skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Dismissal and Confirmed mean the company continues to exist, and add up to a majority.

Of course confirmation implies that the company continues to exist in order to for the restructuring to actually take place, it doesn't imply that it will exist afterwards. Dismissal doesn't imply that the company will continue to exist for much longer either, it's simply the alternative to going straight to Chapter 7. In any event, dismissal is not a success. You are also ignoring all the cases that go straight to Chapter 7 for your hamfisted construction of a "majority".

No matter how you twist and turn it, the majority of companies that file for bankruptcy do not survive, and the companies that do succeed in Chapter 11 still have to repay debt. That's my whole point.
We need a truly distributed way to host content and communicate. We shouldn't need cloudflare, aws, stripe or any other monopoly to police free speech.

Think of our children and what we're going to leave them. Is this the internet we had as kids? It wasn't.
What makes you say it's unchecked though? These are anonymous imageboards where ANYONE can say ANYTHING, there isn't anything stopping you from challenging them?

Part of me wonders if we should be taking better advantage of this opportunity to reach out the people posting. Mental illness is clearly in play, but can't we as a society do better? We should be reaching out to these people and at least trying to wrestle them back to sanity.

I think if anyone really believes shutting down a bunch of open forums will reduce the number of mass shootings they are delusional. This is a mental health issue AND a gun control issue and that's where we should focus efforts.
Ask HN: Is there an issue tracker with ranking FORMULA support?
The number of entries in our issue tracker is growing. Doesn't sound too unusual. I want to sort the entries by a custom formula. For example, each entry could have an EXPOSURE field [0.0-1.0] that records what fraction of the user base is exposed to the issue. For example, a landing-page related change would be 1.0, while a deep page in the docs could be 0.001.

Then there could be some kind of an IMPORTANCE field [1-1000] with fixed values like nice-to-have is 1 and an issue blocking you from taking an important action could be 1000.

In the end, we could have a calculated value field like:

VALUE = EXPOSURE * IMPORTANCE

It should be possible to sort entries by VALUE.

Is there any similar solution out there?
On the other hand making them harder to access also makes the ideas spread slower because if you get all of say white supremacist sites off Google you massively cut down on the number of random 'normies' that will fall in and get swept up in the group. Same thing applies but is probably even more effective for getting groups off the regular internet all together because then you have to convince someone to install TOR (or whatever the new flavor of the month is) to get them into the funnel.
So that you may grow:

The Islamic God and the Catholic God are one and the same.
All you said is correct about arbitration. However, It never hurts to get independent legal advice. You never know like if the arbitration clause won't hold or if there are other aspects you're missing. Also, last but not least AFAIK you can and should always bring your own lawyer in arbitration.
This isn't a free speech issue. We have free speech in most parts of our country without radicalization. This is an issue of a specific environment that actively celebrates hatred and awful behavior. "Free Speech" is a red herring. Just because it's legal to say this stuff doesn't make it okay to say it, and it's society's job to stamp out this kind of thing.
YouTube bans 14 year old for violating hate speech guidelines
I wouldn't expect the people in their transit department are hired for their English ability. Since Spanish and Catalan are important languages there I would expect that I need to learn at least one of them to learn from there. Of course if Spain wanted to teach the world how they do it English would make more sense as it is the dominate trade language today - but I can't think of any reason why Spain would care to teach others. It thus is on the rest of the world to learn Spanish to learn from them.

We might be able to learn from the Chinese or Russians. I'm not sure what their cost structures are like. Learning best practices from high cost areas won't help you control costs, which rules out all English speaking countries.
I know they can infect people. It was a ridiculous statement
So you're a bigot who cannot tolerate alternative opinions.
The de facto effect is the same. But is a decision independently reached by multiple parties really the same as a decision by a single monopoly?

I can't confidently say one way or another, but it feels more acceptable to me.

Assuming each company did reach that decision independently (and that's a big assumption) and not as a result of bad PR brought on by an angry internet mob.
"where people showed up to try to shout over the white nationalists and it just ended up with a bunch of people getting run over by a car."

Sorry, if I may clarify. It ended up with a bunch of people protesting white nationalism being run over by a white nationalist, who has been sentenced for killing a woman with his car.

In the Charlottesville case, the people inciting violence and the people performing violence are both white nationalists.
I suspect it’s because people take this as a sign that there is no hope of a trade deal.

And the longer the trade wars continue the worse off everyone is.
Ask HN: Tech crowd – What are your ideas for solving gun violence using tech?
I want to hear the HN crowds ideas on how to utilize technology to help solve gun violence.

I have sat here all morning, as a software engineer, trying to think of ways that would HELP to solve gun violence.

I want to hear what others ideas are, from the tiniest, small impact ideas, to ones that would be a huge undertaking/thought impossible.

All I am seeing elsewhere today is, "ban guns..", "solve mental health..", "more strict gun control..", etc. We go through these same "solutions" every time a mass shooting occurs.

I DO NOT want to make this thread about any of those political/societal issues. I want to see what ideas are out there with regard to using technology. Please keep political blaming out. Pointing fingers is not the goal here.

And the more detail you have about implementing a tech solution, the better!

Some ideas I've had/thinking about:

- Using Machine learning image processing to identify weapons immediately in an area where there should not be any. Instantly setting off alarms/notifying the police when one is exposed. Recent examples, somebody walking down the street of a popular nightlife area with many bars, holding a gun. Or walking up to the entrance of a popular shopping center. Even if the authorities had 5 - 10 seconds more to respond, it have a major impact on the outcome. I think I've also seen some startups working in the space. Of course it won't be easy. But deployed in the proper areas, such as crowded nightlife areas, could make a huge difference.

- Better tracking of guns location and how guns are traded. This of course is already a law in many places, but I think there are many ways tech can be used to do it better. Including how we can source as much information as possible, within the limits of personal privacy, and put those points together. I don't have specific examples here, would love to hear peoples ideas! I believe there is a lot of low hanging fruit.
Their leaders keep pressuring them and saying, "I don't see your team working!!! What are they doing? Why are they not in at 8am? I want to see some BUTTS IN THE SEATS!" After they get 1 or 2 bad reviews, they realize that one way to get a raise as a manager is to have the team look super busy.

No matter how much your team delivers, if they make it lose easy, folks think it's easy!

If they are running around, sweating, stomping out fires, looking seriously stressed, then my gosh they must be working really hard. :-(
"kill all the jews because islam says jews are evil"

is not protected speech by any stretch of the imagination
A major problem IMHO is the conflation of "free speech" the government restriction with its roots in ancient Greece and early democracy with whatever else anyone wants it to mean; typically that people should be allowed to espouse whatever ideas they want without challenge because "free speech".
> if you stick with it and don't sell, things will turn out pretty well

I think that thinking is at fault, at least in part, for the massive loss that's pending in terms of a deep market correction, because it's valuing based on growth and not on fundamentals.

If you can sell eggs for 10 cents each, you have a cap on the price of chickens. Now you can adjust this for future growth but you still have a limit in the fundamentals of getting a return on your money.

But when you invest ignoring that, you might do well for a very long time. As chickens go from $500 to $1,000 to $10,000, etc. more people see it and join in, pushing the price higher. In the end, it's a Ponzi scheme. You'll only do well if you get out before it comes crashing down.
I used the word "platform" because that's what others are saying. What I really mean to say is "infrastructure".
Yes, they do. But that's not the world we should strive for.

In your opinion, would it be better for a government to make this kind of judgement than a company?

Do you think the speech should be banned everywhere? Or should it be banned only on CloudFlare? Or you don't have your judgement on this specific speech?

That's why it's weird that people are cheering Cloudflare for making the right decision. Then, put forward an argument that "well, the speech can be on another platform".
Yes, they really were just:

`<a href="our_twitter_page"><img src="/img/locally_hosted_image.png"></a>`

The block rules were purely based on very generic CSS class names - I forget exactly, but something like "social-twitter", "social-facebook"
Sure let's fuck over the habitat of migratory birds because it's "the right thing economically". Who cares the consequences?

What a psycho thing to think. Fuck off.
This isn't censorship though. It's private companies refusing to host something. Nobody has been arrested for speech and there are no laws prohibiting speech that isn't overtly and specifically threatening or otherwise violates the "fire in a crowded theater" test.
I've been waiting for answers to these question:

What do we think happens to hate when when we ban it in discussions? Evaporates into thin air?

Also, is there ANY proof at all that banning hate speech is effective in stopping hateful actions in the short and long term?

Answering these questions should be the BASIS for any decisions we make right?
The few always screw it up for the rest.
> 4chan and 8chan know the line, though it is in a weird place

"Things we legally cannot host" is exactly where one would expect them to draw the line. Whether or not you agree with that position is another matter.
Does anyone know of any nice interactive models to play with that demonstrate trade, tariffs, and currency levels? I just don't have an intuitive sense for this yet.
Hate speech is illegal in Canada because it infringes on the right to security of the person - a Charter right. Freedom of speech is also protected, but the expression of one right cannot diminish the protection of another.
GPU memory is expensive but a big as #@$% computer is even more expensive. When we show comparisons to things like spark we are doing so use cost basis. So if we say something like we are x times faster than this technology on this workload what we did was launch clusters that have similar costs. Total cost of ownership is also reduced by the fact that the engine itself is totally ephemeral. You can turn it off and on within seconds.
Cell Towers have no place in National Parks/Forests and other nature preserves. If you're in the middle of the ocean you're not going to have cell phone service either, and you should plan accordingly.
Oh, they'll agree. They are even a member of the WTO, and even have laws on the books about IP.

They just won't enforce anything, unless it's to their own benefit, been that way for decades.
In many states that permit binding arbitration agreements, whistleblower protections and criminal activity reports pierce the agreement. That's why the specific nature of the transgression is important, and why actually talking to a lawyer is better.
>In a similar vein I think people will need to in general get comfortable with the fact that some technology will be used by bad groups and it will make it harder for law enforcement to catch and stop people but the benefits for everyone else out weighs the downside...

Good luck with that.

I think we, as a society, may have been taken a bridge too far with the mass shootings. People are no longer interested in hearing about the "down side" of taking these guys out.

This should probably have been expected though, you swing the pendulum too far in one direction, it's naturally going to swing back in the other. Just kind of the nature of these things.
Why would China ever want to allow that U.S. companies to sue the living crap out of local businesses because of copyright? Is there anything that China can win here? I always thought the chinese governments strategy was to grow local businesses. Global copyright enforcement would stomp that.
One of the rare instances in which I threw myself into those sprints I was advocating for is working on the national emergency management system. I loved the project, I felt like my contribution to society was well worth the months spent sweating over it. Childless, young and healthy, it was a great experience and I still check the uptime from time to time a lot of years later.

I've since left that institution precisely for what you mention, politics, and exactly like you I something think about working on that project again. I don't think any project I'll ever work on will be as satisfying from a societal perspective, as that one.
> If a man can't speak his truth, what alternative does he have to violence?

No one is stopping anyone from speaking their truth. They're just saying they're not going to help you.

If you want to speak your truth, speak it. Go down to a public square and preach. Write your truth down, print it, and hand it out. If its truth and you believe it so much, you'll do the work necessary in getting it out there.
Need Feedback: AI writes articles on any topic
What would be an alternative option?
Inciting violence is not legal though.

It’s reasonable to cut support to players that relentlessly fail to comply with the rules.

The platforms are not turning against them, they are constantly abusing the ToS of these platforms
.

Now some people disagree with the ToS in the first place, but it’s another discussion to be done at another plane. There has always been a filtering of what goes to a super wide audience, movies airing on public broadcast have always been filtered, the same logic applies to platforms as wide as reddit.
Please. If your attitude is that if you get in some kind of trouble, you can just use your cell phone and have someone come get you, you should just stay out of wilderness areas.

You're endangering yourself which I wouldn't care that much about but you're also potentially endangering any search and rescue teams that have to come looking for you.

As for the lost scenario specifically. I don't know. Maybe carry a (paper) map and compass? In addition (not instead of) a GPS doesn't need cell reception to operate and works most places. (Some exceptions, like narrow canyons.)
> Life as a mod is about a million times easier, for both you and your users, when you minimize the amount of judgment calls on edge cases that have to be made.

No, life is much easier when rule 0 is "don't piss off the people running the show", and anyone who complains about mod actions gets instantly permabanned.
Proposed bill would make monopolies pay “serious” fines
What is hard in accessing farmland?
I'm centrally located in Berlin, and have an unmetered 400/12mpbs cable connection for 40Eur/m.

I can't say that I'm impressed, but having just lived in Canada which is _far_ worse I'm happy about it not being quite as bad.

However, 10 years ago in Sweden I had an unmetered 1000/1000mbps fiber connection for 4Eur/m. I feel like I'm doomed to forever have a shittier connection.
hN commenters are basically proven themselves to be fascists who want to control all speech everywhere to ensure it contains enough of the progressive agenda otherwise they'll contort themselves to redefine free speech to not actually be free or even speech.

Bigots.
This is one of the benefits of not having a linkedin profile. Recruiters/former managers cannot see where you're heading next. Obviously this is different for high profile execs but my gut feeling is that most individual recruiters could be shielded from non compete enforcement if they don't publicize their employment on the internet.
>Considering that 8chan has a proclivity to be a haven for mass shooters, the site needs to be excessively curtailed regardless of whether they're affecting the businesses services directly or not just for the sole fact that they don't seem to police the people or content that are on the site.

I'll bet more mass shooters spend time on facebook than 8chan. When are they getting shut down?
Several of these extremist sites even forbid and censor attempts at calm, level-headed rebuttals to such hatred. They exist solely to propagate bigotry.

The dog and pony show from Google and Cloudflare of only stepping in after multiple mass shootings and tons of press coverage tells you all you really need to know about these companies' ethics. They react to sufficiently bad PR, not out of any set of principles, be they either freedom of speech (keeping these sites online) or reducing harm (deplatforming.)
As usual, I plug my list of mental models if anyone is interested! https://alexpetralia.github.io/newsletters
Hi jack, I'm interested in the AI/ML engineer position. I have the research experience in academia in the required technologies. I would like to discuss more about the position.
The name "fanboy" sounds familiar, so it might have been that.

Seems a bit heavy-handed to me personally. I absolutely want to block intrusive ads and tracking, but this was a bit OTT. It also must have been included by default with uBlock Origin, as I didn't add it myself.
yep. this is the whole concept of a double edged sword.
Beijing has an extremely long time horizon. They will endure the Trump administration and wait for a successor government to be more pliant to their needs.
> People generally don't take pictures of rolling green hillsides. But they very often take pictures of rolling green hillsides with sheep on them. So if you ask the robot to draw a picture of rolling green hillsides, it will include sheep. Or, if you ask it to draw a picture of the savanna, it will want to include giraffes.

Don't humans do this too, though? If I asked someone to draw a picture of rolling green hills, they may well add sheep as an additional detail.
Something I can recommend to both experienced and "new developers" alike is https://regexper.com.

It generates clear graphs from regular expressions making immediately clear what they do.
Have you tried to engage in that kind of discussion? These people use troll tactics. The first rule for them is to attack any attempt to ask for civil discussion.
And this is why gay people can't get a cake made at the bakery anymore.
Tim Berners-Lee's new decentralisation project: Social Linked data(Solid)
>> Parsing JSON is probably an order of magnitude more ____inefficient___ than working with any binary message formats in terms of speed and energy.

Do I?
I've never figured out a good way to express this without sounding like a raving censor, but here goes: I feel like freedom of speech is a means to an end (the end being general freedom and liberty) more than an end in itself. When speech leads directly to mass fear or violence engendering mass fear, which leads to people willingly sacrificing their own and others' rights just for the promise of safety, then bitter realpolitik says that we may need to limit certain kinds of speech to maintain vital freedoms.

Of course that's dangerous thinking in itself, because there's always potential for abuse when you let someone decide what people aren't allowed to say. But there has to be a balance somewhere. I hope we can find it.
>>>Occam's razor would assume that the unique extent to which firearms are readily available in the US probably has a major connection to the unique extent to which mass shootings and gun violence occurs.

Well let's look at just the United States, over time, rather than the US compared to other countries. In the US, a proliferation of firearms has been a constant throughout our history. But it is only recently (really starting with Columbine) that we've had REGULAR outbursts, almost always by men under 30. I would hypothesize that the elephants in the room are a)prescription psychotropic drugs and their side-effects b)constant negative media about males/toxic masculinity c)overall ineffective child-rearing practices and extended adolescence, some of which stems from a reduction in two-parent households.

These are vague partly because so few people will take a deep dive into these subjects when so much money flows from these influences (pharmaceuticals, media, etc...).

But why aren't we looking at the variables, instead of the constant?

>>>it is absolutely progress to have mass murderers be forced to utilize something like a knife than head on down the street and pick up an automatic/semi-automatic weapon.

1. You can't "head on down the street" and pick up an automatic weapon in the US. You need a Federal Firearms License for that. And historically, FFL holders are some of the most law-abiding citizens in the country. Even if there were a ban on semi-auto weapons, the market would adapt. I've already brainstormed on how to optimize a bolt-action rifle for rapid, sustained fire and I'm not even a firearms designer.

2. Tightening the gun proliferation sounds great...in theory. How do you actually accomplish it in practice? There are 300 million+ firearms spread across the country in about 40% of households. This is a land area greater than that occupied by the Germans on the Eastern Front, with a greater number of potential "partisans", and the Germans never even came CLOSE to securing their rear areas. That anyone expects widespread gun confiscations to NOT turn into a bloodbath is naive IMO, and if the objective is saving lives than it would also be counter-productive.

3. Maybe the mass murders will switch to homemade explosives instead of knives, which would be a significantly WORSE outcome? Ever think of that? Maybe they'll get guidance from jihadis. Hell, explosives already gave us one of the worst school massacres in American history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster
Let's not jump on one women's exit review about her relationship with her boss, trust it be unbiased, and give benefit of all doubt to throw the company under the bus.
One of the things I now always do is tell my boss both how much work work somethings going to be and how 'hard' something is going to be. Features/changes that are hard have very unreliable estimates. A lot of that has to do with how difficult it is to reason about and debug the feature. And how much other stuff needs to be changed.