skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The non-compete a startup I worked at had a far more reasonable one. It said I cannot go to work for any competitor in XYZ space or anyone that did substantially similar work pertaining to XYZ space such as but not limited to Company A, Company B and Company C. Everything else was fair game.
Back in my day, this type of thing would land you in juvenile detention. You wouldn't be released until you passed a psychiatric evaluation, which was no simple task.

Perhaps we need to return to the days of removing very clearly troubled people from circulation until they aren't a danger to others.
I think any downturn will have an over sized impact on startups due to the nature of that type of business and the requirements for ongoing investment. This time around there are also a lot of startups that exist mainly to provide services to other startups. I expect them to also do very badly in a downturn.
> Do you think any of the tech companies would treat their blue collar workers any better?

And?
But the "real money base" will expand on demand if the banks need it. It's not a limiting factor! The loan happens first. The base money is created (if needed) after the fact. It's not as if base money is pushed out there and then the base money is used to create loans. Loans pull base money into being.
Back in the 90's I think ours was the popular opinion. It's gross to see it fade so fast.

I get companies taking a stand for who they accept as a customer. It makes me feel really icky when I see suggestions that the first amendment get even more asterisks next to it.
Here in the UK, widely available fast internet access still feels fairly recent.

I've had a 80/20 FTTC connection (~£23/m) for 5 years or so, but before that it was ADSL, starting really crappy and ending up at something like 8/1 IIRC, and it took forever to get that - people were complaining for decades about BT and OpenReach's slow rollout of ADSL, and then FTTC. All the time I was painfully aware that people elsewhere had 100 or even 1000mbit connections (e.g. South Korea, various Nordic countries).

Now, widely available and inexpensive FTTH is the next goal here, although I'd say the availability of FTTC is "enough" for the vast majority of people to be happy with it. Which is just as well, as I'd guess we're 20 years aware from seeing FTTH. I realise 5g is starting to become a thing, but it's unlikely to ever be ubiquitous outside of major cities, and is bound to suffer once contention becomes an issue.

* FTTC: fibre to the cabinet
* FTTH: fibre to the home
I'm not sure we can because we can't even equally apply such philosophies or even laws modern day. For example, consider what TERFs consider acceptable and unacceptable concerning acceptance of trans individuals. Or consider the violent rhetoric aimed at the US president by prominent figures (at least enough to have appearance on TV, which is far more prominent than most of the posters here). Or protests against the rich. Or the views of what should happen to really bad people in prison. Or calling certain attractions as mental disorders (granted, they were labeled as such until recently) despite the newest research and the calls to lock such people up.

And what about cases where intolerance of intolerance is viewed as unacceptable because it can be confused with general intolerance. For example, take someone who wants to reduce/end immigration of groups that might support the execution of certain minority groups being confused with people who want to reduce/end immigration of those same groups for less agreeable reasons?

Even something as simple as "The Future is Female" has roots in a ideology of killing (most) men.
That makes sense when the hydra is just quietly plotting. But what about if the site is the hydra's head-growing organ, i.e. radicalization platform? Disrupting recruitment seems like a viable strategy against hydras of all sorts.
Sounds like Dark.
a lot of these things are also investments in the sense that healthier, better educated people earn more (=> pay more taxes) and are less likely to develop chronic conditions that the state then has to pay for in some form or another ("welfare", crime, etc.) on the back end.
I can think of obvious reasons you'd want at least some devices cloud connected - for one, if some sort of disaster (fire, tornado, etc) hits your home, you probably want your surveillance getting off-site in realtime.
Yes, what about Alphabet? Why is this mention relevant to the topic of whether Amazon is a monopoly?
People who advocate for laws that address child neglect are using intolerant speech, are they not? They are literally saying that we should be intolerant toward certain choices made by other people. Should such speech be forbidden?
It sounds like you're saying that anything a teenager says should be dismissed as "not serious" regardless of content or context, but you haven't given much to go on.
> According to some CEO interview they hold on as long as possible until forced otherwise.

I think an appropriate qualifier here might be that they used to hold on as long as possible. I don't think that's universally true anymore.

> This is relevant as the censorship here (whether justified or not, right or wrong it is censorship) is not done by CF, but by a faceless internet mob that is attacking both CF and 8chan.

In the same sense that a mob outside the courthouse ensured a guilty verdict, perhaps. But it's still the jurors who actually acted.
> Shallow statistics are never going to replace empathy* when it comes to sound policy making.

Agree, hyperrational people often forget how easy it is to lie with (true) numbers.
I am looking for a more scientific and statistical approach.

Demanding that our Gov make statistic about gun violence including demographic, geographic, social and economic data on that and then act strong to curb gun violence.

If there is a single group that is outlier causing more gun violence limit the access to the guns on this group.

Start from the low hanging fruit basic statistic.

We can't treat everyone as the same as nobody is equal to others.
>somebody will try to derail the discussion

Pointing out competitors to a supposed monopoly is not derailing the conversation. It is the conversation.
Your posting really gets to my core frustration with our Western political establishment: We have "rational", "moderate" politicians like Hillary, Biden, Merkel, or the late John McCain, who were in favor of the illegal attack on Iraq, well knowing that civilians would die, and that the area would be destabilized (hello IS).

But because the US didn't attack Iraq based on a protected class like race, and because the Geneva conventions exist, everything is magically okay. No reason to deplatform these heroes of bipartisan politics.

I worry about the end of radical free speech on the internet precisely because I feel deeply disconnected from "mainstream morality". As internet censorship progresses, I'm sure I'll be kicked out before any of the high-status war criminals.

(I'm referring to the 2003 Iraq war because I still remember who supported it, but I assume the handling of Vietnam was similar in its time.)
As a rule, hardware companies are crap at writing software. If the software is risky from a security standpoint, that's even worse.
I am confused, you don't understand the destructiveness of a monopoly or you don't understand capitalism?

We do have guidelines and criteria for when a company becomes disproportionately successful. Capitalism hinges on the concept of a competitive market. The moment a company becomes disproportionately successful to the point where it can drive off competition is the the moment it becomes a monopoly.
There are definitely leaders on the chans. The site operators know who log in the most, post the most, and what they post. This sort of info is inherent to running a message board. Moot was upfront about this when he ran 4chan, and he cooperated with law enforcement when they came looking for specific people.

The idea that these movements are leaderless collectives is part of their propaganda and should not be passed on without skepticism.
Depending on what the contract says, you're may indeed be free to drop clients for any reason. Don't try to defend your decision by claiming they did something illegal though unless you're willing to go to court to prove it.
regexr is open source, unlike regex101.
I'm happy you expanded your opinion. I'm with you in that I think absolute free speech is very hard to defend.

At the same time I definitely think slippery slope is the right analogy. The definition of what is acceptable speech is constantly changing and IMO there is no telling what the effect of banning unacceptable speech is - over a long enough time frame.

My view is things might seem stable at the moment, but who's to say what the relevant timeframe is?
Liberal snowflakes getting the Deep State to censor Good People™ under orders from their military-industrial complex overlords.
Given just what was visible to Office Extension Developers ("RIBBON XML", the giant pile of C++ MACROS, etc), the original Office Ribbon control was probably quite a complex beast.

On the other side: the new "Simplified Ribbon Control" that is in now in OneNote (the real one, not 2016) and Outlook (and eventually the rest of Office) is supposed to be the exact same code as the UWP/Fluent Ribbon that is eventually going to be open sourced into the WinUI library.
Thanks for the correction/clarification. Looks like that surplus equates to ~1.7% of GDP.
And really, it's what a death demon can do with some good old fashioned possession. So he can jump into a nearby truck driver and into the victim and have them meet in the middle of the road, but he doesn't necessarily know what the hell a prime number is.
> Remember, the goal is fear, not specificity.

I think that's where your proposal breaks down. Light is powerhungry and arrogant, but he's also very moralistic. A character that proritizes fear over accuracy would be a different character than Light. He wants to build a better, even perfect, world. And for that, he must have accuracy. Otherwise he's a mere tyrant, something he believes he is not.

Of course, it's worth saying, the great archetypal tragedy of the story, and what makes it excellent literature, is that his goal is unacheivable. Humans are deeply imperfect and powerless to end evil completely. And the process of trying turns us into the worst of all monsters that can possibly exist.
There is a blog here https://hackaday.io/project/21933-open-hardware-transparent-... also provides all the link to github files. Design are made in Freecad, Kicad, C++ and Python.
My main focus is on developing prior art. This needs to be done to prevent IP and "liberate" the technology from patent trolls.
Right? This is basic teenage crap, with the reach and ubiquity of the internet attached.
2fa is not magical. It makes an attack require more complexity, but it's not an "and be done with it," solution.
> Situations where Germans were killed for just being Germans, as opposed to being soldiers, are being talked about as injustice today. The rapes done on German women after WWII are not defended as rightful today either.

I am glad you stressed "today", because back then, I bet, they weren't talked about the same way.

It is much easier to look back at distant actions and condemn them. At the time when they actually happen, however, things aren't always as clear-cut. I am certain that a lot of "totally ok" today things will be "totally not ok" once we are removed far enough from them.
Last week I literally set-up up all my automatic investing since we sold our previous home and made a profit, allowing us to become financially stable. I did 75% in a SP500 index and 25% in an intermediate bond market index. Every month I will put $500 split accordingly into those funds. This is after maxing out our IRAs. Not saying this is the best strategy but simple split with the mindset of keeping the money in there long-term e.g., over 10 years.

Does it suck seeing the money we just put in there drop? Yes. Though I know I am in it for the long haul, not the get quick rich approach or attempting to time the markets.
It's legally arbitrary, it's arbitrary in a legal sense but I think we are all very aware of what it means to be a monopoly.
Amazon does not even pay a lot. It's 80% of everyone at best (yes, including the grossly overweight restricted stock units).

Amazon (among others) imports legions of new-graduates and mid-level engineers from oversees on a variety of visas, pays them the local wage but in the US. If you leave the company for any reason, you have something like 7 days to pack up and go home.

It's modern indentured servitude.
We know where we currently draw the line, from a legal perspective. That wasn't my question though.
Haiti could easily repay all of this in full if the Clinton Foundation would cut loose the funds it collected on the nation's behalf after the 2010 earthquake.
Advanced Kubernetes Security
Do you actually know what Cloudflare does? I'm not sure you quite understand what a CDN is.

A CDN isn't necessary. It's a convenience for end users. You don't need a CDN to prevent DDoS. In fact having a CDN is probably the most expensive way to handle DDoS.
I know people who work on AWS and they were telling me that they get 10 days of some other kind of vacation they can use too. So it's like 10 "real" vacation days that I assume roll-over year to year, you get paid for if you quit with them, etc. and then another 10 that are completely use-it-or-lose it. I don't know the details though
Fetuses are not human beings by any scientific definition. Even without being aborted, a fetus is far from guaranteed to be born. A lot can happen in 9 months.

If the mother has a miscarriage, is she now a murderer? If she's in a car accident and loses the baby, is the other person involved in the crash a murderer? Does it depend on who was at fault in the accident?

If a doctor fails to see a birth defect in time, are they now charged with manslaughter?

Does a mother collect child support from a father at time of conception? Do they collect state benefits from the beginning of their pregnancy?

This thing conservatives want to do of making fetuses people is a bottomless pit of regulatory gotchas. It's ridiculous.
I agree. It's VERY hard to believe a 14 year old wrote and produced that content. It's too complex and engages in content that a child would have no real interest in talking about.
The whole country is rather politicized (some of it actually violent). Google doesn't force employees to pretend that's not the case. Maybe a good idea, maybe bad.
Ahh, yes. US is the spitting image of a country ravaged by WW1, with its government in shambles and crushing reparations. The similarities just impossible to ignore.
The first and only time I interviewed at Amazon, the interviewing engineer was so obviously stressed that he was shaking from it. As the interview itself was fairly light weight I assumed it was due to his work -- nothing I've heard from current/former Amazoners has changed my mind.
I wish google would provide an idea of product supported lifetimes similar to the LTS releases we see from Ubuntu. Give us a product and tell it will be supported until at least XX/XX/XX date.

I simply do not use google products beyond search and maps because I can't trust they'll be around without significant changes (gmail) or discontinuation.
Yes, most SIEMs and log management systems support the new format, even if they also push their own proprietary format.
I wonder if you could do this with an HDFury Vertex or Integral. All the hardware is there (including dealing with HDCP), but I don't think they have devkits available that would let you add features to the firmware.
Maybe he was discovered and killed?
Do you really want to give Trump the power to choose what is allowed to be said and what isn't?
> Should we also not be obliged to suffer ... gay rights advocates?

If you want to make a case that gay rights advocates make the world unambiguously worse, be my guest. At a societal scale, you will fail, because there is a clear and categorical difference between that example and mine.

It's fine that not everyone feels that way. The people who think gay rights advocates make the world worse are wrong, and society has the right to judge them that way.

Just because you can swap the nouns in a formulation of a policy and turn it from good to bad (or bad to good) doesn't mean that policy is wrong, or bad, or shouldn't be used. Social policy don't need to be content-agnostic to be useful. We can apply a policy against nouns that, in outcome, make the world better; and refuse to apply the same policy against nouns that, in outcome, make the world worse. We're gonna get those determinations wrong sometimes, and that's inevitable and fine, we can just course-correct and carry on in good faith.
To be credible, the person making the threat needs to be able to act on it. If I say "I am going to shoot you right now" but am not holding a gun, that's not a credible threat.

I assume the police saw a 14yo who can't take an Uber by themselves and cannot buy a gun and said "yeah, no way he could follow this one through".

Edit: I'm not saying the kid shouldn't be punished, or that the law shouldn't be something else. This is just answering how that particular tweet that was being discussed was interpreted by police to not constitute a "credible threat"
At least something else would change. internal conversation based on uniform agreement would become impossible.

If 1% of the people on a site agree with you, you will have an harder time memeing with your buddies undisturbed.

Whether in practice the tradeoff is worth it, is another topic.
It definitely impedes Firefox users as opposed to Chrome users.
It's almost like exclusion, not inclusion, is the process by which you create quality communities.

Of course, redemption should always be on the table. It's worth the risk.
This is really good discussion.I ve created Ask HN post to learn more about equity return of early stage employees

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20618916
Taking a look, thanks for sharing!
Nobody has ever refuted anything that Damore ever actually said - they've just said they didn't like the way it made them feel.
There are limits to how secure your house can (should) be without violating fire regulations (if applicable) - or safety.

If there's a fire or medical emergency (heart attack, allergic reaction/anaphylactic shock etc) - you generally don't want it to be too hard to break in...
I don't bake cakes for Nazis, no matter how many words they want on it. Simple as that. Not even cupcakes. No nuances.

It's pretty obvious when the baker and their supporters start bending over backwards to make nuanced hypothetical situations and ridiculous unbelievable qualifications, that they aren't making good faith arguments. If their best and most honest argument is that their bible told them to be intolerant bigots, then that's their problem for choosing to take their marching orders from that particular bible, while choosing to do business in that particular state which bans discrimination. The fact that your bible tells you to do something illegal is certainly no excuse for stoning your wife to death or killing gays, either.

https://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-sn-manny-pacquiao-bible...

So we should have the conversation in which everyone has to make the best arguments they can, instead of trying to go recursively meta with the Paradox of Tolerance, accusing the gays of being intolerant of the baker's intolerance. Simply judge them all on the merits of their best arguments and intellectual honesty and willingness to address valid counter-arguments.
A pole shift has occurred in the US. In the past, transgressive comedy almost exclusively came out of the left (I'm thinking Lenny Bruce, Hunter S. Thompson, John Waters, etc). The right, by comparison, was straight-laced.

These days, more and more, transgressive voices are coming from the right. Soph is pretty extreme but I do see the humor in her videos. You're not obligated to laugh, but if you don't see the humor, take a step back and consider that conservatives rarely saw the humor in Bruce, Thompson, or Waters.
Define 'citation', write a long essay about your criteria for accepting citations, maybe supply an appendix outlining your epistemological views so people know exactly what sort of citations you'll consider acceptable.

See, two can play at that game.
The lock is only as good as the door it's attached to.. and the doors in a lot of new construction (especially in suburban McMansions) is really bad. You could probably kick most of 'em in.
> People who advocate for laws that address child neglect are using intolerant speech, are they not?

No.

Because not feeding your children is not speech.
In the examples you have given, it all comes down to a particular society definition of whom has rights and whom doesn't.

Your argument is based on a specific society where law states unborn children have no rights. In a society where they would have them, your all argument becomes immediately invalid.

That goes on to validate the GP argument that "intolerance" is nothing but an abstract concept.
The reason I offered Popper's entire quote is because while I do think many people use it as are you suggesting, his quote makes it quite clear that is not what he is suggesting. He is speaking of an intolerant view as one that is intolerant of alternative views. In other words a view that:

- refuses to debate or discuss its merits and values

- refuses to meaningfully consider or discuss alternatives

- responds to discussion with aggression

The book which includes his quote was published in 1945, Popper was of Jewish ancestry, and the book was speaking primarily about avoiding totalitarianism. His philosophy should be taken in that context. People are manipulating his quote to try to justify intolerance of anything except their own world view, but it is this exact sort of totalitarianism he was suggesting that may imperil an open and free society. In particular he also defined an open society as one "in which individuals are confronted with personal decisions" as opposed to a "magical or tribal or collectivist society."

Intolerance trends towards a closed society where you believe what you are supposed to believe, or face the consequences. Tolerance trends towards an open society where individuals may not agree, but are free to express themselves and challenge one another on any view or value.
It's intolerant for a woman to want an abortion. She's not tolerating the continued existence of the child.
Many people even install glass windows.
At that point, it doesn't sound like freedom of speech is the problem. Rather, this sounds like conspiracy to promote and further the attempts of mass murder for the intent to cause terror.

That being said, I grew up reading TOTSE, which might by this conversation's context in today's world, also sound like a source of the same.
The actual interview was more akin to the interviewer telling an interviewee that "python doesn't support multithreading"; something patently false. No, this kind of erroneous statement should not be glossed over.

For your information, this was the later stage of questions. The very first question did involve a simple summation group by, so I'd already demonstrated my understanding there. I showed no frustration or annoyance during the interview in case you are attempting to imply that was the case.
Well, for one, DDOS attacks can be carried out by a single anonymous individual, and don't require them to show up in-person to shout you down.
While you obviously have an above average income, there really are people that pay very close to the marginal rate ($10M income etc). Asymptotically, the marginal rate is the top rate.
So those with power to enforce their ideals on society get to decide morality then?