skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
>However, you are in a sense dictating that the moral values you inherited are infinitely more superior than all the others. I mean you are making deterministic statements about subjective issues while calling those who dare not agree "unreasonable" without considering for a second that other people that live in other parts of the world might have different views.

There is virtually no moral judgment that every person will agree on. So what? Just because morality is ultimately subjective, society should completely avoid making any kind of judgments regarding it? Frankly I don't care that every person, including those committing terrible acts, view themselves as morally correct. I have my own values that I obviously believe are superior, and I will make an effort to impose them on society. I assume that everyone else is doing the same thing. I hope that the "best" views will become the most common.
When the weather is nice in my city every last electric scooter is parked at the beach.
I'm not sure that's the case, otherwise why would community driven projects like https://b4rn.org.uk/ exist if BT was serving low-value customers properly? In reality they're the company that doesn't see the value in investment there, completely counter to what the pubic purse was supposed to be supporting.
> This is like morality 101. You aren't entitled to kill folks, no matter how much you want to. And you aren't entitled to egg other folks on to kill folks either.

So no death penalty? No military intervention in countries which have not attacked yours? And shutdown any site/radio/TV that try to talk about it?

I don't want to know your thoughts about those particular subject, just want to show what sort of situation you can get into when arguing for criteria to limit freedom of speech.

What about monitoring these forums possibly with keyword recognition, and enforce laws such as the ones against invitation to violence?
>The managers have probably read the mythical man month too.

Some sure, but not the one's violating all of its conclusions...

>Sometimes the least costly "help" is to accept additional "resources" and fence them off someplace they don't do damage so that the rest of your team can execute its real plan. Turning down help can damage your credibility/relationships which is what you depend on to be "allowed to be successful". It's emotions, not logic. Or, if you really really want to, you can tell your boss they're an idiot and need to learn about Brook's law.

Well, this doesn't contradict what I wrote above though. Just finds for a more polite way to handle the situation and not let the extra "help" make a mess of things! But it's not like I suggested telling anyone directly they're an idiot!
> Tesla can price lower than Ford/Toyota/Merc, lose money every year while the competition slowly dies.

That was a bad example.
I absolutely agree.

I think if they self-select to group with their own kind they radicalize each other. But there is not much we can do about that because no matter how many forums get shut down another one will pop up. The community itself doesn't go away just because a platform goes away, that just aggravates them.

The best opportunity we have to help normalize them is while they are on public platforms like twitter, youtube and facebook. Unfortunately those platforms have chosen to ban accounts rather than just censor and throttle content (for reasons that make perfect commercial sense). And good-faith statements of bad ideas are not being engaged with because they get censored as well (obviously bad faith trolling and memes don't invite engagement).

IMHO the best response is to engage where engagement is invited (everyone is edified by such discussions), censor where it isn't invited and where it is otherwise necessary to censor, throttle the ability of repeat offenders to post... but never perma-ban accounts.

In summary I guess my point is this: We can't stop them from choosing to go into a dark corner, but we can stop pushing them there.
The problem mostly comes down to patents and licensing... I think eliminating extension patents, and requiring dual sourcing for all medications for FDA approval would resolve a lot of that side. Forcing open-books for medical practices and making it illegal to charge more than 20% difference for the same procedure between two payees within 2 calendar years would help a lot as well. Last would be requiring insurance companies to negotiate as a fiduciary to the benefit holders would wrap it up.

All these things really need to happen to close a lot of the loopholes in the US system.
Don't you see that you're reinforcing the image that "SJWs hate straight white males"?
We are a frog being boiled slowly. It seems really impossible to stop right now even though we probably have the technology to do so.
They are going after an executive for non-compete. They'll lose the case because they probably didn't go after hundreds of other employees that went into competing roles. A selective lawsuit like that will definitely fail - it will look vindictive.
All the time. I find they help you reason about the long term outcomes of things or directions things are headed in. They provide a nice framework for thinking about things. Rather than looking at every situation on a case by case basis you start to see aggregates of situations and once you see the abstraction then everything becomes "another one of those". The more abstractions you find, the more you see the patterns.
It's weird to see a computational photography paper in Nature. It doesn't really seem like the right venue.
Can you explain how you are balancing the notion of freedom of religion, freedom of association, and freedom of speech here?

It sounds to me like you're are arguing that those rights aren't worth protecting for the baker and you are choosing to protect the customer's right to ... what exactly? What "right" is being protected in your analysis?
If you like this - Buy and read The Model Thinker.
Good question. Not disagreeing but a bit more context:

You can still get close by car, you just can no longer drive along or cross over the shopping street. You also have access to pretty good public transport options in the area (underground, bus, tram, …).

I can imagine other scenarios and areas where a change like this might be strictly bad for some stores. From what I can tell I don't think this was the case here. Happy to be corrected though if someone knows more.
How it will play out in reality is, a female presenter who presents a slide with a butt in it will be considered to be indulging in "lol so random XD" humor and given a pass, but if a male presenter used a similar slide it would be a CoC violation, the punishment for which is a summary ban from all open source conferences forever.
What Is Zig's Comptime?
I've been using it for a year or so and it's brilliant. I love that I can screen calls in a meeting without anyone knowing.

Disclosure: I work for Google.
What if they truncate AND lower case it without telling you?

Looking at you Wells Fargo
That’s definitely problematic behavior you’re describing, there is a big difference between starting from a place of reason and moving to stern due to repeated behavior and starting with stern. The latter is the “good asshole.”
Many people don't like passwords either. The point being that sometimes we have to go with things we don't find perfect, just tremendously better than what we have now.
I can ask a similar question: What makes you think that Uber can destroy/prevent the system/model that disrupts another (future) unfair market that it benefitted from?

I don't think that Uber is a good example in the original context.
I'll bite; the cpu power needed to operate and render that hamburger menu is many times more than was used on the Apollo missions to the moon. :p

Is that because the problem is hard, or because the programmers have iteratively built up their laziness?
This is why the real-tests should be entirely in pseudo-code and about the logical structure.

Any optimization should happen after a basic algorithm that works and might go along the lines of (telemetry suggests our platform has a bottleneck here) how would you speed things up if there's an issue in this section?
Show HN: The email pitch that got me invited onto 5 podcasts in 3 hours
Based on who's speaking? FaceTime kinda does this.
Indeed, though the problem is often people activating them for situations not truly life-threatening. In some cases, misuse has resulted in hefty fines. Most people don’t need them because most people don’t actually do “backcountry”, let alone solo it.

It should be understood that an EPIRB should only be used in the most dire of circumstances.
The Model Thinker is also an excellent book! It's more mathematical models, but if you understand the intuitions behind the models then they are a great additional to your thinking tools.
This is not a free speech issue. This is not a censorship issue. This is companies deciding that they will not do business with some parties. Those parties nor the reasons and the actions of the companies today do not fit inside narrow definitions which would make what anyone did today unlawful.

Moreover 8chan posts, though vile, arguably do not fit the narrow free speech exemptions of the US such as true threat or incitement. The law and judicial precedent would require a reasonable reader to take it seriously. All that is moot though as the government has taken no action here.
Why does this article have no dateline?
7chan
I expect so. It's reasonable[0] to believe there are policement and judges who will arrest and sentence you for drug use, thus enforcing the law, while not believing the law is right.

[0] I know there are such policemen, I extrapolate to expect there are likeminded judges too.
> So if today its Amazon and tomorrow someone else, why be up in arms about it

Because it doesn't matter who ultimately made an anti-competitive world marketplace, it's still anti-competitive and ultimately impossible to run morally when you participate in it in parallel. eg if ebay was undercutting other people's auctions via buyout prices under their own brand
Cargo bikes! You can easily take one or two children on a cargo bike (yuba for example).
Steep for DPRK
China can outlast the US on this one. Next up, let's crash the price of oil and flip off the Iran sanctions:

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/05/brent-and-wti-price-could-cr...
no find?
https://www.ft.com/content/f4779de6-b1e0-11e9-bec9-fdcab53d6...
You mean you can’t see where the money is going? If you know how much money you pay on different levels (local, national and so on) surely also those governments have itemized budgets? You can roughly say what amount you paid for different services then. Transfers between different levels of government could complicate it though.
How different are the peaks?
This feature has been out for a long time, I've been using it for months...
I'm not sure which resin printing process you're referring to. Most of the time for consumer-grade resin printers like the one I have, you design your model with a drain hole and print it hollow so the resin can flow out (or add a hole before slicing). Printing fully solid is generally only for when you want it specifically to be solid.
This is the EU, and a failure of technically understanding how internet search works. The google shopping carousel is basically search ads with pictures. Every listing is paid to be there, and is even set up in the same place that you set up Google search ads.
Judgement can be made based on reviewing the effects of decisions over time. We need a dynamic system of laws and legal review that is capable of correcting for mistakes and adapting to new challenges.

I agree that we do need a system, that not tolerating intolerance is a good basic principle, and that such a system can be functional. I don’t think it can ever be perfect, because people aren’t perfect, but it can be a lot better than nothing.
Lone wolf attacker has no supply line to degrade. The El Paso shooter used 8chan to distribute his manifesto, we have no indication that caused his radicalization.
People who are new to a topic and just learned a new thing often do a better job at explaining things without requiring prior knowledge. Experts in a topic often see things as trivial and write introductions that exclude a fraction of potential readers that lack a skill.

I can recommend the articles by Julia Evans[1], which are pretty much like this. She works on a problem that is new to her and describes how she solved it or how she learned something new.

[1]: https://jvns.ca/
We did not have income taxes - or any other individual taxes - for the first 100+ years, and yet we managed not to bottom out. As for Ayn Rand, she was echoing John Locke, among many many others throughout history. [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_as_theft
they are still around, there is a place for them to go
there should be no place for the wicked to rest and lick thier wounds.
It sounds like a recipe for selective enforcement. You may think you have a team culture that can be chill about this sort of thing, but it only takes one complaint to HR -- or to Twitter -- to retroactively turn your cartoon butt into a symptom of a hostile work environment.
Now what?

Is there a legal designation or meaning to currency-manipulator I'm unaware of, or is this basically like the Chinese designating Trump a "name-caller."
Seems like individual non-fixed prices could be some kind of undiscovered Holy Grail to increase revenue and fix the unequal distribution of scooters. Also, I see scooters being collected at night for charging. Maybe another use-case for such incentives?
Do you really think that the US Federal Reserve System, which sets monetary policy based on very reasonable inflation and unemployment targets, is equivalent to a full-blown nationalist-controlled central bank, that is devaluing its currency to support a mercantilist agenda? I think it's pretty clear that China is able and willing to devalue far more than would be possible or palatable for the Fed.
The gravamen of the linked argument is that if you get paid for doing something, you're supposedly entitled to keep all of it, because somehow all of the hidden costs of your doing what you did have been taken care of by others. That's a flawed assumption. Elizabeth Warren's famous 2012 campaign talk hit the nail on the head: You shipped your goods to market on roads the rest of us paid for; you employed workers that the rest of us paid to educate; you didn't have to worry (excessively) about marauding bands stealing your stuff because of police and military that the rest of us pay for.
The problem is that it's hurting the USA economy, too.

In economics: if somebody is doing it cheaper then you can, especially if they are willing to lose money doing it (which is what subsidies accomplish), then you let them. You focus on what will make you money.

Which means for the national economy I have zero doubt that Trump's actions will save and/or create a 10-30 thousand jobs. The problem is that he will be sacrificing many more thousands of jobs and hurting the standard of living for most of the 300 million people living in the USA to do it.

Not to mention that USA debt from Trump/Congress's spending needs to be bought by somebody. The people that been doing that are the Chinese. So if he does manage to collapse their economy it's only shooting the Federal Government, and ultimately, the USA Dollar in the foot.

So much grandstanding. So little sense.
He got shot, but not killed, so you are technically correct in stating that he is alive. I guess you totally defeated the parent commenter's point, good thing the shooters didn't have good aim, right?
> Anyways, this is just the hip thing of today. How about making a service better than Amazon? No that's impossible?? Well you can bet there are a million people trying right now so there are and will be plenty more alternatives.

Someone did try. Jet.com. Walmart bought them almost instantly.
Of course it is a crisis, but the timescale is crucial as far as the kinds of measures we take. Do we ban fossil fuels altogether, raising the cost of living for everyone and plunging developing countries into poverty while we work out a way to make renewable energy affordable? Or do we have the government put money into renewable energy research, lowering its costs and making it a financially more lucrative alternative? The latter would take much longer but I think it's a better solution than making life more expensive for everyone than it already is.. Or maybe there is some other answer.
It's manipulation. The RMB has been artificially fixed for decades for targetted economic/political reasons. It's being adjusted now not so that it can seek to a market value but to target another specific value for political/economic reasons. No one argues this. The PRC manipulates it's currency. It always has. It certainly doesn't seem likely to stop.

That said: this is what trade wars look like, folks. If we didn't want to fight in one we shouldn't have started it. The currency-manipulated status quo of the past two decades or so has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and made the world richer than it ever has been.

But no, someone's gotta score domestic political points based on a poor understanding of economics and some intuition about how to make a good populist argument.
"...it will take 31 years travelling at the speed of light, which is not really true"
Because it's old news, but they don't want you to know that.
I think you are missing the point.

The point is that you argue that pro life are intolerant because they don't respect woman rights.

Well, then, using your argument, in a society where unborn children have rights, the exact same thing can be said about pro abortion: they are intolerant because they don't respect children rights.

So, the all concept of intolerance, comes down to a specific set of laws a society observes, making the concept abstract.
Every country manipulates its own currency, to some degree. It is sort of the point of having a federal bank. It is useful for the prices of things to not change drastically day to day.

That said - the degree to which the US Fed does things is different.
That's reversed. They artificially weaken their currency, and recently weakened it even more.

Your sentence assumes their currency should be low, and they raise it, but evidence is the other way around.
> You can also mark spammy incoming calls as "Spam." That way, if you ever get a call from that number again, it will come with a big red interface reminding you that you've previously pegged the number as suspicious.

Spam callers often id as fake numbers with your area code and prefix. I've even had a spam caller come up as a friend's phone number. This feature would be all but useless for the spam calls I receive.

> The caller will either hang up--in which case it's probably not important--or provide an answer, which will then be transcribed and displayed on your screen.

I let unknown numbers go to voicemail, which accomplishes the same thing. I don't see how this is useful except you can choose to answer instead of call back. I guess maybe if your friend is calling from jail or a payphone (do those even still exist?).
Or (3) implement an universal TLS standard to abstract logins away into hardware tokens... but that's exactly what we have but don't use super-widespread. Estonia has demonstrated the solution scales easily into millions, Latvia is working on it, Finland as well and a few other countries, but they're 15 years behind from Estonia, rest of the world is at least two decades behind. I've always wanted to make wild predictions, now I can try, I think such personal hardware tokens will become wildly mainstream in 25 years, totally replacing passwords.
> WeWork can price lower than office buildings, lose money every year while the competition slowly dies.

I was looking for office space last week in London, WeWork is the most expensive one on the market by far.
Do you really want to find out if this is true through the courts in person? Particularly when you might also not currently have any source of income?
> ... universal moral rulings, think of them as organizational rules

Sure. Slavery was moral, or if I disagree with it, I'll accept it as an organisational rule instead. Ditto apartheid, ditto the way many mid-eastern countries treat women.
I wish this elaborated more on how Amazon is a monopoly. The interviewee defines it as having the power to set prices and exclude competition. I don’t see either of those happening. There’s a ton of competition, more than enough to severely limit their ability to set prices.
> instead of a public option, just allow Americans to buy into other countries' health systems, for example, France's.

One problem is if this is opt in, only the elderly and sick will want to buy in and the foreign government would balk at the large number of high risk signups. Young and healthy individuals who are accustomed to the freedom of not buying insurance and just going to the emergency room will be reluctant to pay for something that they believe they don’t want. There’s also a mismatch between therapies permitted by the FDA, religious freedom laws, etc.
> require employers to provide paid time off

This isn't phrased quite accurately; I know that in Canada maternity leave is guaranteed by law but it is not paid for at all by the employer (it is paid by government insurance schemes instead).
Any day, I will take the bet on USA.
You put your finger on it when you said we didn't have individual taxes. People still paid the taxes indirectly because those taxes (tariffs, customs duties, fees, etc.) were built into the price of the goods and services they bought. You can argue that those were somehow "voluntary" taxes because people had the choice not to buy the goods or services, but that argument breaks down when you talk about essentials (however one defines that), so that you're indirectly paying the tax whether you like it or not.
I don’t know.

Everybody is keen on pointing the finger towards 8chan, no one is talking about how easy is to get firearms and bullets in the United States of America.

In the meantime, we lost one of the few spaces where we could talk anonymously and express ourselves freely.

I am not sure whether i should feel sorry for America at this point. The problem with shootings has been around for a lot if time now, yet pretty much nothing has been done. Firearms still get sold as easy as candy.

Shootings like this will keep happening because they are a symptom, not the root cause.

People will find other places to rant about stuff, get radicalised and decide to go on a killing spree. In the meantime, we lost a place of free and anonymous conversation.
An argument which implicitly assumes that the status quo is the only possible solution. Nice try.
Could someone explain why this part makes sense?

> after the country’s central bank allowed the yuan to fall

They got taxed extra, limiting the economy / exports. This means less interest in investment in their market and currency. That seems like a legitimate reason for the currency to lose its value in relation to the country taxing it.

Why is there an implication that this is "allowed" or a strategic response? Not claiming it isn't, and I see how it benefits China in some ways - I'd just like to understand how it's different from a non-manipulated price drop.
Weimar Germany had really strong hate speech laws.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/copenhagen-speech-v...
Thanks for the suggestion. Will add it to my reading list. Nothing beats a book.
what about the beating of an openly gay viet-american journalist on a crowded public street? does that pass the reasonable standard for intolerance? because as of writing this comment, the individuals & organizations who cheered that on still have access to mainstream platforms & seemingly have faced close to no repercussions for continuing to advocate for violence.
Angular and Cypress UI Testing with Applitools