private parties than to the government, politicians, or public figures. In particular, where defamatory speech turns out to be false, it might still be protected by the first amendment if it was directed to a public figure and the false statements were not made recklessly or knowingly. But if a private party is involved, that additional layer of protection doesn’t exist. (The theory being that there is a greater interest on making statements about public figures, where sometimes you might get the facts wrong, than with private figures.)

I’m a first amendment extremist, but a defamation claim here doesn’t strike me as problematic any more than a prosecution for fraud. There is no legitimate expressive value in spreading demonstrable falsehoods about a private party. Nor is there a slippery slope. The key elements of private party versus public figure, and demonstrably false versus possibly true statements are bright line limits that have long served us well.
Tools for Building Email Capture Forms
Ah! I assumed you had access to the code. That makes more sense.
If libel laws now allow you to successfully sue for tens of millions of dollars because you falsely accuse somebody of being a racist, that's a sad day for freedom of speech. The impact would be truly chilling on national debate.

As I stated elsewhere, there are absolutely limits to libel laws based on Constitutional issues as decided in NYT v Sullivan. I wish people were arguing that based on the facts of this case, not to worry. Instead what I'm hearing from comments like yours is that calling somebody racist and urging a boycott based on it should be enough, just because the underlying accusation is wrongheaded.
>It doesn't work any it only makes you less fun to be around.

It does work and I am crap at being social anyway, so I don't mind taking the hit. Someone has to be 'that guy', as you put it. Might as well be me.

So, hear me good people. Get the hell off facebook, it is a terrible place full of demons, woe and all that is tawdry, misplaced and wrong, and since we are on HN, go build alternatives to facebook while you are at it.
This. How about a "plastics management" tax every company must pay based on the amount of plastic each of their products uses, including manufacturing, shipping, etc. That, or ship all plastic waste back to the company who made it to manage.

When I walk into a store these days, I can't help but think almost everything there will end up in a landfill or the bottom of the ocean.
We implemented the community version. One thing that we almost upgraded for was to implement a custom rule which seemed to be more complicated than it should be. It looked like there were some other options if we had the paid version but we figured it out.
This is incorrect. The restrictions on government INCUDE its ability to create libel laws:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan
Much harder to do after GDPR. See this:

https://capitalandgrowth.org/questions/1856/how-do-you-find-...

But if you are able to find the domainsbyproxy email e.g. domainsbyproxy@<domainname>.<tld> you can email it it will be forwarded to the owner. You can then ask whatever questions you want.
What are you trying to achieve by allowing someone to see a fact, but not actively surfacing that information?

Within the scope of X likes Y, X said Z, Facebook has a very consistent and strong privacy model [1]. However, they have long considered anything that isn't a hard privacy violation of their rules to be fair game. Technically (and this is FB's engineering mindset showing through) not surfacing information is security through obscurity.

It seems like they are backing away from that model, by deprecating features like Graph Search. I personally think that this is worse because it makes it much harder for people to understand what is visible to others. It muddies the rule of "if you don't want people to know something, don't put it on Facebook".

[1] There are some messier areas, like People You May Know, or when platform apps are allowed to access (and store) all they data that a person who uses that app could see.
The disenfranchisement is seen as part of the sentence. Traditionally, the crimes deserving of this were very serious such as murder, rape, felony robbery, etc. The people committing these crimes were considered as having violated the social contract in such a manner that society could no longer trust them.

Unfortunately, many less serious offences have been classified as more serious in order to be "hard on crime" leading to many generally trustworthy citizens losing rights.
It took 200 years for the hard sciences to figure out the right way to 'do' objectivity, and arguably it's still evolving (see 'Objectivity'[1] by Daston and Galison, nice summary here: https://scienceobjectivity.weebly.com/daston--galison.html). The social sciences have additional problems, saying 'just copy the hard sciences' isn't reasonable.

In fact, the idea that objectivity can be done in a simple mechanical way doesn't work for the hard sciences either, and was rejected by them in the early 20th, because it turns out that interpreting the evidence objectively still requires an educated eye. If you've ever had the good fortune (or misfortune, considering the circs) to see one of your own x-rays, you'll know how much you have to take the word of the radiographer for what the photo actually means. Sure, eventually, after much debate, a mechanical formula for interpreting the photo may be developed. Radiographers are probably due to be replaced by AI any day now - but their judgements will have formed the labels of the training data. At the cutting edge of the sciences, you don't have any of that yet.

[1] that book was expanded from their earlier paper which can be found here: http://cspeech.ucd.ie/Fred/docs/Galison.pdf
I think it's a little patronizing to suggest that users don't understand how Facebook tracks them. Sure, the average person probably doesn't think about the specific method of tracking. They don't know that Facebook tracks how long you watch a video, or spend staring at that photo of your ex. But they have a general sense that Facebook is monitoring their usage patterns to determine what they like and target advertising. That isn't a secret, and isn't obscured.

Regardless of what the terms and conditions say, i think it's a fair to assume that the vast majority of people using Facebook have implicitly consented to have their Facebook usage tracked.

Facebook tracking you through the rest of the web is a different story...
My wife worked as a nanny for a surgeon who went on these expeditions. He had stuffed lions and antelope in his house, it was pretty wild. The pricing isn’t listed on these, but here’s a site that gives people an idea of the huge amount of money these hunters are willing to pay. An exportable elephant trophy is $60,000 plus hundreds of dollars a day for general amenities. A basic package is more like $2500, where you’re hunting things like wildebeests and warthogs.

https://africahuntlodge.com/hunting-packages/elephant-hunts

The whole Cecil the Lion thing shows what happens when the general public gets wind of these hunting expeditions, and negatively impacted the revenue for these preserves, unfortunately.
"add to card to reveal pricing" is just bad UX, without any gain (assuming there is one from the sales dance) to anyone.
From an article linked in the first one, the students, with the encouragement of the faculty, handed out flyers saying the bakery “is a RACIST establishment with a LONG ACCOUNT of RACIAL PROFILING and DISCRIMINATION.”" (caps in original quote.)

What horrific people! They're defending the right of underage African American students to shoplift wine?

This is why we cannot have tuition debt forgiveness.
Yet it doesn't get eaten at all if it's submerged because the organisms that produce the ligase to break down lignin, the structural component of wood, require oxygen.
Even the "wehraboo's" and "Confederate LARPers" aren't what they are on the surface. A sibling poster mentioned 2016'ish being some sort of seminal formation date for them; it isn't hard to realize that in the current day and Age, the net allows for the reach of those with sabotage or ideological undermining to be even wider than ever before.

Undercurrents existed at one point, yet the flames were fanned by the increasing utilization of online media to increase visibility. One will absolutely not stop that.

Furthermore, the phenomena of placing blame on others for current emotional states isn't necessarily that far off. Mental/memetic contagion is a well known phenomena; it seems to be fundamental to how information transfer works.

The issue regarding contagion though, is that there is a model which currently exists with regard to thought and behavior that largely downplays the pliability of individuals and vulnerability to external influences on their reasoning. We see this philosophy in our justice system espoused time after time. X is a bad apple. X can never change. X should be removed from society. Preaching of this model weakens our most vulnerable populations. They end up never developing any sort of memetic immune system, or framework to guard against entirely rhetorical or emotional form of attack or influence.

Of course, that all assumes that there was a solid foothold gained in the first place development wise.
I immediately thought of an excerpt from "Empire of Things" by Frank Trentmann. It is somewhat out of context, considering the parent article describes the legal validation of economic gains displayed as luxury assets, whereas the following excerpt describes the states attempt to preserve the economic virtues of the populace:

“In the 15th and 16th centuries, the Venice senate passed more than a dozen laws and regulations against [sumptuous lifestyles]. Lavish weddings and expensive fur-lined coats made visible inequalities in wealth and status that threatened the republic’s ideal of equality and restraint. They also triggered a competitive spending spree which pushed some citizens into debt.”
The real concern is naïveté.

This is not an attack on you personally, because your sentiment is not yours alone.

It’s just a reflection of the total disrespect for engineering and manufacturing that Americans seem to have.
> If your scale of preferences tells you that privacy is a more important factor than the service itself, then use the services that suit your demand, but don't prevent others from acting differently.

That's completely ignoring network effects: I want to delete WhatsApp from my phone. But if I do so, it means I won't be taking part in everyday family life anymore.
Great writeup, I'm very curious about the performance between the compilers.
So your argument is that debate and reasoning are futile, and the only way people can change their minds is stumbling upon conclusions?

I'd say we have conclusive evidence that people can change their minds by hearing new idea or evidence from other people.
Hard Times in the Imperial Valley
Thank you for being the first person to agree with my fundamental point that there are actual implications to the first amendment when it comes to libel laws.

I'd love to hear any of the actual false statements ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OR ITS STAFF. I relied on the so far uncontested statement of facts offered by OP. If those facts are wrong I'd be thrilled to revisit my position.
Where's the code? I scanned this article a few times and can't find a link to it.
Oh you don't think we care about basic facts?

Here's a basic fact: it's better to have more freedom instead of less. Wrap your brain around that simple fact.
The article did not acknowledge the two biggest problems with the social sciences: inability to do many experiments because of ethical reasons, and the fact that these disciplines often study human social systems which have mutable "laws".

There's not much we can do about the first problem except slowly accrete knowledge through retrospective study of actual events, and maybe fill in some gaps with simulation.

The second problem is more solvable. I do believe that there are actually laws in the social sciences, but that they are far fewer in number than the phenomena people want to study. Many social phenomena are simply artifacts of existing systems, and may shed light on behavior in a particular case but are not generalizable beyond that system.

The law of supply and demand is a good example of a law that is universal, in many ways because it lies at the junction of physical systems and social systems. The physical aspects of supply and demand, for example the amount of arable land nearby as well as the caloric requirements of a population, can be measured well because of our physical knowledge and provide a decent jumping off place to expand the theory.

I disagree that some things are not quantifiable. Everything can be counted, from the number of neural connections in our brains to the number of widgets that a factory can produce. As usual, the limiting factor in science is not a lack of theory but a lack of instrumentation and thus data. I am basically an optimist about the social sciences as our measurement abilities continue to grow. However, we are in the dark ages regarding the tools we have to collect data.
Wow, I didn't know Go had large binaries. There's no reason it should though. As Go programs are compiled down to native code, if as the last step of compilation, the equivalent of unix strip (or the JavaScript world's tree shaking or the JVM world's ProGuard) was run, the binary would only have code that's actually used. Since Go is a relatively young language, it might be that implementing this was just not that high of a priority for the Go implementers.

Alternatively, it's possible that the executable size is large because it: (1) actually contains a lot of in-use code, or (2) contains media files. I know on Windows, it's common for people to make media files part of the .exe file. The Windows Portable Executable (PE) format makes it quite convenient to do this; and the Windows API has functions that make loading up files bundled as part of the .exe file as seamless as reading from the file system.
It's not behavior it's metabolism.
how practical is a heads-up display?

that's what I want for ease of use, safety, aesthetics.
"the future is more complexity" is how we arrived to the modern web.
Plastics already oxidize through UV, thermal, and hydrolysis reactions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoamine_oxidase_A