skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Had a coworker who openly supported Trump. Didn't affect my relationship with him or how we worked together, despite not respecting Trump at all. We had some good conversations as well. I may not agree with him politically, but I don't need to agree with someone on everything to be friends, or at least respectful.

So yeah, any place that has functioning adults, or, better, mature people, can have mature discussions. But then it takes two to make this work. For example, if you belittle or insult people freely or mock those who you might not agree with, you aren't going to ever see that mature environment.
A society that has decided to become unforgiving is halfway to becoming a police state. The intent to arrest is the same.
Back when it was possible to have a conservative viewpoint on social issues without being subject to public shaming by a disruptively loud minority. It wasn’t that long ago either.

Most people spend more time at work than with their actual families. This leads to all kinds of conversations, in the office, in the break room, or at a bar. Not everything is appropriate for every setting but pretending differing opinions don’t exist is ludicrous.
yes but large organisations find the middle ground difficult to cultivate.

It requires that people avoid becoming excessively emotionally invested in the discussion; such that disagreements do not negatively impact their working relationships.

Small teams with good temperaments are easily capable of this. Large organisations tend to look for more definitive policies that can be easily laid out and enforced.
You can buy pre-cursors (or known as analogs) like 4-AcO-DMT online from Lysergi. They are sold as a 'research chemical', however they metabolize into psilocin so it is indistinguishable to psilocybin. Obviously you should take every pre-caution before ingesting any substance by doing your own research, and looking into the authenticity of the supplier.
I'm not sure why you're getting downvoted but no comments addressing the points you raised.

Can anyone provide an example of Nazi code being hosted on Gitlab? It might be nice to justify what otherwise looks like an absurd comparison made by this article. What would nazi code even look like? Or is "nazi" in this case just a catch-all for wrongthink?
> Also, the men are supposed to serve missions for two years

Not just the men.
Not necessarily. You may just think that the costs of the discourse outweigh the benefits in some specific context.
No. The odds that I align politically with every person that will benefit financially from my work are zero, and I wouldn't want it any other way. I find mandatory political adherence much more threatening than any particular political party.
Human rights exist only as a political construct formed by many treaties and agreements which have been thoroughly negotiated. I could not come up with anything more political than international law if I tried.
You might have a case of technical debt
Banning staff from talking politics at work shouldn't be allowed under the First Amendment.
I'm interested in how this plays out. I just ventured back onto AT&Ts pay as you go plans as my former provider, Ting, doesn't cooperate with the frequencies my Moto G xt1032 can access in Montana. Ting doesn't have the frequencies/permissions for my Moto G to operate on 3G in this state.

Before Ting I was on StraightTalk, before StraightTalk I was on AT&T, before AT&T I was on Alltel, specifically because less than two month's later the contract was dissolved when AT&T purchased them and I sold the phone to a NewEgg partner so that I could buy a Noctua NH-D14 for "free".

Everyone go buy a contract phone?
I accept political disagreements with senior leadership as a fact of life. I've worked for many companies where this was the case; one where donations to the RNC was not-so-subtling encouraged; and another that suggested we donate to the company's PAC.

Most of us can separate our politic beliefs from our work. Regardless of how we feel about certain laws and regulations, we have to work within the limitations they impose.
Under the legal theory that mixers are illegal, that sounds very illegal to me.

What is the purpose of mixing the coins? You only help criminals. Gray-market goods (ex: legal pornography) are already solved by the traditional BTC network without anonymity.

Between KYC (Know your Customer) and other such laws in the USA, it is clear to me that anonymizing your transactions is very much frowned upon by the powers that be. If anything, fully transparent and trackable BTC "in the open" has numerous advantages with regards to being a "good citizen".
Pizza is the only thing all of my family can ever agree on to eat! To now know the history of pizza will be a good conversation starter next dinner together.
I assumed the writer was posting from the opposite ideological position. But frankly, we don't care or even much look at that. When your job is to do the same thing over and over, after a few hundred thousand times you tend to see only the relevant bits in the mask.
> Luring people into answering (and implicitly asking) an “unasked existential ques-tion” by contacting them about your conceptual book? In some ways it soundslike you’re a meta-author using editors as writing tools; in other ways it soundslike you’re just lazily getting editors to write a book for you. Please take this asconfirmation that I will not be writing any material for your book.

Hahaha the irony here is delicious.
I think anyone who is not familiar with these particular communities in Lakewood and Brooklyn will see warning flags of anti-semitism in a lot of related comments about them. I would just like to voice some support for the people speaking up about them, because this is not a problem with Jews, or even Orthodox Jews. It is specific to these particular Hasidic communities and the fraud is rampant and expanding.
This could conceivably be done by creating a notion of special-interest delegates. The groups they represent could register, be voted on by the people (general election). If they received a sufficient vote (10-20%?) then they'd exist for some period of time (10-20 years?). People could then register with the special-interest groups of their choice (perhaps a limited number, with a minimum period of membership to avoid people attempting to spoil elections, they'd have to choose to join groups they cared about or groups they wished to spoil, but have a hard time doing both). Delegates would be nominated by various participants within the special-interest group. Consider that, a labor delegate, could be nominated by various unions, as an example. Or in your Catholic example, the Knights of Columbus and the Franciscan Order.

Delegates would be a sort of elected lobbyist, but instead of operating behind closed doors (so much), they'd have to layout their position in campaigns before being elected to such a position.

I'm not sure this'd be a good idea overall, it has a lot of downsides that I don't have time to describe as I'm about to head out the door. But there's some merit to the concept.
"If your values aren't used to inform who you're doing business with, why do you bother pretending to have values at all? This [merge request] demonstrates that you don't have any values except 'we want to make money, and it doesn't matter who gets hurt.'"

It sounds a lot like GitLab has a set of values that it doesn’t feel comfortable openly championing, so it just lies.
Interesting. I didn't notice any significant latency when I was using it.

Or were you trying to make musical instruments?
I wonder if the media around BTC being anonymous and untraceable was actually encouraged by the intelligence community and law enforcement. It's certainly been a boon for tracking down a lot of criminals.
Technical professions are generally held responsible for what they enable. Biology: researchers can't do anything they want on plants, animals or humans. Medicine: doctors are expected to follow strict guidelines with their patients. Even engineering: implementing a cheating system for diesel tests will (rightfully) get engineers into trouble.

But software engineering seem to have a pass on how the things we build is actually used.

Dark patterns, facial recognition, mass surveillance? Just some code, a nice puzzle. It's like the profession as a whole feels only distantly connected to what they actually do.

I welcome the trend of developers taking more moral responsibility for their work. I want more ethics courses, more difficult questions, more uneasiness about what we do with our code, and what we enable. Not to be sure we build the right thing, but at least to be less wrong–and, sometimes, to know when we clearly build the wrong thing. I want us to be accountable; like other technical professions in the world.

And if in the workplace, the place where the majority of software in the world is usually produced, we can't have these discussions, what use will it be?
> I'm well aware I'm in a very privileged position

This is indeed a very privileged position. Most people need to pay rent, buy food, save for retirement, pay for their kids clothes...
Is your company on auto-pilot and making good money? If not, sounds like it's going to crash and burn.
The analogy avoids the difference that food is a consumable that everyone, from minimum-wage workers and billionaires, uses and getting better quality food doesn’t make you orders of magnitude more powerful than everyone else. Computer technology is different, it enhances the differences between people. An artist working for a villain to make propaganda posters doesn’t raise as many protests as Facebook being open to villains because through Facebook your campaign can get orders of magnitude stronger.

If Happy Meals came with an assault riflevpeopke would probably be more angry at McDonalds for catering to bad guys.
There was an episode of Misommer Murders around this and the fuss over the flowers in the show now makes a whole lot more sense!
Conda can't fix some problems, like Python 3.7 wanting ncurses >6, but a dependency wanting ncurses 5.9
This is quite possible for Manhattan and probably for other cities. Manhattan once had transportation needs for streets since it was ringed with wharves for seaborne and river commerce, had huge warehouses, railroad yards, factories, and all the facilities of a dynamic manufacturing city.

That has all disappeared and the Manhattan economy is essentially services for residences, entertainment, media, finance, government, hospitals, etc. Production of goods is minor, and distribution and warehousing have mainly moved out, e.g. Fulton fish market.

So Manhattan becomes a forest of towers mainly for residents and offices, with some more specialized buildings for hospitals, conference centers, sports venues, etc. But there is even little need for retailing space, since the distribution centers for online retailers serving Manhattan can be in the outer boroughs or NJ.

In this scenario the transportation system boils down to distribution of food and other goods to the towers and the collection and removal of garbage, plus mass transit intra island and to/from the hinterlands for commuters to the office towers, as well as mass transit to/from airports for the tourism and business travelers.

Manhattan is probably ahead of other cities in becoming a pure center of goods consumption.
That article took the least charitable interpretation possible in order to achieve the most clickbait it could possibly be.
Gilbert Sorrentino's Mulligan Stew leads off with rejection letters. One might question the authenticity, given some of the signatures, but they are entertaining.
>In terms of surface area of the Earth...relatively rare

Using that definition, anything and everything could be justified as rare.

Coastlines are the most dynamic places on Earth. They change, they adapt, they are a constantly shifting equilibrium. Geologically, they are the youngest and most easily replaceable features on Earth. They're not fragile things.

What isn't natural is how static we've tried to keep them.

>If something is rare and good

You're romanticizing things. Coastlines serve an important ecological purpose, and we shouldn't ignore that, but the vast majority isn't irreplaceable.

There's no reason to believe that newly created (ecologically engineered) coast wouldn't be just as, if not more, biologically productive than what is being replaced.
Why do constantly hear things like this and see so few actual people come down, and when they do they are immediately epsteined.
I think there's probably some room here to differentiate between politics (in the US, Democrat and Republican for most offices) and ideology.

Ideology is the framework for politics. I don't see anything wrong with saying discussing politics (a given candidate, or a platform stance) at work is discouraged while encouraging a certain ideological stance (more people from historically marginalized communities in tech is a good thing).
The idyllic dream of vendors lugging their wares through the subway and city streets every day... When construction companies hire armies of people to walk individual I-beams through the city for every project... Where I get to haul my garbage a dozen blocks to the nearest accessible trash pickup location...

In the end you still need roads. You don't get to convert all of that space into a park even if you ban cars.
And even if you do have a TV, if you're not watching any live channels (or on-demand video from BBC iPlayer) a licence is not required.

That's terrible that they tried to force their way in, if you feel up to registering a complaint please consider doing so.
This is what you should have posted in the first place, along with the links. Here you make your point in a way that people can actually understand and that does not destroy the container here.

There's a common phenomenon where a user's later defense of a flamebait post is often the high-quality, substantive explanation that they should have posted in the first place. I almost want to write software to replace the one with the other.
If you're in zero g and not on a surface with friction to push against, you're not going to be able to do what a hammer thrower can do standing on Earth.

But, if you provide some momentum to an object like a hammer and release it, you will move. That goes back to "you need to leave something behind in order to go somewhere."
Typically, "no politics" ends up being enforced as "no politics that contradict the office norm".

It is clear how this ends up happening. When people express an opinion generally supported in the office, it is unlikely someone will complain. When someone expresses a contrary opinion, they will appear to be the one "making trouble".
San Juan has these beat by a hundred years or so. Saint Augustine is about 50 years younger (so also has these beat) and I think the oldest on continental soil.
EU orders Broadcom to halt exclusivity deals while investigation deepens
Twitter: Something Went Wrong
Not that I use Twitter a lot, however, after their "redesign", not a day goes by without me seeing messages "Something went wrong. Try again." instead of the content. It is very sad and, actually, quite unbelievable, considering the company's prominence and ample engineering talent (as evidenced by their open source software projects). Anybody else here experiencing the same issue? Thoughts?
It's somewhat surprising this hasn't happened earlier. They've been tracking these things for years, surely not everyone has been careful enough to keep it hidden.
How does a rule like “can’t discuss politics” even work? Anything and everything is political. Not allowing political discussions is in itself political activism for the status quo. Are GitLab employees allowed to discuss the rule?
> I don’t understand why it’s encouraged (in some companies) to discuss politics at work in a way that leads to internal issues. Purely from a commercial stance, team cohesion has a positive impact on people and product. Why do anything to disturb that?

The health of the democracy is far more important than your company's profit margin. And besides, enforcing silence is still a political move that strongly favours the opinions that the power structures imply with their actions.
Let's Have an Honest Conversation About Huawei
The comment is still live with positive votes, I don't think anyone is shutting anything down.
If your policy is going to be, "we'll take your money in exchange for goods or services, no matter who you are", it seems that you'd be better off not making your policy public. It just draws attention to you, and it's not going to positive.

Gitlab is also a remote workplace, so it's not like there's much opportunity for water-cooler talk.
Can you link to a source? As I understand it, lack of knowledge of age is not a defense against statutory rape.
I do think that Americans in general tend to be oversensitive when it comes to politics, and this mindset bleeds into the workplace. And I say this as an American. I've heard that discussing things like politics isn't as big a deal in say Europe or Israel.

Personally I wish the discussion of things like politics wasn't considered taboo because I think it makes for a more boring work environment, but I'm also the type who loves to debate with people who have opposing viewpoints and don't get offended easily. Unfortunately American culture has moved in the opposite direction revolving around appeasing to the most sensitive "victim".
If wage labor, “work,” is the condition of surviving in society, how could it avoid being political? Who is included in it, privileged by it, how it is organized, etc all have serious consequences that determine, again, one’s, baseline survival.
Mysteries of the Hidden Internet
I think it's fair to call women in tech initiatives nonpolitical. There's no significant political opposition to them; things like the INSPIRE Women Act (the women in tech initiative for NASA) regularly get passed with no real debate.
You've made three distinct points which might have been better offered split up:

> We need to end special treatment under the law for any race, white or red or whatever. No race should get special treatment in the United States.

While I prefer the phrasing "Nobody should get special treatment." I think most agree with this.

> This country should welcome immigrants.

I think many agree with this; however in the historical context we're all immigrants here. The Cherokees having crossed some land/sea bridge much longer ago, and Europeans and others arriving within the last 600 years. Also, defining which country you're talking about is crucial. I'm assuming you mean The United States, but a 'Cherokee nation' exists/existed too.

> If they don't want to be part of it, we should allow them to leave peacefully. That is the most sensible policy.

Leave for where, also Re: my paragraph above, didn't the sea-bound settlers arrive and take over the park they were living in?
Nope, you don't need to start the name with underscores.

class Foo:
bar = 'public'
__bar = bar # stashed
Futuristic, why not. Squeaky clean throughout - now that must be a different Netherlands than the Amsterdam I lived in!

Particularly after Koninginnedag or the New Year's Eve it would take days of wading through a thick layer of mush before it got cleaned. I've never seen such a mess anywhere else! (And I kind of enjoyed it. It felt... alive?)
Giving someone public recognition also gives recognition to anything that person might say. If they are known for believing that killing certain groups of people is okay, then giving them recognition is inherently political.
Perforce effectively provided this interface as long as you stuck to packages within the same depot. Multi-package reviews and commits were very natural. The git migration eliminated that and moved the concern up to build time selection of versions. Not terrible, but definitely less convenient.
At the same time, they likely won't mesh well with the team's culture.
I have a pet theory that we (that is, the culture I'm familiar with, so I don't really know how widespread it is, but at least the white U.S.) have spent too long saying "don't discuss politics, sex, religion, and politics".

We literally have no practice handling differences regarding the very items people are passionate about.

The answer isn't to get into massive drama-filled flame wars, nor to drive people with minority opinions into hiding, but at the same time I don't think continuing the "enforced silence until it's considered common knowledge" is the right way to handle it.

See another comment pointing out that issues like gender equality, cognitive diversity, and workplace rights regardless of sexual preferences are ALL "political", but also directly impact the workplace. How do we decide workplace issues if not at the workplace?
It isn't so obvious to me that they have positive cashflow.

Their main costs will be employees, and not having a full launch schedule will have a dramatic impact on the financials.
It's The Register. They're known for 'silly' headlines; it's their gimmick.
Bucky Fuller had the idea that we should build houses in factories and deliver them by helicopter. They were designed to fit onto a central mast that supported them and had hook ups for utilities. Basically he wanted to apply the automated assembly line to homes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dymaxion_house

Everyone who wants one should have a home.
Sweden Encourages Citizens to Save Lives with This Simple Text Message
I think his point is that any aspect of a person not directly related to the question at hand should be off-limits. In his example, that would mean that the literature should be judged on its own merits, without any reference to the character or activities of its author.

Which seems to me like a reasonable and consistent ethical position. However, it does have some consequences that might be hard to stomach. Such as, that selling computers to the Nazis would be an acceptable activity, even knowing what they intended to use them for.
That most of human society is inherently political, and that trying to pretend there is some arbitrary line dividing political and nonpolitical is disingenuous.
You can use Bitcoin anonymously, but it's like using the web anonymously i.e. it takes a lot of effort and a single mistake screws it up.
> When there is no obstacle 6Ghz or 60Ghz doesn't matter.

Power amplifier efficiency for 6GHz and 60GHz is not the same-- not even close.

> For 3$ https://fr.aliexpress.com/item/32786483344.html a 6Ghz radar that goes 12meters using 30mA, so my range claims are not that silly.

This is a deflection and ridiculous. We're talking about spotting e.g. gestures. It falls apart with distance because of both angular resolution and inverse-fourth power.

I've been involved in the design of mmwave radars. If it was easy to spot and precisely track small objects at 10m, we'd be doing it...
Fair, I'll move it.
Show HN: Musoq – SQL for various data sources
>All I know is it has something to do with Monica questioning some new CoC changes (pronoun-related) and then being fired for "violating" the CoC before it was even ratified.

Pretty close. Monica blogged a timeline if you want even more reading. https://cellio.dreamwidth.org/2019/10/05/stack-overflow-fias... And then these might be better entrypoints to what followed https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/334248/an-update-to... https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/333965/firing-mods-...

>It's very unclear to me what everyone's positions on this issue

Most people seem to care more about how StackExchange handled it and what it means for the future of contributing to SE sites. The way SE got rid of her, and the subsequent damage control has been a dumpster fire.

They're prepping to sell the company, and the shit communication skills are probably a deliberate not-so-subtle "fuck off" to any volunteers that have become more ingrained into the community than the free frontline staff SE wants.
What are the correct factions?