skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
By definition, paying off a mortgage reduces liquidity. As a store of value, real estate is less liquid than cash, and many other types of assets. There is no way that exchanging a more liquid asset for a less liquid asset (giving up cash to gain equity in a home) improves one's ability to "move when you need to".

Also, there is no reason to assume home values in general protect against inflation better than savings accounts or other "safe" investments".
The definition of a tariff?
https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#dat...:

”(v) Account Sign-In: If your app doesn’t include significant account-based features, let people use it without a log-in.”
I've experienced them all and across all various parts of the country. If you want to know what phone plan to get, just ask a trucker.
There at least used to be in the U. S. (Haven't worked in that space in ten years, and haven't kept up.) Worked on a 2FA system just as such a law was going into place (too lazy to look it up; call me on it, and I'll take the five minutes.) Woo hoo, do I want to go Ferrari or Lambo? Banks are going to have to use something, and ours is hardware-free and works on any browser.

"Wait a minute...what? Match-the-picture and security questions are going to count as '2FA'?! Are you fucking kidding me?"

I still work for a living, and drive something Japanese, not Italian. I have no idea what current status is in the U. S.
That's entirely possible too, but the problem (for index fund shareholders) is identical if the securities involved are "private preferred stock" rather than "tokens on the Ethereum blockchain". They're still growth opportunities outside the indexed universe that siphon from value opportunities inside the indexed universe, which the index fund can only legally purchase once much of the growth has already occurred.
The difference between Sweden and Germany in terms of RF spectrum license auctions has typically been:

Sweden goes for "beauty auctions" - a balance between coverage and government revenue.

Germany goes for government revenue alone.
Faster algorithm could lead to more realistic sounds in VR
Google Discontinues Hangouts on Air
Many future radical islamists get into contact with radical islam through Google. They are a terrorist recuriotment site. Shut them doen.
I would, as long as the companies fulfill their contracts. And I would also support anybody who in turn would not want to deal with these companies. Which is the check and balances why these companies are not doing that.
Don't know where you grew up but for some this will have definitely increased the temperature over the years - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island
> removing and restricting rights for every person DOES NOT STOP THIS BEHAVIOR.

DUI laws don't stop DUI related accidents, but having and enforcing DUI laws decrease DUI related accidents. And while you can't prevent anything 100% of the time, you can actively work toward reducing the chances of something bad happening.
Is this confounded or bound up with things like fake news or bad science -- would I, if I owned a platform – call it π-Chan –be prohibited from banning users who espoused anti-vax ideas because I firmly believed they put society at risk (or whatever the justification may be)?

I would, on the one hand, be strongly supported by science, but on the other intolerant of others' who have differing points of view. Would I be allowed to run my platform the way I wanted? Whose rights would prevail in that case?
"/u/dvt" does have the advantage of being readily understood by most HN readers (probably).
You'd be interested in alternative voting systems, for example direct democracy or liquid democracy, proportional representation, ....
It is an unpopular opinion because claiming this:

> but bad things will happen if people are to be free.

is how most genocide got started.
It meters high only when tested.
How about private equity? It's not something that makes mainstream news often, but it's a bubble that many are expecting to burst. It's a massive market that relies on heavily leveraged borrowing and is tightly integrated with the well being of the economy. Just like the mortgage market of 2007.
Realize that the person in question is the company's employee, not the manager's employee. Far too many managers see their position as some kind of feudal lord where those beneath them on the hierarchy owe personal allegiance to them. If the manager doesn't like the person, that's quite possibly the fault of the manager, not the person. The manager shouldn't automatically be the one who stays if no working relationship with the person in question is possible.
You started the concept of AMAs? I'd love to know that story.
Curated List of Free Online Programming and Computer Science Courses
First they came for the ragh'ds, but that was ok cuz I didn't like em and who wears a carpet anyway. Then..
So refusing to provide service is "intolerant"? Does this only works on "protected groups", or does it work in general? How about the baker is willing to provide service to the gay couple, but just not the gay wedding? Now, please elaborate how you define "intolerant".
As with a regular satellite launch, the customer usually buys their own insurance? SpaceX would be on the hook for the launch costs though.
Not really relevant, though. If a private platform becomes a systemically important entity that can effectively shut down legitimate public discourse, that is a very dangerous situation. Once a platform is big enough, it essentially becomes government-like in it's ability to surpress speech, and the same rules should apply to it.
It’s not clearly legal and Cloudflare is under no requirement to provide its service to everyone that wants it.
Agreed. I've also learned the hard way that a heavy boot kicks through a door and windows are made of this easy to break material. Given access and time/privacy, there aren't many things that are secure from people that want inside.
Oh wow, just read the first bit, intriguing. Thanks for posting!
Honestly, I'd rather have a platform I can monitor for threats than ban them and be left in the dark. :)

The more we censor, the less we know, the farther from the enemy we are.

You have to understand, we don't live in a go lucky happy world, thousands to millions of people die every day. Livestream vs Youtube.

The more statistics we can get before a threat occurs, the better. I really don't understand why "normal web" doesn't grasp this concept.
Isn't that forum huge legal liability for the company if employees start suing each other?
If I'm not mistaken, the company supplying the payload usually has to insure the payload, and depending on the launch companies track record (and therefore risk) they get better/worse conditions. Of course the insurance company will then try to get their money from the launch company in the case of failure.
Radicalization happens through words. You can ban radicalization by banning words.

That won't completely get rid of it, but it can make it a lot less accessible, which reduces the amount of radicalization that occurs. I don't think people start out with the intent to get radicalized. They stumble upon a place like /pol/ and see that it's interesting and so they stick around and gradually get convinced. It's much harder to stumble upon a Tor hidden service or a private chatroom than a publicly accessible webpage.

China's great firewall is not terribly hard to get around, but it's very effective regardless. Inconvenience is powerful.
The baker case is very very specific, because it came down to the question: Is the cake art? If it is, and your business is to make are, can you be compelled to make art against your beliefs? If I recall, the bake got rid of all custom cakes and got in further trouble for refusing to tell cupcakes to homosexual couples.

But going back to the above post: at one time homosexuality was considered this abhorred plague, just has bad as modern day Neo-Nazism and white supremacy. So who decides what is and isn't acceptable speech?

When you start closing down those roads, you easily squeeze out any descent or ability to form new moral ideas.

In the case of 8chan, you're spreading these people to even more constrained services that amplify their view. You don't get less hate; you just bury it underground and give them they feeling like they're being persecuted. It will make the situation worse, not better.
I was thinking Launch number.
Abject =~ despicable
Are you aware of https://freenet-funk.de/ ?
That's basically one GB per day for 99ct, no contract, only available per app, though no roaming, and no tethering, only for mobile devices, and using Telefonica/O². They got some bad press recently for kicking some users which overused it, and accusations of retroactively changing their terms of use.
https://www.golem.de/news/funk-unlimited-freenet-kuendigt-ku...
https://www.computerbase.de/2019-07/freenet-funk-datenverbra...
https://www.computerbase.de/2019-07/freenet-funk-datenverbra...
Anyways, maybe it fits your use case?
So, you’re saying that everyone should be happy because you’re ok?
What do people mean when they say, "truth has a liberal bias"? I don't understand this.

Edit: My intent is not to be facetious. I don't understand what this phrase means.
People keep saying this, but so far the only one I've seen mentioned is BofA when you have $100k on deposit, and even that one I haven't seen linked.

Similar rewards, sure. Citi's Double Cash matches this everywhere except an Apple Store. Better? I'm sure you're right, but I'd like to see links to offers with better rewards. Please.
The same story from a smaller company would be just as appalling.

You should rejoice that Google is big enough that we take notice of this behavior and can then discuss of the issue as a society.

To dismiss this issue because it happened at a big company would be a mistake.
Most people understand that fine. It's about freedom of speech as a social principle and value, not strictly a matter of law.

It's granted that people are within their rights to throw out speech they dislike and that there's a world of difference between severing a voluntary business relationship and the deployment of state force, but the implications of an anxious, PR-sensitive set of internet infrastructure providers is certainly fair game for discussion.

If we get into the habit of shutting down every site that attracts a spate of negative attention, it still has the aggregate effect of chilling free discourse. If a shooter came onto HN and posted a manifesto here, would it withstand the mainstream media onslaught?
Locks are often fairly weak against real attackers.

I enjoyed this youtube video of another smart (fingerprint?) lock being broken due to a digital reset. It has a plastic panel on the front where the fingerprint reader is. If you remove the panel with a razor blade (it's just attached with glue), it even has a reset button exposed which resets the fingerprint. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVvEkcN5tW8
There is a political component, but I would say that the real problem is social. American society is broken in some fundamental way. If I had to put a guess at a root cause, I would say that too many Americans do not see "the other" as human beings. (While the right may be more likely to resort to guns, "othering" also happens on the left.)
As a fun mental exercise, I've been wondering if the Death note could've been used to solve difficult computational problems. As far as I know, the following abides by Death Note rules, in particular we know that the Death Note is able to "manipulate" luck. Assume Bob Robert is an amateur mathematician, so this is something he would reasonably do and guess.

"Bob Robert. Writes down a number X>=82,589,933 where 2^X-1 is a prime number as his guess of the next largest known prime number, and it is indeed correct. Then dies of a heart attack."
Flutter Development 003
Shares frequently crash in conjunction with economic pullbacks, which mean lower revenue/earnings for companies, which means less spending by those companies, which means lower revenue/earnings for other companies, and layoffs, which means lower earnings for workers, which means less spending, etc etc.
People keep saying this, but not providing links. Where exactly are the current offerings with which Apple Card is not competitive?
> And I would also support anybody who in turn would not want to deal with these companies.

That implies having feasible alternatives when there are none.

Also, it implies you are aware information being prefiltered for you. Even if Warren knew about it and talked about it, she would sound like a conspiracy nut.
There's evidence that deplatformining decreases extremists' reach and may curtail recruitment opportunities. It is an active area of research, but there is nothing to justify the position that "deplatforming rarely solves anything".

If we were to go the other direction, we can see how having a greater platform would be worse. E.g. if there were a blatantly neo-Nazi cable TV channel in everyone's home, we would expect many more people to end up watching neo-Nazi content and some of them to become radicalized. Propaganda requires a platform to be effective. It is thus not exactly surprising that you can make propaganda less effective by eliminating the reach of the platform.

If racists like those on 8chan can be pushed into the deepest corners of the dark web, where you have to use Tor to get to them or whatever, that's a win. Lots of people aren't going to bother, and thus will never run across them, and never have the opportunity to be radicalized by their propaganda/content.
Congress is 535 people and is filled with relatively little expertise[1]. The United States has a population of 330M and is the largest and most advanced economy in the world. Of course Congress has to delegate to executive agencies. This is not abdication.

Abdication is letting lobbyists and "model legislation" outfits author the laws which legislators have been known to almost literally just rubber stamp.

[1] Just to pick on one representative, because I'm familiar with him, this guy has no college degree past an AA, and his career experience is running a restaurant and real estate development. I would hope he'd delegate running the country to someone more experienced than himself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Meadows_(North_Carolina_p...
Hey, if you want to know the definition of censorship, it is right here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

"Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient". Censorship can be conducted by a government,[5] private institutions, and corporations."

This is the wikipedia definition of censorship, so that makes your definition wrong.
If what 8Chan was doing was not legal, then perhaps they should have been shut down through an actual legal process, not an arbitrary decision by a cloud infrastructure provider.
Understood, and agreed.

Perhaps I misread though, I thought you were saying the verb 'want' is used in all cases, I was just saying my understanding is that it would be used when that was the verb in the question, but for 'do you go' similarly 'go' is used in the answer.
This seems to be the referenced analysis:

>https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/human-contribution-t...

The researchers came to their conclusion after running a multitude of climate simulations, however, this part concerns me:

>Models that did not represent heat waves well were withdrawn from the analysis.

Serious question: is climate science immune from the statistical abuses that have recently been shown to plague other empirical and/or model based disciplines?
Haha good point. Sometimes it feels so ironic I wonder if there's actually a handful of us talking to mostly bots who are indistinguishable from actual people.
We’re talking about a difference of less than 1 degree in 15 years. That probably doesn’t make AC a necessity.
Because the speed bump you are trying to erect only addresses the issue of people finding websites like 8chan, it does nothing to address the issue of why people stay on sites like 8chan as you described. Once they find the new site, they will be able to visit it again with ease. Furthermore, they will feel more victimized by society and point to their old sites being banned as evidence that society hates them; ergo, why they begin to hate society.
That isn't protected speech. Violence against specific people, and in some cases certain people groups (calls for direct violence) is not protected even in America. Saying you hope a whole group dies off or gets killed somehow is often protected though; or gets on gray lines. In most jurisdictions in the US, police will often move on credible threats of violence.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...

> The Supreme Court has held that "advocacy of the use of force" is unprotected when it is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and is "likely to incite or produce such action".[2][3] In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan group for "advocating ... violence ... as a means of accomplishing political reform" because their statements at a rally did not express an immediate, or imminent intent, to do violence.[4] This decision overruled Schenck v. United States (1919), which held that a "clear and present danger" could justify a law limiting speech. The primary distinction is that the latter test does not criminalize "mere advocacy".[5]
The two mistakes corroborated each other and the second was only possible to observe based on the refining characteristic intrinsic to the earlier mistake. Additionally the second wouldn't have necessarily invalidated the first six bits, though it would strengthen refinement along a different path.
Java Skills Checklist in 2019
A majority of the US population was tolerant of refusing service to N——--—— when it became illegal.

Put another way, it’s rare that the rights of minorities are established by majority vote, even if these rights are owed by the Constitution.
As a result, you'll get a constant stream of one-sided social justice campaigns which inevitably leak to the press.

Encouraging internal dialogue and communication but not understanding its limits at scale is one of the biggest mistakes Google has made.

It's not just scale in numbers of people. It's also scale in terms of the potential value which can be captured by viral campaigns and media attention. When a "scene" is out of the way and non-mainstream, there can be a high degree of trust. However, when the "scene" gets hot, and there's some serious money and power to be gained, the sociopaths and other bad actors start coming out of the woodwork.

https://meaningness.com/geeks-mops-sociopaths
Buying Bitcoin
Ultimately, value of a stock rests on the expectation of future earnings of the company.
This is somewhat related to a thought experiment of mine.

Suppose you had a means of transmitting information back in time - a one-node network that effectively could email to itself with a timestamp (in the past) being the message's "recipient."

Suppose such a thing existed in the world today. Assume the individuals in possession of such a thing were very intelligent, very careful and very guarded about its use.

Could you still detect that such a thing existed by observing real-world events - stock market changes, tech innovations, amazing coincidences and the like? What evidence would you look for?
Universe (YC W18) Is Hiring Engineers and Designers (Remote)
China is exactly where we end up if we start banning speech. If you think that's a good direction I rest my case.
Death Note is great...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5HT8HoiAHg

Death Note is based on the "keep your enemies close" that turns up a lot in Japanese Culture. For instance, more than once in Sailor Moon the bad guys wind up embedded with the good guys, and the same thing happens in Tales of Symphonia. Thus it is almost necessary for the plot for Light to move in with L.
I think the money comes from the same budget, and it's both cases infrastructure. At the end of the day you don't need that much expertise to allocate funds, it's more about politics.
I spent a couple hours the other night lying awake in bed dreaming of spending one year trying to help someone new every day. I was thinking it would be cool to dedicate each work day of the year to meeting someone new and offering my hours that day to help them in whatever way I could. The help could range from washing their car, running an errand, to picking up garbage on their street, to writing some code or spinning up a website for them.

I thought it would have a really nice dual effect of pushing me to get to know a bunch of people and also teach me something about serving and helping others.

Then I started thinking about how to leverage social media to pivot it into meeting more and more interesting/important people and monetizing it. Quickly realized that would undermine the original intent of the project and make it into something else entirely that I did not like.

I don’t understand the appeal of meeting 10,000 different people as that sounds like too much quantity and not enough quality time but to each his own.

It is super interesting to see someone else living out a version of an idea that at 2am sounded like a pretty original concept.
Superficially, it does sound quite reasonable. The problem is that the quote itself is a call for people to abandon rational debate and use violence, not just against targets who have themselves eschewed debate for violence but against "any movement preaching intolerance". Whilst his justification is that those movements might themselves eschew debate for violence, he very specifically does not restrict this to movements which have done so or even threatened to do so.

So for instance, Poppler's paradox is easily used to justify violent intolerance of anyone who opposes unchecked immigration. Not only are they preaching intolerance, but people with very similar-sounding views are actually violently attacking immigrants so it's easy to justify the claim that those ones might as well.
All good points but well.. this discussion appears to be about possible reasons people migrate to other languages. And I just can't see how addressing these (rather arbitrary) points would reverse it.

Some people just don't like CL much, despite solid foundation and steady progress with community projects. That's okay, we all have one or another language we are not very fond of.
There is high chance that most of those in these groups don't even believe in most of the stuff they say. To them its just entertainment. People participate only because its a throwaway identity that is noncommittal. These groups have no leadership or loyalty. I'm sure this is understood a majority of the time by participants. The problem is that one individual who memes way too hard or is absolutely serious about the things they say. Real life friends call you out on your bullshit, they try to reason with you when you are irrational. they stop you from driving when you're drunk. Your internet troll squad does everything opposite.
"My director/manager started making inappropriate comments about a member of my team, including that the Googler was likely pregnant again and was overly emotional and hard to work with when pregnant."

So she reported her female manager to HR for gossiping, which the manager can easily deny since words are different than actions. HR exists to protect the company. It's best to only go to HR when there is illegal conduct.

"HR is not like a playground teacher whose job it is to solve all problems and stop bullies from acting." https://www.cbsnews.com/news/when-your-hr-department-is-your...
If I remember correctly, it has to be something that the person was actually capable of, otherwise the person just dies.