skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> I don't really recognise a significant difference between a (real) monarchy and a totalitarian dictatorship

It's not my distinction, it's the definition of totalitarianism (as opposed to other authoritarian forms of power).

> Totalitarian regimes are different from other authoritarian regimes. The latter denotes a state in which the single power holder – an individual "dictator", a committee or a junta or an otherwise small group of political elite – monopolizes political power. "[The] authoritarian state [...] is only concerned with political power and as long as that is not contested it gives society a certain degree of liberty". Authoritarianism "does not attempt to change the world and human nature". In contrast, a totalitarian regime attempts to control virtually all aspects of the social life, including the economy, education, art, science, private life and morals of citizens. [1]

Absolute monarch doesn't care what peasants think, what ethnicity or race they are, and in general it leads to much less cleansings and pogroms than totalitarianism.

> Yes, in theory a violent revolution which centralises all power in the hands of the revolutionaries could work out great and turn itself into a democracy, but in practice this never actually happens.

why all power? Where did you get that all from? Again, I hate to play the devil's advocate, but I find myself pushed to do it - Marx wanted to change the ownership of means of production. It's not all the power, and it's not unprecedented. Most revolutions change the top dogs. In very few cases in history that change led to totalitarian state.

Romania had a violent revolution. France had a violent revolution. USA had a violent revolution. Poland had violent revolutions every 20 years for over a century (BTW several of the Polish uprisings wanted to free the serfs and give them the land). All of them are now democracies :)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism
Ask HN: Are there any grocery delivery APIs available?
I want to add items to my shopping list and automatically associate that with a product ID from some grocery delivery service. Is anything like this available? Worst case scenario is some complex selenium automation.
> I believe it should be his right to just simply say my product is not for blind people, and dedicate no resources to servicing this hypothetical user base.

You might believe it, but the law apparently says otherwise. It’s ok to disagree with laws while still complying with them, and if you’re so passionate about it... it’s ok to work to change them.

I might believe that my healthcare business shouldn’t have to comply with HIPPA but if I don’t comply I should expect to be sued.

I might believe my online store shouldn’t need to be PCI compliant and that it’s unfair, but if I don’t imply I should expect to pay for it.

Through (imperfect) representative democracy, the public has decided that being sloppy with health information, improperly protecting credit card information, and providing access to your business to disabled people are important enough to enforce via the law. It doesn’t really matter what the business owner’s beliefs are at that point.

Anyone who really thinks it’s so important to deny blind people equal access to their web site is free to run for Congress or find a politician who agrees with them to vote for.
Again, the point is we've created an easily abusable system.

The default response to any problem is now censorship and banning. We've trained corporations to take the easiest path and never stand up for speech or unpopular views being pushed on their platforms.

This idea that we can easily define was is 'not okay' to say on the internet from a rational leftist perspective and expect it all to just work out in the end is laughable and constantly being proven wrong.

These same left leaning people would never hold this sort of trust in big institutions to make these decisions in any other case. It's actually scary that so many people are so happy to throw the baby out with the bathwater to serve some political ends.

There's a very good reason ACLU defended the right for neo-Nazis to protest in the streets for decades (including their work allowing Charlottesville to happen). Precedent matter.

Blizzard et al should have taken a stand against regulating the speech of their customers private lives long ago. And I'm not talking about forum moderation in individual communities which has its own rules of civil discourse.
Projects are encouraged to have -announce mailing lists, which you can subscribe to for announcements.
I mean the first requirement would be a reason for needing multithreading in the first place. If you can then demonstrate that this implementation solves the initial problem, while not adversely affecting existing performance and stability, then it would probably be a candidate to merge into upstream.
"American foreign policy is we support Hong Kong against China" is something you'll be hard-pressed to find the US government in agreement on.
Delivery over elegance of delivery any day.
> While I have never seen the show

You should have stopped there.
Between this and the NBA drama over the same issue: is there a coordinated campaign going on re: censoring the west’s information on HK?

It disturbs me that most older people I talk politics with seems to think we ought to confront China over IP violations... human rights violations and anti-democratic activity seem infinitely more important to me.

I can’t boycott the NBA as I’m not a fan - but I’ve given Blizzard a lot of time and money - in the past. What a shame. Are there other recent examples besides the NBA and this?
I honestly struggle to conceive of the educational history needed to conflate the long history of censorship with "SJWs". Some of the greatest works of western literature in the twentieth century directly address the concept, and the majority of texts that influence "SJWs" were incredibly subversive and likely to be banned at their time of release due to their attack on conventional power structures that had the ability to censor them (Black people voting! Women voting! Anti-religious scientific heresy! Human rights!).

This strategy of demanding proof for something that is easily discoverable through any simple google search ("history of censorship") is such an exhausting argumentative tactic.
The Cold Tech War Is Also a Censorship Information War
I think parkersweb is trying to equate regional licensing issues to authoritarian censorship?
This is a big deal here in Michigan as well, due to various other industries using PFAS-laden chemicals in industrial settings. Around here it's mostly tanneries that used these chemicals and then wantonly dumped them in municipal dumps or the companies bought land and just dumped the chemicals there. Entire communities are now being discovered to be polluted.
How to Delegate Work So It Gets Done
Rancher 2.3
> Calling our rights "privilege" is throwing out the struggle and sacrifice of everyone that fought for those rights.

Next South Park should do an episode that shows how greedy western leaders running opium/heroin for the better part of now two centuries, turned the most populous country into a paranoid dictatorial hellhole for the Chinese people.

US introspection would be too on the nose?

You ever ask yourself what percentage of the heroin/opium supply would be pulled off the market if China could extradite people from HK? More than 50%... and who gets hurt by that?
Yes, targeting individuals by telling them you are going to kill them is not protected by the first amendment lol It has nothing to do with

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
So much of popular science reporting is abysmal that I have to flip it around: assume that the study is going to be mis-reported and just accept it as a given. I don't want to let that certainty factor into the choice of what research is done.

Politics is hard to study, but it's important. If the results are valid, people will apply them, and that has a direct effect on people's lives. The data may be messy and the theory doubtful, but if there's any measure of merit to it, it can gain a small advantage that can be the critical difference. And hopefully, each subsequent study builds evidence for a paradigm shift that makes the theory less dubious over time.
If you’re really interested in a subject it can very rewarding to move between primary and secondary sources. Secondary sources are usually clearer and if they explain why the ideas matter or what’s motivating, I find that tremendously helpful. Primary sources are often surprising and weirder than I would have expected.
Ask HN: What problem you need to have solved?
Would you pay for a solution?
Because that’s also what a brain is doing. The thoughts of a housefly may not be very apocalyptic, but there’s an evolutionary path from there to humans, which definitely could be.
I'm no psychologist, so I'm sure someone could express this better. I don't think the addiction to early games, whether Civ or Tempest that we called "addictive" was a real addiction. It was just fun. No more than anyone was addicted to cycling or football as a kid.

Loot boxes, with all the tricks of "almost" winning rolls, and currencies that intentionally distance you from actual money so you're not sure how much you're spending, or MMO's with the "Skinner box" grind. Those are pushing much more into real addictions exploiting people who know it's doing them no good. They're using the same addictive techniques as gambling, such as scratch cards that have 2 of 3 jackpot spaces when you scratch. They all cross the line into exploitative and need some level of regulation just like gambling. Particularly when it's pitched at minors.

That UK gambling regulation has been liberalised in the last 25 years, and there's been a huge growth of problems stemming from that is no surprise.
I just typed this into DuckDuckGo:

> black hat hacker versus white hat hacker

Here are the first five hits:

https://techcaption.com/difference-between-black-hat-white-h...

https://www.exin.com/article/black-hat-hacker-versus-white-h...

https://www.uscybersecurity.net/white-hat-hacker-black-hat-h...

https://www.clearpathit.com/white-hat-vs-black-hat-hackers-a...

https://www.lifewire.com/black-hat-hacker-a-white-hat-hacker...

Beyond these, what do you want to know?
The way I was taught to write, with a hostile reader glaring at me, implied that nobody would care what I had to say anyway.

This is far more disturbing than the main premise. I can also relate.
I wonder if I could pass this test, being technically 'high-yella'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_yellow
You’re talking about people who donated to campaigns to nullify the marriages of childless couples?
I think the person you're replying to was just saying that the CEO would probably be replaced if they prioritized something other than profits, not that it was legally mandated.
That's exactly right.

It's also pretty hilarious.

I said a while ago: "The irony is that I had to learn a lot of javascript in order to never have to write any javascript again."
If they had just kicked him out of the tournament, I'd definitely be on that side of things. I don't want a world where all competitions are full of people yelling about hot-button issues. But banning him for a year is so obviously disproportionate, it's hard to see how it could have happened if not for fear of China.
It would be up there with everyone turning on their hair dryers at the same time.
I bet he'd kick an ass or two.
So we should stop trying?

The reality is both ends of the spectrum are undesirable. To move too far in either direction ends in murder and destruction.
The problem with it is that it creates a powerful incentive for vertical integration and puts everyone else out of business.

If you have a product that goes from mine to mill to factory to wholesaler to retailer to consumer, the tax is paid five times. But if the same company owns the mine as operates the retail store, it's paid only once.

That's an insurmountable advantage for vertically integrated companies, so no others remain and tax-wise you end up with the same result as sales tax or VAT (i.e. the tax is paid on the total final value) except that you've needlessly destroyed every non-vertically integrated business.

That is the problem that VAT solves, by giving longer supply chains the same tax treatment as vertically integrated corporations.
>> User comes in with a list of what they are OK being presented with...

> That is exactly what the Accept-Language header is: A list of preferred languages, detailing which ones work better and which ones to use as fallback, etc.

I knew about Accept-Language, but I just looked into it and I didn't realize it also had possibility for weighting of each language. I was thinking of an instance where you are highly proficient at languages X and Y, and a website has "native" content in X, and translated content in Y -- you don't want to be served Y in that case. Seems like a tricky case to get right and maybe some server code parsing Accept-Language could choke on it if not careful.
> Is it just that developers are now satisfied with the semantics being in their component names and props, and don't care if it actually gets rendered as undifferentiated divs?

Basically, yes. Also, components often require extra div-nesting for robustness, and then there's the obfuscated classnames (CSS-in-JS), and the way responsiveness tends to be done these days (crude media query helper components that show/hide duplicated subsections of DOM for different devices). This all means the rendered DOM in devtools is bloated and hard to read anyway, so there's less point in caring about keeping it nice and clean.

Also, if you're mostly focused on building individual components, you probably don't feel as much ownership over the page as a whole, so you don't think about how your rendered DOM affects the document outline. Without that bigger picture, semantics isn't as interesting.
I live in the midwest and irrigation is definitely used around here. Not for all crops but there has been a huge increase in the usage of irrigation over the past decade. There's usually enough rain but irrigation still helps make yields a lot more consistent.
NBA's China dilemma: $4B at risk as Chinese TV cancels game broadcasts
In the counterfactual where the Soviets conquered Europe, I could easily see the USSR surviving to today... No liberal democracies on their borders to compare with, no need for a huge military on the western border, and increased resources would go a long way.
And what if it were?
I was referring to "Chinese government's mass incarceration of ethnic minorities". The purpose of these camps is to brainwash these people so they lose their ethnic (muslim) identity and do not even think about rebellion.

This is terrible and horrible, especially children separated from their parents, most probably for ever. But once again it is a totally different "evil" than what Nazis did. It would be closer to what North Korea did to their entire population.

Organ harvesting is a different issue, it certainly happens in Xinjiang but also in any other place in China where there is prisoners. I mean, China government did not put in place all these camps just for taking organs or for forced labor, from an economic perspective it would be a nonsense.
You completely misunderstand what they do. The art form is political satire, which is just another way of saying "Look at these idiots, we need to stop this".
12% is more than enough to control a publicly traded company, because speculative shareholders don't typically vote.

The Chinese view of ownership is that the CCP ultimately owns everything. For instance there are no land deeds in China, just rental agreements from the party. Tencent, as one of the largest telecommunications companies in China is very much an adjunct of the CCP.

Don't accuse someone of lying just because you don't understand the underlying facts.
How have you gone about doing this? I used to work for Deloitte, and haven't had much success finding people to sub to. Any advice would be much appreciated.

We're a cybersecurity services firm (www.tailrisk.com) that is New York based and got all of our work as the prime contractor through our networks, reputation and skills.
I certainly hope the lifeline comes with a hell of a lot more penalties for WeWork than just a lower valuation. At this point they need to be forced into an actually sustainable business model and Neumann needs to be completely kicked out this time.
It sounds like you agree with the measure. Is that the case?
I don't know, I think they pretty much offend everyone poignantly. At such a level I find it hard that a brand, especially these days, wouldn't be scared to be affiliated with them. To their credit, yes, they tend to offend both sides of an issue in a rather honest way. There's a good reason they got a liberal award. They play middle fence pretty damn well... so well the group giving the award didn't know they were republicans.

Still, they do specifically call out groups. I can't think of any that are actually safe or get a pass. I mean, they rag on Christianity and Judaism all the time. Then they do an episode harpooning and calling out atheists & Dawkins for being a bunch of assholes and make the case that religion isn't so bad.

I don't know if we'll ever see another South Park. Tight turn around times on episodes so their content is fresh and relevant. Best example of balanced opinion thus far... as a show where kids swearing and making fart jokes are the tame/mild highlights of the episodes... It's just... I think it's a straight up anomaly, not simply a unique situation. Seinfeld being as long running, successful and "sophisticated" show, that was unique. South Park said "hold my beer" to that and then shits in your hand just to get laughed at by a fat kid with an alien dish satellite popping out of his ass. And we are all okay with it!
So why not load the calculated constants to the application server to reduce network latency?

And the learning side of things should have culled that list of thousand features down to a list of 5 - 10 that mattered.

It really sounds like the off-the-shelf stuff isn't built for efficiency.
Propaganda will always exist in one form or another. State law is not going to change that or even put a dent in it.

The only decent option to fight propaganda is through the education system. The incoming generations should be armed with sharp critical thinking skills, common sense, and empathy (this one is especially important). There needs to be more demonstrative sessions in classrooms where students actively participate in distinguishing fake content from real ones (and specifically how they can deem it to be fake).

My kid's public school does an ok job at teaching the above skills on a surface level, but it comes off as an afterthought as opposed to a primary lesson. I wish they would take it to a more granular level and make it a primary aspect of education.
So instead of properly maintaining their infrastructure, they just completely shut down when their job becomes tough?

I can’t wait to get out of this state.
While most users in China don't have access to Facebook, it is still pretty cheap/easy† for Chinese citizens to buy access to a VPN that allows them to use services by Western companies (e.g. Facebook, Google, Twitter)

†: https://www.saporedicina.com/english/vpn-how-to-access-faceb...
> Expert Software Designers read

“Read? Books? With pages? And chapters? I don’t pay you to read, I pay you to program! And I’ve seen programming, programming is done with a keyboard, so I’d better hear typing! And I expect you to tell me exactly what you’re going to be doing, hour by hour, for the next two weeks, or ‘sprint’ or whatever you nerds call these things these days, and I’d better see lots of commits to the repository because I’m checking who’s committing the most because I don’t pay you to read and learn, I pay you to know and if you don’t already know there are a thousand foreigners lined up to do your job for ten cents a day so you’d better get in line, programmer!”
Of course the first itself is largely hillariously unenforceable even a century ago because of global speech and the First Ammendment - which is a good thing.

I don't think that carve out would be constitutional unless it was even more broad. Say "personal capacity political advocacy is protected" so you could get fired for saying "<Company> supports Free Tibet" without proper permission/authority but "I, not speaking on behalf of <Company> support Free Tibet". Even that would open itself to damn uncomfortable side effects legally for a weatherman opening every broadcast with "I support the reestablishment of Rhodesia!" being protected as well.
Show HN: A practical guitar sight-reading trainer
A few months ago we were talking about Facebook and Twitter censoring bigots, and a lot of people responded that it's fine when a corporation does it on their own platform--they own the platform and can do what they want with it.

My position was that when corporate platforms are such an important part of our communications, protecting free speech on those platforms remains important even though they're corporately owned[1]. It's easy to be pro-censorship when you agree with the censors, but corporations are amoral and if we set the standard that censorship doesn't matter, there's no guarantee that they'll only censor the way we want them to.

Consider this an "I told you so" post.

EDIT: More on this subject, perhaps a bit better-thought-out: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21194433

[1] I'd further argue that we shouldn't give up so much of our communication to corporately-owned platforms for this reason, but that's a separate discussion.
Comedy has always been a place you'd look if you want to see someone speak truth to power, for millennia too, and South Park has always done that.

No, not always. They sometimes do that. Calling vegetarians pussies [0] is not speaking truth to power. It's punching down. South Park's approach is more the "try to piss off everyone" approach, which while funny, is a bad way to find your moral compass.

0 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTog_NtCEio
After bnetd I boycotted Blizzard for years. The only tangible result was that I missed out on Warcraft 3. After the 1-click patent, I boycotted Amazon for years. They didn't appear to have missed my money.

I'm all for collective action, but I'm not sure if boycotts are reliable. I've seen companies respond to social pressures, but like net neutrality, when they can make money they just try again more subtilely, and that presumes the original pressure was successful.

I'm not saying we SHOULDN'T boycott Blizzard and the NBA...but do we have other options as well? Governmental action to be backing, companies with clear "good" positions we should promote, etc?

I don't have ideas, I just have a pile of bitterness and hopelessness, and issues like Hong Kong feel a lot more important than 1 click.
Any advice on how to find the right person to talk to at these firms? I used to work at Deloitte, and even there I haven't figured out how to sub on something.
Looks really cool and clean. Are you hoping to monetize by advertising?
Thanks for sharing both links.
1. Chinese government didn't involve this. It's pure Blizzard's behavior.
2. As you said, you can boycott Hearthstone or Blizzard as the consequence of their actions
3. Meanwhile, Chinese players can also boycott them as well as the consequence of Blizzard's ignorance
4. So at the end, it's Blizzard's decision based on their interest
We should split long code into small functions or files?
WTF Is Bitcoin?