skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
My main issue with discussions on topics like this is a sort of fundamentalism. It's very easy to take a particular right (e.g., speech, property) and defend it absolutely. But rights are inherently social, and must be balanced against other people's rights.

For example, I don't think my freedom of speech should trump Cloudflare's or Voxility's right to freedom of association. They should generally be able to decide who to do business with. However, that freedom also isn't absolute; it was used for decades as part of race and gender discrimination, which impinges upon other people's freedoms. Thus the US theory of protected classes. [1]

Or to pick another example, employers should generally be able to hire who they want. But that has been used for religious discrimination, so we protect those people. However, that also isn't absolute; if for religious reasons I won't handle pig products, I'm not entitled to a job at a pork BBQ restaurant. To get reasonable outcomes, we need to welcome nuance and compromise.

I encourage everybody to be suspicious of anybody who thinks there's a single clear answer in situations like this. Fundamentalist positions are both appealing and dangerous.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group
>I saw many posts subscribing to the general theory that racial violence has been accepted throughout most of human history

My knowledge of human history mostly validates this theory.
op isn't making an economical prediction but a political one
That’s probably the most widely mocked thing a justice has ever said -- it's even mentioned in your source -- so it's probably not the best argument to put forward.
It is linked there: literally the two first words of the article, "A memo", link to this URL.
Control your asset optimization settings
Do you have undiagnosed food allergies/sensitivities? Food shouldn't make you feel like crap.
Good stalling tactic, but this really just inconveniences (i.e. makes mad) a bunch of extreme individuals who will undoubtably rally through other means almost immediately.

We really need to start talking to people before they act and not shutdown their communications after the fact.

Where are the extremists now? They used to be on 8chan... now they're... ?
Cash, or gold would seem to be the answer but this is not the case. Invest a larger portion in bonds. Historically stocks and bonds are negatively correlated, and if stocks go down bonds go up, but at the same time both grow over time
I agree that A) the technology is not there, and B) it would require a lot of capital. I still think it's the most realistic approach to passenger rail utilization in most of the U.S. It will take decades to build out high coverage passenger rail in the U.S. That's a lot of time for technology to mature and for capital to be deployed.
What do you mean? Literally, the very first 2 words in the article, "A memo", is a link to an article with all 6 pages of the document in question.
Yes, I have been in situations where I've reported harassing behavior to HR, directed at both myself and between other people, and gotten a positive outcome.
When did China originally start disrespecting intellectual property? Or is it the case that they've never respected it? Do you know of a good resource to learn about the history of this topic?
At current interest rates, 3% is nearly a year of interest gone.
I have watched these videos and they are really facinating. I wish there was more stuff like this and less vague clickbait titles.
> It was used to justify, depending on the period and country, not allowing people to vote on the basis that they didn't have enough revenue, didn't own enough land, couldn't read and write well enough, etc.

Democracy was basically conceived of as a pen-and-paper version of blockchain, where the goal was to create a balance between private property rights and the redistribution of wealth. Allowing people without proof-of-stake to vote wouldn't have made any sense in the beginning given that no one had any idea how the system would work. Keep in mind that the government was basically distributing free property to people as fast as possible so that more people could vote, and only stopped doing that once the country ran out of land.

Even today, most people wouldn't want to live in a system where millions of people could just show up for vacation for a couple days, vote to give themselves ownership of all the country's assets, and then leave.
> Why is that a remotely controversial statement?

Because Cloudflare used to say that they would never take anyone down, and now they have. I think it's valid to wonder if they'll be more willing to take down other content, and perhaps become a target by groups looking to restrict the spread of certain information now that they've shown that this is something they're willing to do. This also brings up the point of why Cloudflare thought this specific website was worth taking down, and not the other horrible things that they do support.
"virtually locked out of the internet"?

How so? They're welcome to come here anytime.
There are many ways[1] to radio for help already. It's unreasonable and irresponsible to get into that situation with only a cell phone.

[1]: https://www.rei.com/c/emergency-electronics
Part of the problem is that historically intolerance has been defined as "opposition to openness" and indeed historically most human societies were too closed.

Any hope of easy classification crumbles when you consider that a society can be too open (there are actual group that want to include age as a form of protected self expression, with significant consequences on the legality of various actions).

At this point is it being intolerant if you do not tolerate treating a 30 years old person as 8 years old in matters of law?
Free speech came about in the United States at a time of an unstable and uneducated society, who hardly were able to fully parse the implications, etc.
I remember mentioning in a thread here a while back that I so enjoyed flicking through your/Carols' book online that I wished I was learning Rust, though I was unlikely for practical reasons to do so. Well now I am, and that exposure via a pleasurable read was what seeded the idea.

It's true it's not a terse breakneck intro for advanced programmers. But as an experienced developer, I'm enjoying it no less for that. In any field I've been involved in, I've always enjoyed revisiting fundamentals, and in the context of learning a new (and let's be honest, not very easy or familiar) programming language this seems even more appropriate.

Perhaps if I were learning Rust for work I'd want something more distilled to get me started. Even there I'm sure I'd read TRPL at some point. But right now I'm finding it an enjoyable way to get underway for my own interest.
Yeah the EU roaming thing is a godsend. The UK contracts in particular are great cause you get ones that extend data to a handful of other interesting countries beyond EU for another couple bucks

https://www.vodafone.co.uk/cs/groups/public/documents/webcon...
> On the other hand, he would certainly have been opposed to Antifa which, though ostensibly fighting against intolerance, have once again appointed themselves judge, jury, and executioner and have 0 interest in debate or discussion or their views.

With all due respect, "Antifa" in their use of the word is almost completely a straw man created by the extreme right to justify their insane and violent behavior. A couple people throwing milkshakes at intolerant political extremists in Portland doesn't equivocate to me with a group of people that are using stochastic terrorism tactics to murder hundreds of people. I sincerely doubt he would have made a both sides argument here with a weak resistance movement that hasn't even killed a single person yet. They're so nonviolent in comparison that the alt right has to create false information about their tactics (for example the "fast drying concrete in the milkshakes" lie that was completely false).
To TallGuyShort, since I can't reply to you: Bartenders can be held criminally responsible if they continue to serve somebody who is obviously intoxicated, and who then goes out and kills somebody in a drunk driving crash. If bars continue to have problems over serving they can lose their liquor license. That's the analogue here. 8chan is the bar that's over-serving.
> If you are travelling in the USA as long as you stick to the interstate system you pretty much get mobile data the entire way. IF you drift onto smaller highways then that is when things get very spotty outside of metropolitan areas.

This really depends on who you are using. When traveling between NorCal and SoCal, Sprint is basically garbage and Tmobile works decently for most of the trip.
Painfully, painfully stupid comments here. If someone says X, and then goes on a rampage, that does not discredit X. Yes, the media wants you to believe that, unless it's Unabomber-style ramblings involved.

Is it that hard to understand?
The problem with that argument is that there's no such thing as a "public square" on the internet. Everything on the internet is controlled by a private company in some manner or another. Whether you're talking about DNS, cloud hosting, ISPs, CDNs, or CAs there are always going to be some number of privately controlled intermediaries with the means to censor your speech.

For some of these entities, such as CDNs with enough infrastructure to stand up against large-scale DDOS attacks, there may only be a small number of viable options. What happens if all of those companies collectively decide to censor someone? You've effectively created a corporate oligarchy with the power to decide what sort of speech is and isn't allowed on the internet.

Now again, maybe we're not quite at that point yet (after all, the Daily Stormer did eventually find a CDN that would take them), but we may very well be getting close. You also have to consider that even without a true oligopoly; there's still a chilling effect created when a large percentage of the internet's major infrastructure providers collectively decide to censor certain speech on the basis of ideology.

At what point do you believe freedom of speech outweighs freedom of association? We've already decided freedom from racial discrimination trumps freedom of association, so it's not like this sort of thing would be entirely without precedent.
> some minimum level of education

What a bunch of horse crap. Being told what to think, what to buy, who to vote for, how to feel.

If you claim to believe in a liberal democracy but want "education" or limited-speech then you don't have must faith in the system.

Democracy has been broken since the rise of technology and mass media. If you control the narrative, you control the people, and the power. The outrage over a shooting and some mean speech is ridiculous compared to the big corporation killing people with opiates or junk food. People have gone soft. It why Aristotle thought democracy was a bad system of government.

I don't agree with most hate speech you would see on these forums, but I enjoy seeing it because its an indicator that we haven't become completely neutered by large corporation yet, which is happening.
I hadn't thought of it that way and its an interesting point but in terms of racism I think its only something people think about the Chinese government. I don't think anyone attributes the same characteristic to American born Chinese.
Thanks for reading the Shasqi paper and for the detailed comment!

It seems if I can paraphrase your argument that it boils down to: "Just because your drug works in a mouse doesn't mean it will work in a human. So even if it works in a mouse there is still a lot of technical and scientific risk left."

I certainly agree with that. But I don't think it's incompatible with what I wrote in the blog post. The way the economics of the pharmaceutical industry work, it is still worth taking drugs into human trials even if the chances of them working are small.
The company was owned by a single founder, the board was an advisory board with no real teeth, advisory board made up of good ole boys. The company folded early last year due directly to her management decisions, preceded by 3 other execs leaving, they all cited her decisions in their resignations. Sad because the product was coming along nicely, product market fit, positive feedback from customers, etc. I think the owner was just old and burnt out combined with a bit of "control all of a little rather than a little of a lot" syndrome.
Here is one for Ruby: https://rubular.com/
I never said any of these things. I merely mourned that this community happily applauds the burning of the internet.
In my experience, it is not unusual at that company for an interviewer to have poor knowledge of the technical subject matter they are asking you about, and to be unaware of this fact. Amazon has some extremely bright engineers but, unlike some of the other tech companies, there quite apparently doesn't seem to be a quality floor either and you can be unlucky in an interview.
one could argue that the stock market of today is vastly different beast from that of 1870, or even comparing to 1970.
what if the "unprompted on someone else" is wrong?
If a bad outcome of a single employee can "bankrupt your plan", I think the company should stop with the euphemism of they are "self-insured" and admit to the reality that they have no insurance. The entire purpose of insurance is to spread risk to a level that it becomes acceptable if there is 1 negative outcome, which obviously wasn't the case here.

As an aside, just another example of how our f'd up healthcare system causes all these additional negative follow on effects.
I think you are trying to turn the above argument on it's head, but honestly I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

"The free speech of muslims"? It's almost as if you think 9/11 was caused by a domestic terrorist. You do realize the hijackers were mostly from Saudi Arabia right? And there is no free speech there? So... what are you trying to imply? Please use more clear language instead of just trying to meme.
Thanks for confirming this feature. I mean, if someone's name stands out in a nice bright orange color, I might feel just a bit trigger happy to upvote it. Unless you're just completely ignoring votes by other YC alum altogether, I can't see the ring detector being able to discern from authenticity vs bias towards liking orange colored names. Even just a few upvotes can give someone an advantage.
I think this is shaky ground. Plenty of people think LGBT "choose" their sexuality (though I do not). White supremacists, religious people etc think their beliefs reflect objective reality, which is clearly not something they can choose.
I think making "you chose this" a valid reason to censor/attack/etc. something opens the door to some pretty dangerous things, since it's not difficult to accuse things of being a choice that aren't.
And I've heard from amazon employees that the options vesting period is weighted toward your second and third year, and few people get enough options to keep their income up (or at least going up) after that. So a lot of people tough out their third year and then walk away from the rest. There's only so much cumulative bullshit people are willing to take and if your income/bullshit ratio is going down, you won't last long.
It's a very cool format, for sure.
If you're terminated 'for cause', they are supposedly enforceable without pay in New York. Then you have to argue that their 'cause' was invalid, which takes time and lawyers.
This is an answer to every single tricky political problem. If people resort to something those in power don't like - then they didn't provide good enough conditions for people to be happy and not do that.
I think that is what just happened...
Msnbc systemically reports wrong poll numbers in their graphs
> Those motivated by animus towards a minority group do generally target areas frequented by members of that group, like in the Texas shooting where the gunman targeted a Walmart in a largely Hispanic community. As a non-Hispanic white person (who lives in the US), that does put me at less risk of being a victim of that type of shooting. Also, to the extent that terrorism’s impact is emotional rather than purely rational, I’m less impacted simply because I don’t feel targeted in the same way.

Isn't this usually where hate crimes come into the picture?
That's an incremental rather than a one-time process. Conventional wisdom on 8ch was that it takes about 2 years.
mass violent behavior has been around for a long time

e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Running_amok
Libraries are fighting to preserve your right to borrow e-books
Incentives drive behaviors, this is true everywhere. If the fines are less than the benefits X odds of getting caught then the behaviors will continue. In this case they should have been forced to restore wetlands in place or forfeit the land. This minor fine is just the cost of doing business
Of course you are misunderstanding the parent.

But to go with your interpretation: If you ask the victims of the Arab spring[1], fb is no better than 8chan. Also YouTube did a bad job in containing Islamic state propaganda early on [2].

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media_and_the_Arab_Sp...

[2] https://www.hsdl.org/c/what-does-isis-post-on-youtube/
I agree with you. Those sites were closer to home and less alien to Americans, and thus might get more scrutiny and judgement. That's got to be a factor. But I've got to think avoiding bad publicity and negative headlines is the #1 factor behind any inconsistencies in their reaction. The news cycle can be a powerful force for companies concerned about how they're perceived by their investors.
https://www.google.com/search?&q=site%3Anews.ycombinator.com...
Not true at all, both nations have the following:

- Orwellian social credit systems

- Content censorship "great firewall"

- Widespread imprisonment of minorities

- Concentration camps for especially undesirable minorities

In some ways each nation is better, and in some ways worse. But the important point is that both are using the same playbook to determine their domestic policies.

China had previously been "worse" for its own trade protectionism, but Trump decided to increase the US use of trade protectionism (a handout to exporters at the expense of importers and consumers as a whole).

To get a sense of the magnitude of the similarity between the two nations, consider the constant stream of stories in the US media about Chinese human rights abuses, etc., while the conditions in US prisons is largely ignored.

The US has absolutely no moral high ground over China, and it must be very amusing to Chinese people to observe the level of indignation that Americans feel about Chinese practices.
Data is also available from the Federal Reserve

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/T10Y2Y
Yeah I checked the source out: https://www.speedtest.net/global-index

And the UK is 50th... I feel it should be higher than Germany.
It's the exact same thing that was said about Japan during its boom phase in fact. It was universally proclaimed that Japan was different because they had a very long time horizon and the West was short-term obsessed. It obviously plays into the eastern mysticism you reference. It's why Masayoshi Son has any credibility when he talks about having a 300 year plan for the Internet.

Back in reality, you can find countless examples of China behaving with rather absurd short-term obsession and making foolish mistakes due to that short-term thinking. They're doing it right now with Hong Kong. Or for example, in the way they've been willing to become the most leveraged nation in world history at record speed merely in order to buy a few more minutes of faster short-term 'growth' before they have to accept slower real growth in the system. That's long-term destruction in exchange for a short-term prop-up, something that is counter to the fantasy projection about China's long-term magical behavior. It also happens to be exactly what Japan did, exchanging long-term damage (resulting in long-term stagnation as the extreme debt robbed their economy of all of its dynamism) for a short-term propping up of the economy.
The idea that China will ascend without having to change seems silly to me too. Either the great firewall will come down or the country will stagnate. Economics and sociology doesn't change simply because the government says it does. China is either due for a massive correction or another civil war. People will only take being oppressed for so long and generally they stop taking crap from their government when things are getting better not worse. How things shake out in Hong Kong are going to echo through China.
Thanks for the list, but are they all the same? Why go to one over the other?
Do they? A key aspect of religion is believing that your beliefs reflect objective reality, e.g. there really is a God that did all this stuff, there really were prophets that performed these specific miracles and said these specific things etcetera.
Saying that believing in what you think is objective reality is a choice gives off some strong 1984 vibes.
The web is the new public square. Without access to hosting, there would be a de-facto 1st amendment violation, even if the courts would refuse to recognize that for what it is.

Perhaps you could argue humans aren't built for internet communications and so free speech doesn't apply to the internet. But Supreme Court precedent disagrees. You could make a similar case that free speech doesn't apply to anonymous speech, which would have meant all the anonymous pamphleteers during the American Revolution would have had more difficulty propagating their (violent, revolutionary) ideas.

I don't think hosting is a problem for 8chan, though. They can probably find some hosting service that would in theory respect their free speech, in the absence of a court order. However, the second they go online again without cloudflare's protection, they will quickly get attacked and the hoster will have to shut it down.

Which means we now have, effectively, mob-enforced denial of free speech.

Cloudflare is the great equalizer. But when Matthew Prince wakes up on the wrong side of the bed and decides to nuke one out of many, many objectionable sites because he can't or doesn't want to take the political heat of proxying for some site where users talk trash or post manifestos about violent acts (which are hardly ever acted upon), cloudflare's protection can vanish. Then you have to shut up, because if you don't you're vulnerable to attack by the digital mob.
Yeah, I agree. Up until the internet, getting information out there required resources and/or a platform to speak from, be it the pulpit, a newspaper, etc. If you had something to say, you had to go through such great effort to say it.

What do we even do, besides sit and watch? I've totally shifted the way I browse the web to reduce my exposure to toxic information, and I think that the whole corporate banning of Alex Jones was a net positive, but what happens when a voice I agree with gets shunned in the same way?

What a messy problem
So now is the time to buy buy buy?
Reffo.us is pretty cool, curious why you stopped (or is it still going?)
Obviously the only relevant opinion is that of a judge, but... nope.

I would say 'Let's kill <ethnicity>' as a standalone statement is illegal in every western country.
Ask HN: Who Do You Bank With?
With all the discussion around banks with bad security practices lately, I was wondering what bank the (US) HN crowd prefers?

2FA is a must, but things like an actually usable API and some more tech-oriented features would be great.
Yep. Use it for last couple of years. Got one for home too.

Nice feel and ergonomic. Proper arrow keys.

I don't like the little Esc key though. Also the Home/End/Pgup/Pgdon key layout take some getting used to.