skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
What about "kill the {terrorists|Vietnamese (circa 1960)|germans (circa 1940)|japanese(circa 1940)|rebs (circa 1860}"

My response is clearly whatboutism, and I understand that jewish, muslims, and hispanics are greatly different than naming the belligerents of armed conflicts, but this very slippery slope is why historically the US Supreme Court has resoundingly only made the most narrow rulings regarding limiting speech.
If you don't like the word censorship, then replace it with "deplatforming" instead.

So to rephrase the original statement, deplatforming rarely solves anything.
I'm completely fine with that until we have literally any logical or scientific reasons to oppose tolerance.
Hah! That’s exactly what happened in Australia.

There is legit talk about changing the hugest plans here from 100/40 to 120/20. It’s that bad. Which is moot anyway because 40% of the “new” network probably cannot get that speed anyway.
It's fascinating to compare it to the desperate fight for Net Neutrality. HN was hysterical when faced with a hypothetical threat, but when we see real examples of censorship the response is filled with apologist arguments and hand-wringing.

The only difference seems to be who is doing the censoring. When it's Silicon Valley tech corporations with a well established left-wing bias, well then they're private businesses who can be trusted to choose which dialogue is okay to have. But when it's corporations outside of Silicon Valley, well the internet will never be the same, be sure to call your congressmen.
Same thing happened in LA in the 1980s. Before that, you didn't really need air conditioning in your home and having A/C had no effect on rent. By the 1990s, having A/C would allow you to charge much higher rents, because it was much more of a necessity that people would pay extra to have.
I am confused about 1 thing. China can't possibly keep doing this at a rapid pace, right?

If they keep doing this, then their own people's savings is rapidly disappearing.

And since their people have a hard time buying US real estate anymore, won't the people get angry?
There is a price for every freedom we have. Free speech also comes with some price. Which can include riots and deaths. All we need to ask if whether slippery slope of restrictions on free speech would lead to a higher price or a lower price.

An FBI agent working on child rape cases told me how on one occasion he was 100% sure who the criminal was and yet he had to let him go because the person had rights. Now many such freed criminals are the price for having 4t hand 5th amendment in first place.

USA as a society needs to debate whether the freedoms of having free speech or freedom to own guns are worth it. Either ways it is their choice and outsiders like me would only be curious as to what choice americans would make.
Afford means different things for necessities and luxury goods, so, semantics
LaTeX is (understandably) geared toward single-character variable names, and provides canned control sequences for common functions like \sin \cos. Try it with variable names that are two or more characters, and user-defined functions.
Kill yourself fascist
What we saw is the market responding both to the economics of it and also to the knowledge that China has started adjusting its currency to combat Trump's tariffs.

I think many expected this to happen, but what is interesting is that it happened today, so long before the election. China is effectively signaling that it can do a LOT more of this leading up to the election.

Imagine a lager currency adjustment that sent the Dow down 3K points. A lot of people are imagining that today who were not thinking about it before.

So this puts a lot more pressure on Trump to pull back on the tariffs. But Trump won't want to do that yet, so China has a bit of time to illustrate that Trump is not in control of things the way he claims to be.

As someone who does not want the US Government meddling in the economy, I'll be very pleased if China manages to force Trump to repeal the tariffs, regardless of whether China continues its own backward trade policies.
We can do this in Julia quite well. ModelingToolkit.jl for example takes in numerical Julia functions and symbolically calculates and builds the function for computing the Jacobian. Example:

https://github.com/JuliaDiffEq/ModelingToolkit.jl/pull/155

The JuliaDiffEq team will be pushing symbolics for automatic transformations and automated model order reductions over the next few years. It's already working really well.
Transferring data to and from the cloud.
Tech solutions of any kind will just be a band-aid. This is a very sensitive topic so it is easy to get political but the fact is that we as a society in the US have collectively accepted the fact that this is the cost of our freedom to be able to bear arms (I personally don't believe that). But this is how it is with the society today. Until that mindset changes, nothing will happen. We can surely add some tech solutions to help a bit but I personally would like to see a mindset shift first. The actual solution can be a combination of things but lets start with the mindset.
If someone picks a "dumb lock" and steals all of your belongings, does the manufacturer have any liability? What if someone picks your "smart lock"?
Completely false on all points. If you want to equate prisons for lawbreakers with concentration camps for political prisoners there's no further discussion we can have.
Again, I'm familiar with the "slippery slope to utter catastrophe" line of argument. But here you're not even really making it other than to handwave at the possibility. I get that you don't like this. But all law is a political fiction for political ends, so your horror is not something I share.

If you do have a better way to solve it, I encourage you to give it a try. Let me know how it goes.
I'm not an expert but your article shows the current account, not trade.
And about the trade most of the sources say between 400-500b US$ of trade surplus per year. Which means the exports are about 22% larger than the imports.

For example here:
https://wits.worldbank.org/CountryProfile/en/CHN
If it's "universally" reprehensible, then how would it possibly exist in such prevalence? How would it be that it was hardly reprehensible at all less than 100 years ago? What's reprehensible changes, which is why freedom of speech is necessary, because without it there's no way to fight what's reprehensible without compliance of authority figures or violent revolution.

The things you find reprehensible have existed long before 4chan or the 1st Amendment. Allowing a precedence for society to completely ostricize people at every conceivable level is a dark road to go down, especially today when there is no escape from technology. If we put an end to free speech, we may never get an ounce of it back.
And we, on HN, can make an informed decision about that calculated risk. The general public just sees "Encrypted Android App with Smart Unlock" and thinks they are safe.
The final prize in this war is who gets to write the rules of the world order, who gets to become/remain the hegemony. Economics/trade is just one battleground of many.

Soybeans are so inconsequential to this, in the larger picture of things. Sure, it sucks for farmers.

Would you rather have rich soybean farmers and a social credit score assigned to you personally for posting your opinions openly?
People love lists of models, fallacies, and cognitive biases. I don't think any list of them can be authoritative though because they all slice the concepts up differently. But when well-presented I think lists like these are still valuable because they're entertaining to review, and can remind people of how to be better thinkers.

My theory is that pretty much any bias or fallacy can be derived from simpler rules of causation - truth, and the logic of necessity and sufficiency.

Appeal to Authority: Is it really true that if A says x is true, that x is really true? Is x really true?

Confirmation bias: Is it really true that if I want x to be true, it is true? Is x really true?

Survivorship bias: Is it really true that if x is true, that this set of x's causes were sufficient to yield x? Is this set of x's causes always sufficient to yield x?

etc, etc.
Speech like “Republicans are killing Americans by not passing MfA?” Hmmm I dunno I think that should be allowed.
On a more practical level, most internet infrastructure firms based in the US or Europe probably don't have that many people on staff who are fluent in Arabic, Pashto and other languages that would allow the quick identification of terrorists, as opposed to normal people who sometimes discuss terrorism as spectators of the news.
Found it: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2a85/7e042331c53b856b3ad501...
> Plenty of people think LGBT "choose" their sexuality

Right. Even this assumption is loaded with ideology both ways. I.e. either they choose or do not choose. Neither is correct.
For what I do (scientific computing mixed with differential equations, so lots of things like neural partial differential equations which utilize lots of special numerical linear algebra and sparsity handling), the packages exist in Julia but not in Python, MATLAB, or R.
You're trying to cram a square peg into a round hole here.

Germany's growth rate in 2018 was 0.3%. The birth rate was 9.5/k versus a death rate of 11.3/k as of 2017, and the fertility rate been below replacement rate since the 1970s.
Yes, this is not a "Google" problem. It's happening everywhere.
> But I've got to think avoiding bad publicity and negative headlines is the #1 factor behind any inconsistencies in their reaction.

I don't see this working out well for them when it comes to total negative news. Would we have seen nearly as many requests to Cloudflare asking for 8chan to be cut off if they had not already done so for The Daily Stormer?
Exactly. Trump claimed that he was some kind of expert negotiator who would walk in and teach the Chinese government a lesson and improve trade policy on behalf of American firms.

But instead he's made a fool of himself and of the US, and shown the world that China is more formidable than anyone realized.
Maybe. We've already banned companies from discriminating on the basis of race. Would a limited ban on telecommunications infrastructure companies discriminating on the basis of ideology really be all that bad?

If anything, it would certainly free those companies from having to act as arbiters of moral truth.
How is it possible that basic expenses are through the roof (I agree with this) but its not reflected in inflation? It doesn't make sense to me. I'm not an economist, is there something I am missing or misunderstanding? Housing costs are through the rough but everything else is stable?
Most 'internet as utility' arguments though don't extend to hosting or other services though, only the physical infrastructure that exists as a near monopoly (and at best is usually a duopoly of one cable and one DSL provider) in most locations. The argument is they shouldn't get to play favorites because the ability for competitors to come in and provide competition to limit bad behavior is extremely limited.
I think you have it spot on, but public opinion is driving those enterprise customers to make that call. They still support the terror group websites, even after being informed of them, so it’s not based on policy but rather a business decision.
China is doing exactly what you say with islands in the Pacific that they promised not to militarize and then moved in military bases. There balance of military power hasn't tipped at all, the western countries just stopped thinking it was okay to establish permanent settlements in other people's countries and then use that to claim we owned it. We still create best permanent military bases when we want to. If Britain or the US wanted we could destroy the Chinese Navy and Air Force without blinking. It's only when you get to ground forces that you see any kind of advantage in the Chinese military, because like the USSR in WW2 there are always more bodies.
Your argument effectively says: 'people are too stupid to be trusted with their freedom'.

I get that this is an unpopular opinion, but bad things will happen if people are to be free.
another comment mentions starlink launches. If spaceX has 12000 satellites of their own that they need to send up, they can fill up a fair bit of unused capacity.

it sounds like they're essentially selling the opportunity to take the place of a starlink satellite in any given launch. if the customer cancels, no big deal - they'll just send the originally scheduled starlink satellite.
Why? They're sovereign. They want a leg up in their economy. They're doing the same thing the U.S. did to England to get ahead [1].

[1] https://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2018/07/30/ip_thef...!
> I think pretty much everyone reasonable agrees that "kill the _INSERT GROUP_" is intolerant

I don´t know why but every time I read a sentence that starts with "I think pretty much everyone reasonable agrees that ..." I get the feeling that the person saying it haven´t really thought things through and does not see how vastly more complex the world is than they assume.

Think about it this way: what if in the mind of the person making that claim, it is one of self-defense and self-preservation? is it still intolerant?

Here is an example: As someone who grew up in the middle east, I heard people out in the open say things like: "Jews ought to be killed off" or "the imperialist American fucks deserve whatever happens to them" and if you ask them why they believe and say such evil shit, the answer in some way, shape or form always comes back to: they invaded our land, killed our ancestors and are threatening to do the same to us now, and hence we are not being intolerant but rather, we are just trying to defend ourselves (tribalism in other words).

You and I can agree that it is despicable and disgusting that people think that way. But in their minds, you are the unreasonable one. What you call intolerance to them is not that at all.

Take away: Perspectives matter in the world; and if you make a hard/deterministic rule based on a subjective understanding of an issue followed by projecting it as "what reasonable people should think", you will always get into some shady edge cases that cannot be resolved by the deterministic rule that you initially set because the world is not made up of a bunch of you:s.

You and I probably agree on what is intolerant/tolerant in most cases. However, other people who do not have the same cultural and moral upbringing might disagree with us. Hence the parent´s comment: "I can easily see people disagreeing on what is and is not intolerant"
True, but it is still false to say that more guns necessarily means more gun crime. I don't think this chart proves anything, it just shows another perspective of the data.

Another point of interest is the number of CCW issued (estimated to be around 17 million now) and the liberalization of carry in general since the 1980s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_carry#/media/Fi...
Home owners insurance typically covers theft of personal belongings.
Freedom of speech sucks because you're exposed to every asshat's opinion... but the alternative is worse.
Ironically, this likely exacerbates warming.
Distributed is getting released in the next few days, I've been playing with it over the past week.

Right now we use k8s on Google K8s Engine(GKE) to deploy in distributed mode.

We don't supported nested at present, there are Rapids teams looking into this.
Forgive me if I prefer to base my policy analysis on quantitative studies rather than idioms.
There is a very healthy industry based around evading Chinese capital controls.
Read our latest interview with award-winning Rajesh K. Gupta of UCSD
Relations as First-Class Citizen- a Paradigm Shift for Software/Database Interop
Mixpanel | Full-stack / Front-End Software Engineers | SF / ATX / SEA | Fulltime | Onsite | www.mixpanel.com

In a world oversaturated with data, many organizations struggle to identify the useful patterns and trends they need to make better decisions and achieve their business goals. At Mixpanel our mission is to increase the rate of innovation and we’re doing that by building the most advanced analytics platform. Our award winning platform is helping over 26,000 customers including 30% of the fortune 100.

We’re helping companies gather customer data, understand behavioral patterns, why they’re happening and then set goals for influencing behavior and testing ways to hit them.

Headquartered in San Francisco, we also have offices in New York, Austin, Seattle, London, France, Barcelona, Singapore, and Amsterdam! Backed by the biggest names in the investing world such as Andreessen Horowitz, Sequoia, YCombinator, and a handful of notable individual investors.

Our stack includes Python, Golang, and lots of JavaScript.

Our Open Roles:
https://mixpanel.com/jobs/

Contact Directly:
Ritchie.Tendencia@Mixpanel.com
A lot of the hiring people just don't have the authority to contact legal and request a change to an agreement because the implications of that change must be reviewed by expensive lawyers.
Here is my earlier comment when somebody was bashing reCAPTCHA

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20297764

- Running a high profile, or even low profile. service which attracts automated or spearhead attacks makes you appreciate reCAPTCHA

- Web services and users are often low value and reCAPTCHA offers a free medicine

- Cleaning up attacks and such as a devops/webmasters is pain in the ass - getting all those alerts ad Saturdat 11:00pm in a bar - you do not want to cover them from your $100 budget

- reCAPTCHA makes many problems go away for a service provider

- People complaining about reCAPTCHA are often low value users (they do not buy anything) - though I have only subjective point to confirm this

Long term solutions can be only moving away for CAPTCHAs to strongly authenticated humans by a trusted party

- Strong human authentication on every service controlled by Apple/Google/Facebook who has vast data to keep bots in the check

- Start paying for the services - though you still need to do CAPTCHA at least once in the card authorization to prevent cardsters

Alternative for reCAPTCHA - though I do not vouch in for the quality yet: hcaptcha.com/

Bonus: Micropayments instead of ads or make botting too expensive - welcome to cryptocurrency land
Unless the stock price boost from the buyback is temporary.
> this has been discussed at length every time a similar issue arises

That's probably why it was downvoted. Repetition is tedious, and HN is for curiosity.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Comcast, with weak competition from others. $100/mo for 250mbps here ($110 if you rent their modem).
> are people who buy a Prius always virtue signaling?

Of course not.

I was simply responding to the idea that a significant investment is all it takes to counter the claim that some activity is virtue signaling.
You can't say "you're not a scotsman because I don't like your actions or opinions". You can say "you're not a scotsman because you're neither from scotland, nor have any particular tie to it."

Similarly fiscal conservatism has an actual definition, and it's totally vaild to say "you don't adhere to the definition", as long as you're not applying spurious constraints.
They reinvest it for you, it's a holding/portfolio company (P/B ~= 1). Also BRK buys back its stock.
> Because things like "women are equal to men", "race doesn't matter", "slavery is wrong", etc were most certainly wrongthink to begin with.

Pretty big difference between your examples and literal nazis posting hate on 8chan.
I meant to imply the consumers of his stuff were most likely virtue signaling. Not he himself.

Your phrasing implies that dismissing someone without engaging someone is a bad thing. On the contrary it’s recognizing that most people’s opinions are based on nothing but their sense of community identity and aren’t worth engaging at all.
Given this administration's thinking pattern, wouldn't they see the potential damage to US manufacturers and try to increase tariffs further, vicious-circle style? Who gets constrained first? If that doesn't cease, couldn't that eventually obliterate trade relationships entirely and make war more likely?
ICANN is great example. ICANN is a private organization, not a government. Are you saying that simply because they're _not_ a government, they should be allowed to censor domains based on their own ideas about what is and isn't acceptable speech?

Yes, ICANN is a bit different because ICANN is effectively a monopoly. But again, see my previous comment explaining why you don't need to be a monopoly to effectively police speech: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20614680

The point is, it doesn't matter who's doing the censoring. Once you reach the point where you're actively hindering people from expressing ideas in a public space (such as the internet), you're impinging Free Speech. Now maybe that's acceptable to a certain extent when the only alternative is to impinge upon a company's freedom of association. That's why I say there's a balance between those two principles. But the question remains: where should the line be drawn?
He/they may be known to some. https://medium.com/cryptomuse/how-the-nsa-caught-satoshi-nak...
Is that any different than virtually any other cyber security issue--the general public is not well equipped to do Risk Mitigation compared to more savvy individuals?
My argument is that at suitable levels of power there is no distinction between the two.
I’m going to turn it around on you: how can we have a just society if women legitimately fear for their safety when they go to certain places? We’re not obliged to suffer white nationalists carrying tiki torches down the national mall chanting “Blood and thunder” and making the world unambiguously worse because we need to know their position exists. Sunlight is not always the best disinfectant.
The deathnote game is played iteratively. Satoshi ceased publishing before running out of bits.
>I'm not saying we won't ever have a huge recession again, of course we will, but I don't see a current real indicator of it.

What? Are you just ignoring to ignore real estate bubble 2.0 (empty properties kept by speculators but at the end of the tunnel the price will implode when nobody has money to buy), the average length of car loans exceeding 5 years as people push out for lower and lower monthly minimums because they otherwise can't afford those $50k trucks, and other elephants such as medical and student loan debt?
If it were actually guaranteed to be gone, that would matter as a comparison point. The market however obviously isn't fixed and can rise or fall, bounce back or not. There's nobody that can consistently, accurately predict near-term moves.

The market could be down another 3% this time next week. Or it could snap back - emotional over-reaction - and recover most of this loss in the next week or three (sentiment on Wall St suddenly changes to eg: this means the Fed will have to step in and cut rates further, so stocks rise back up; it's just about impossible to tell how the wind will blow in the coming weeks, even if there is a hint of real bearishness about re the trade war & China).
Satoshi hasn't posted in almost 9 years. If he was still active, it's much less likely he would still be unknown.