skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
This three stage weapon was actually a 100 megaton bomb design, but the uranium fusion stage tamper of the tertiary (and possibly the secondary) stage(s) was replaced by one(s) made of lead. This reduced the yield by 50% by eliminating the fast fissioning of the uranium tamper by the fusion neutrons, and eliminated 97% of the fallout (1.5 megatons of fission, instead of about 51.5 Mt), yet still proved the full yield design. The result was the "cleanest" weapon ever tested with 97% of the energy coming from fusion reactions. The effect of this bomb at full yield on global fallout would have been tremendous. It would have increased the world's total fission fallout since the invention of the atomic bomb by 25%. [1]

1: http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Russia/TsarBomba.html
In the abstract, yes, virtually everyone agrees with "wouldn't it be great if bad people couldn't get guns". The problem is the moment it becomes specific a lot of the support is lost.
River could do all of these. River can become a corporation which provides water as its main source of revenue in return for money which is held in a trust and used to pay people employed by the river to carry out its business. There are many implications to this idea, but it seems pretty sound alternative to having a river owned by shareholder for instance who pursue a profit motive.

The point of such an environmental corporation would be to ensure its survival over the long run, rather than shareholder profit. Could you sue a river, maybe, though the lawyers for the river would argue that the blame is not the river's but an act of god out of the control of the river and those who manage it.
This post repeatedly refers to 8chan as "lawless" and "unmoderated" but it is neither. As a whole, it is a public website subject to US law, complete with DMCA and search warrant contact forms. The sitewide rule is that all content must comply with US law.

The media also keeps saying 8chan, 8chan, 8chan over and over, when it is really just the one most popular board ("pol") that is being discussed. But there are hundreds of boards on the site for different topics, which are moderated separately and according to their own rules.

It seems like most of the outrageous incitement to violence people have posted on 8chan would be illegal under Brandenburg v. Ohio (speech is illegal if it will lead to imminent lawless action), given the mostly-valid assumption there will be readers of the post who are both radicalized and armed. This seems like the way to take down most of the violent content on 8chan if anyone would think about it for more than 5 seconds.

This seems like a knee-jerk reaction to moral panic and bad PR, not a solution to anything. Cloudflare would have been in a better position to actually change 8chan if they had kept them on and pressured them.
> The unresolved question is how should the law deal with platforms that ignore or actively thwart the Rule of Law? That's closer to the situation we have seen with the Daily Stormer and 8chan. They are lawless platforms.

This doesn't make a lot of sense. They are suggesting that it's the fact that 8chan is unmoderated that is a problem, and they'll similarly refuse service to any unmoderated discussion platform?

I actually totally approve of them refusing 8chan as a customer.

I don't think this is really the reason, or a good reason. Articulating the real/good reason is hard. I'm not sure I can do it either.

But when they say "The Rule of Law requires policies be transparent and consistent" -- that obligation is actually incumbent upon THEM, cloudflare. What is their own transparent and consistent policy that led to this? The implication is that... any unmoderated discussion forum would be banned, but they don't go out and say it, which isn't quite "transparent".

And I don't think they really mean that (so it's not "consistent" either). An unmoderated discussion forum that wasn't being used to egg on mass murder, they probably wouldn't ban. I think the possible "consistent" approach here would be simply admitting that they dont' want as customers sites whose owners seem to have no problem with them being used to egg on mass murder.

As they said in another statement quoted by media, a site that has "repeatedly proven itself to be a cesspool of hate." This is more honest, and really no less vague, than dancing around talking about "actively thwarting the Rule of Law" (I really don't know what that means; I'm not sure you can really "actively thwart the rule of law" without being in the government). And I personally agree it is a fine reason to refuse someone as a customer, that they've repeatedly proven themselves to be a cesspool of hate.

They are correct that the first ammendment in fact gives them the right to refuse as customers entities whose actions they find abhorent and whose business they don't wish to aid. The principle of "transparent and consistent" requires them to try harder than they are to explain what their standards are in an honest way. (It can be a process, I'm not totally sure what they should be either, even though I totally support refusing 8chan as a customer).

I think calling an unmoderated discussion forum "actively thwarting the Rule of Law" (in all caps nonetheless!), then calling for government discipline of such, is something you gotta back up with more reasoning than they did here, and is not in fact necessary for them to justify denying service to 8chan. They're trying to get out of actually explaining their reasoning/motivation (what is required for THEM to be "consistent and transparent") by hand-waving about all-capitals Rule of Law.
Then youre an idiot to think that after being on HN for over a decade and paying attention to stories from the full spectrum that somemone on HN is going to compartmentalize so fucking hard against a major flaw in our society.

Look at your username - and you dont think that someone who has been online since 1993 and on HN for as long as I have isnt going to pay attention to the shit that is going on in our world.

Give me a break. I speak my mind on HN - and have for many years. Sometimes Dang gets mad at me - but I participate in this community daily for more than a decade. and I pay attention.

There is something shady going on. and its all related to epstein and his dead mans switch.
> would take the same tack on reporting terrorist incidents. Wouldn't it make sense to say we shouldn't report on them, given that attitude?

I had a muslim coworker recently self-radicalize with online ISIS videos and attempt to carry out a truck attack against national harbor. It didn't make it out of local news because the FBI nabbed him a few hours before the attack was to take place.

I think that's a good thing. If the media blew it up, no doubt it would have inspired others to try the same.
All speech falls into one of two categories: opinion or incitement.

"I hate all (demographic)!" is an opinion.

"I'd throw a party if all (demographic) died tomorrow." is STILL an opinion.

"Someone should kill all these (demographic) idiots!" is no longer an opinion... It's incitement. (Like all of the times liberals have called for the murder of Republicans.)

"I'm going to kill a bunch of these (demographic) this weekend!" is a phrase that should immediately precipitate the arrest of the poster, and does NOT quality as free speech because it's a direct threat of violence.
This is the same argument cake shops make against taking order from gay people. I do believe that so-called manifesto is mind-numbingly dumb, fact-free and it is dangerous in the sense it will inspire more violence against innocent people. But that precisely what makes it a good test case for asking some fundamental questions. Can commercial businesses with deep reach, pricing power and critical function deny services based on their ideology and beliefs? The legal answer is yes and that only looks troublesome when you think of how tables could turn in future. As someone has mentioned what if Comcast started permanently black listed you if you visited a website that didn't aligned with their ideology? What if airlines refused to fly you because you said something on Twitter that didn't aligned with their beliefs?
I think the word "culture" is overloaded, such that it's really hard to talk about and you can make it mean whatever you want, but there's a use for it that I don't know a better way to describe in a word. Yes, there is "culture fit" in terms of things that don't matter, and where it does good to push a company outside of a comfort zone in order to get the best people and new perspectives.

But at a certain point, you need to get alignment between what work you find rewarding/fulfilling/exciting and what work a company tends to recognize and reward. This essay I think gets at the heart of it:

http://yosefk.com/blog/people-can-read-their-managers-mind.h...

If you are a programmer, which kind of organization do you think you would tend to want to work at, all things being equal: one where the organization's culture is set by people who come from programming backgrounds or sales backgrounds? It's not the same answer as if you were a salesperson. (And of course, there are programmers who probably prefer the culture at a place driven by salespeople, and vice versa. And you can start to think about why that might be.)

As an employee, what a good culture fit means is "someplace that values and rewards the things I want to be doing." As an employer, a good culture fit is someone who responds well to the incentives you have in place for them. Sometimes, cultures are just objectively bad; anywhere that judges programmers by how many lines of code they write alone is establishing perverse incentives. But sometimes cultures are not better or worse objectively, just different. Some people work better in a research culture and some people work better in a product culture, for instance. That's fine. But that's where finding out if you and an employee are a culture fit can benefit both parties, not just be an excuse to hire only people you like. It's not about beliefs, it's about what work is valued and how it's valued.
I think it is funny (inconsistent) how one Jew-hating crowd is cool in their eyes, while another Jew-hating crowd is totally unacceptable.
> You should be legally required to do business with any customer?

No you shouldn't be. But this should also be treated fairly.

Communications Decency Act of 1996, Section 230 allowed platforms to not be held liable for user generated content. But it did not allow publishers to have the same freedom.

Notice the very important distinction between "platforms" vs "publishers".

A publisher like a newspaper can be sued for content they put out. A platform cannot be sued for the same. When companies like CloudFlare start banning people for political reasons, they are stepping into the "publishers" market and should be stripped off of the protections from the CDA Section 230. We should be allowed to sue them for content they carry.

Right now, they are enjoying the benefits of both - platform and publisher.
Hah. I had to re-read your post + delete my original reply rejecting that.

You got me. ;) I guess I am not as absolutionist as I thought.
> You should be legally required to do business with any customer?

Ceteris Paribus? Yes, absolutely, this should be a foundational rule of society. And here, Ceteris Paribus means paying your hosting bills on time and obeying the law.
By treating it fairly.

Communications Decency Act of 1996, Section 230 allowed platforms to not be held liable for user generated content. But it did not allow publishers to have the same freedom.

Notice the very important distinction between "platforms" vs "publishers".

A publisher like a newspaper can be sued for content they put out. A platform cannot be sued for the same. When companies like CloudFlare start banning people for political reasons, they are stepping into the "publishers" market and should be stripped off of the protections from the CDA Section 230. We should be allowed to sue them for content they carry.

Right now, they are enjoying the benefits of both - platform and publisher.
I think you shouldn't be able to start a panic without cause[.] I think threats are a crime.

Does that extend to US presidential candidates? The Democrats and Republicans both have quite a history of that. (And I am certain that if I bothered I could dig up hundreds of other examples)

Free speech curtailment never works out well no matter the motivations. It is just another control used by the powerful to advance their own interests.

Yes Cloudflare has the right as a private company to do what they want etc, etc. The argument is not narrowly about staying within legal bounds, but what _ought_ to be.

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=902894...
> Daily stormer (economic extremes) and 8chan (public safety extremes).

Both actually share a large cross section of users. The Daily Stormer was named after storm troopers. It is a cesspool of white supremacists. The same problem that 8chan's userbase has. I expect we'll see a continued deplatforming of sites which allow that ideology to fester.
That is like saying a grocery store that prohibits customers without shirts and shoes is the same thing as the forced famines of communist regimes: they are both starving people.
I'm not a fan of 8chan, but if the person posted his manifesto to Hacker News, would hacker news have been shut down?
Good. Next step: CAs should revoke and stop issuing certificates for these sites.
> I think this signals we have an over dependence on cloudflare, not that we have a free speech problem.

I agree. I dislike the idea of large systems. Being able to throw their weight around is a symptom of the problem.
That's not a slippery slope, though. That's Reddit banning subs for two different reasons. I'd they banned subs for hateful content then changed the definition of "hateful content" to include things advertisers object to then it would be. But if they're publicly stating that they're doing it because of advertisers then it's not really related.
I see.

So I agree, but the value delivered should be measured by the amount of money that the user is willing to pay you. If the user does not pay, than , to me, it say that the value is 0.

I fail to see how an Junk MVP will do that. I wonder if as part of you blog journey, you can ask for money from your first users and log their response.
Trolling. Don't feed the trolls.
> one lousy blog post

I keep hearing that guy's voice - the one with the animated fake hand-written white boards that seems to sell everything online from stock tips to home business deals to manly man ways to be a man - when I read phrases like this. It immediately means "prepare to be sucked in."

"I got rich by writing one simple advertisement. AND SO CAN YOU!" followed by three hours of blah blah blah (no content) until you either give up, or pay up out of desperation to finally get that so-called "tip".

And if it took 15 years to make that thou, I'd pass.
Looks like "the competitor" mentioned in the article is "BitMitigate": https://bitmitigate.com [1]

[1]: https://www.geekwire.com/2017/seattles-bitmitigate-now-prote...
Create and maintain "the Great American Message Board" the same way the government funds PBS. Sounds like a great idea to me.

Sad fact is, you can't expect any platform to do anything, assuming that it's not illegal for them to do and cost of doing it is less than the cost of not doing it.

If you're a platform, and your people say we'll lose 100 million if we do thing X or we'll lost 20 million if we do thing Y, the correct choice is do thing Y. You're still losing, but you're losing less.

Welcome to capitalism in the internet outrage era. Burning Nikes and demanding that Chik-fil-a not open on your campus are the decisions megacorps PR departments have to deal with. They don't care about you, singular human, and your views. They care about the net effect on their bottom line.
The river does not have a mind, so any decisions on what actions to take in the name of the river are actually conducted by a person/organisation. In that case it is the person/organisation that becomes responsible. So the river is just a pointer deference to another entity. Just like a corporation is a pointer deference to the shareholders.
I think unpopular opinions from life experiences are what gravitates people to whatever categorization and or label is placed upon them.

Btw, the only reason I feel the needs to share my thoughts is because I have an unpopular opinion myself. Assisted death should become available for people that desire it. There are some sites I view that have resources for people that are ending their life and these sites suffer denial of service attacks. They started using cloudflare recently.
>They are practically a utility.

How exactly does a person come to believe nonsense like this? The US government doesn't even argue that the internet itself is a utility. I know that net neutrality has been argued about extensively, but people seem to forget that neutrality lost.

Even trying to start a discussion from where you are standing is off to a bad start. You are ignoring reality from the get-go.
You posted this exact thing above, there was no need to copy/paste it a second time.
I'm definitely not on the "approved" line, but that's not what I'm talking about though.

Politics have little to do with it. Any base ideology can be extrapolated to a violent end and the signs are all the same. Recognizing those signs is where attention should be placed. Unfortunately the media and general consensus will be on political hysteria and surface outrage instead of investigating the root causes.
I feel like if America has a mental illness problem, surely it would be addressed by providing more mental health services perhaps cough universally to the populace somehow. But, it's all rhetoric. If claims there was a mental illness problem were in good faith, we'd see American action on mental health.
Go open an ice-cream shop and refuse to serve Asian people because you dont like them.
Turkey requires broadcast licenses for online media providers
I had my own experience of this - I narrowly missed a flight from Marseille and went to the ticket counter to change my flight to the next day. The woman at the counter checked my ticket and happily told me no she can't change it I will have to buy another. I told her that it was a marine fare and could be changed. She didn't look so happy then and said your travel agent needs to do it. Which they did.
What kind of sound does a Turing machine make?
meh still it seems extremely trivial for pretty much any well funded startup to do... and extremely surprising that it does not exist. i mean if theranos can exist, why the hell is this problem not solved?
Agreed.

In other languages a part of me always feels like if I'm using regex I'm doing something wrong, because I used it so liberally in Perl. It feels like a Perl-ism so I try to make a conscious effort not to carry those over as they tend to be the source of inefficiencies.
not trolling.

I am pissed off.
Can you cite evidence for this? My understanding is that deaths due to mass shootings hasn't really changed since the 70s, but rather the media coverage has expanded.
That is exactly it. Once they have expressed a private moral judgement about what they consider acceptable they have opened themselves up to being accountable for all the other content they do allow.
My only concern here is that they're giving less than a day's notice, which is really uncalled for, and shows a certain lack of professionalism.

(Their service terms https://www.cloudflare.com/terms/ allow them to do this, but that doesn't make it a smart idea.)
Best Portable Audio Players Under $1000 – Hifigo
Right, and they see their weapons as insurance against being the victims of a socialist famine like the ones that killed 100 million people last century.

If you want to viscerally understand their viewpoint, call to mind the reaction that you have when someone in the conservative camp goes "Look, it's snowing, so much for global warming!" -- and then substitute "snowing" for "school shooting" and "global warming" for "politically-induced mass starvation."

I don't buy this argument, but only because I don't think armed resistance would be effective, and there's a lot that I know I don't know on that front. What I don't believe is that this tradeoff has an obvious undebatable answer.
To continue this analogy. When I go to a restaurant and order a steak I don't get told by the waiter that I should really be eating vegan gluten free instead.

What really bothers me the most about modern "news" is that a lot of it is really just biased political commentary and editorials masquerading as news.
those loans are made as much on the relationship with, and past performance of, the PE firm, as it is on the fundamentals of the turnaround plan.
Spoken like someone with little knowledge of what it takes to get a medical device approved by the FDA.

As an FYI, you can’t “move fast and break things” when it comes to medical devices.
Taking orders from gay people and hosting services for sites which support far-right terrorism aren't exactly the same though. We can be against suppressing gay people and for suppressing far-right terrorism even if the means by which the suppression happens is similar.
A man, spreading a false rumor about a restaurant called "Meat", told people on Twitter to burn down that restaurant. He thought his restaurant was responsible for removing a graffiti mural on a building across the street.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/02/nyregion/crown-heights-ri...

> “If that mural goes down, the restaurant gonna go down next,” read one comment on Ms. Price’s post [ on twitter ] , accompanied by flame emojis.

> turns out that about 10 days before the meeting, Apolinar Severino, the owner of the building housing the mural, had told Mr. Caldwell that he claimed full responsibility for attempting to paint over the image of Mr. Price. Mr. Severino had been advised by a real estate agent to whitewash the entire wall while trying to refinance his mortgage on the property, he said.

It turns out the owner of the building was responsible for painting over part of the graffiti and not the restaurant across the street.

I reported the tweet that called for burning the restaurant across the street down to Twitter, and Twitter did remove that tweet, but didn't ban the user.

There's a better article covering the story with links to the false rumors being spread on Twitter -- many with threats -- in the Brooklyn eagle https://brooklyneagle.com/articles/2019/07/25/sean-price-mur...

Maybe I'll go to Twitter's hosting providers and Cloudflare to get all of twitter removed, or at least made a lot slower.
That’s always the way. Censorship/moderation isn’t given a second thought when it’s just sex-related.
As I said the point of the river, is longevity and therefore just as a corporation optimizes for corporate profit a corporation representing the river optimizes for the river's longevity. I don't see how much difference there is between any corporation representing the profit motive of shareholders vs. a corporation representing the environmental motive of a natural resource. They are both simply ideas personified.

Currently people simply plunder natural resources where their longevity is an after thought and not really incorporated into the profiteering of their consumption. This has to change.
It definitely can in many. Just because it doesn't work every time doesn't mean it isn't worth doing.
> I am pissed off.

Perhaps you should calm down a bit before posting.
If the media published that the FBI was highly effective and stopped a terrorist before they could do anything useful? Why is that inspiring?
Someone Is Suing Companies for Using SMS Messages in 2019