skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Many times now, friends have introduced me to friends of their's that need help on some kind of engineering or are seeking investors for some new kind of technology. I heard about magnetic bubble memories, new logic gate designs for digital ICs, and improvements to starting batteries for internal combustion automotive applications. These seemed possible but quite risky.

However, some of the most interesting presentations were different. They seemed to be simply impossible inventions thought up by well-meaning, passionate people.

For example, two high schools kids swore that they had invented a video compression algorithm that worked better than existing ones such as H.264, while at the same time being lossless. They were trying to obtain investors and their parents had already contacted a public relations firm to promote their work. All they needed were some outside investors so that they could work out the kinks.

I was quite skeptical about their claim since: (1) they wouldn't reveal their methods nor any example of the algorithm in action, (2) they were completely unfamiliar with any literature on video compression, (3) didn't know how to program, and (4) couldn't understand the notation used for a mathematical discussion of the issues. Here's a quote: "What do the big E symbols all over the page mean?" (they were capital sigmas). The P.R. firm arranged for me to do a couple fo days of consulting with them to untangle what was going on. Unsurprisingly, the check I received for consulting with them later bounced.

Another time, a likable young guy claimed to have invented a purely mechanical, reactionless propulsion engine. It was a memorable experience. I listened and watched the "inventor" describe the weights, arms, and rotating parts. Forces were going in all kinds of directions and were quite dynamic. I explained that conservation of momentum meant that it wouldn't work and his reply was "Okay, but just explain why this part wouldn't push the whole thing forward when it swung around, [etc. etc.]" He simple didn't believe that conservation of momentum would keep his device from flying though space, on its own without expending any mass. Because I refused to calculate every force and integrate them over time as the parts revolved and slid back and forth he felt like I hadn't refuted his intuition about the mechanism. He had no understanding of vectors or calculus or physics. Every so often after our initial meeting I would hear from him again. He was a earnest, nice guy.

Every time I see an article like this I think briefly that I should send him a link to it, but it's probably better that I don't.
I guess I just have completely different use cases. Why would I want to read Facebook messages from complete strangers?

If I don't want them to be Facebook friends, then I'll give them my email.
Imagine if you see all transactions made with this $100 bill.
High profit margins
Was actually a legit question (since "we don't have offices" has been big in their marketing), but I should have made that clearer.
Isn't that information private? I don't think other companies besides Amazon can see what I've bought over time
Silence is politics.
I'm perfectly fine with the idea of a "land value tax" so long as the value of unimproved land is properly assessed: it is only use by humans that gives land economic value, so the value of unimproved land is zero. Feel free to multiply that by whatever rate you see fit.
Using someone's resolver other than your own is sensible: it serves to hide from authoritative servers the IP addresses of each query's requestor, both because the resolver aggregates many clients' lookups, and because of caching.

But whoever runs the resolver you use gets to see what domainnames you're resolving. Your resolver's operator will be sorely tempted to monetize that metadata.

Your only choice is which resolver operator you'll allow to monetize your metadata.

So you lose no matter what, unless you have a contract with the operator, and then you'd better be giving them something of value if you want to be able to enforce the contract's confidentiality requirements.

ISPs mostly don't even support DoH/DoT, which is a reason to not want to use their resolvers. But using public resolvers helps centralize the DNS, which is not good.
Breaking ed25519 would only affect the ability to forge transactions, it would not help with tracing, am I wrong?
Do we possess our possessions or do they possess us?
Politics is very important to many people, and conflicts may arise because, when confronted on something that they value, people tend to get emotional.

These conflicts are rarely pretty, and I'd like my workplace to avoid them as much as possible.
A blanket ban like this isn't particularly useful advice. I2C is perfectly useable in less-than-perfect environments, and LEO isn't really as harsh as people make it out to be. It's really only going to be a problem if you assume that everything operates perfectly all the time, and if you're making those assumptions you're going to have a bad time working on remote systems anyway.

Make sure your drivers can handle NAKs and errors on the line. Make sure you can reset subsystems (probably by power-cycling) completely and your system can keep running. Be ready to deal with stale sensor data or having to do a few retries at times. With these and some good testing you'll be fine with I2C, and really there's immense value in having those attitudes in your system design anyway.

I was a design EE at Planet Labs for 4 years, have sent something like 200 satellites to space, each with literally dozens of I2C devices on them, and supported them in orbit.
https://www.ovpn.com/en/dns-leak-test

For those of us who don't speak Swedish...
> The entire premise of DoH and DoT are that you don't want to use your ISP's DNS

This is the discussion separation I am requesting. There is benefit of in-transit encryption regardless of who the endpoint is. There may also be benefits to defaulting to non-system DNS, but those discussions should be separate IMO.
I get your point but do you think that massive brands like McDonalds would take this path to show you a hidden ads about their brand. no. They can pay millions to blast you their McDonalds cups on TV ads. When these kind of companies want to start to put ads on a new media they have 6 or 7 figures budget. They don't give a damn about paying a 100USD gig to have their McDonalds cups's post on the front page for 3 hours. They want their McDonalds cups on the front page ALL the time.
The terrible AR-15 is one example
Doc.ai Lays Blueprint for Changing the $3.5T Health Care Industry
I should start a business. Faraday Sleeves.

... and of course it exists. Only $90: https://silent-pocket.com/products/faraday-cage-phone-sleeve
Please do not take HN threads further into ideological flamewar. We've had to ask you this before.

Also, please note this guideline: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I never see statistic for simply "being shot", it's always about death, being shot is horrible even if you don't die... death is obviously a subset, so I wonder how large the full set is.
To be nostalgic, in a non driving world, perhaps there is a neighborhood doctor's office.

To relate to the other comments talking about health policy change; you should already be looking for a local urgent care for most issues.

And to put the question further in U.S. medical politics perspective; if you're a rural American in a state that hasn't expanded medicaid, your local Level 1 Trauma hospital is likely too far away anyway...
I worked at a company where they tried to apply a "no political discussion" policy in response to (justified) moral uneasiness with the direction of the company. Because work that has any social bearing has a political element by definition, it seems extremely counter productive.

Of course, by saying this they didn't mean that there shouldn't be political discussion. They were just using vague and overgeneralized language to say that there shouldn't be political discussion that they didn't like.

That said, I think it's a good move from Gitlab to say that they'll sell to anyone they legally can sell to. We shouldn't rely on corporations to make moral choices, because between that and making more money, they most likely won't. We should instead have airtight regulation and unions that make sure that morally reprehensible choices lead to less money.
Maybe, but not in a usable way - if anybody had been working off of an assumption that Bitcoin were anonymous, they know better now. So if Monero is, as you say, compromised/compromisable, the government can only pull that trigger once before the cat’s out of the bag.
They should have never discovered DNA. Look at this mess, now the police have files on all of us and our cousins
The Civil War happened subsequently, in which many Cherokee fought for the Confederacy. 25 U.S.C. Sec. 72 allows the President to declare treaties abrogated by tribes engaging in "actual hostility to the United States", which alliance with the Confederacy certainly was.

So the issue is more complicated than you state.

* addendum since this is likely flame bait. The Cherokee, having been betrayed by Andrew Jackson and by the United States in general, had plenty of reason to support the confederacy. Have a look at Wikipedia for a historical overview:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherokee_in_the_American_Civil...
That's what Google did with China.
To me this (news not your comment) sounds like a very slippery slope. What happened to freedom of speech? And who is to decide what is "political" what is not?

As long as speech is not offensive, I think it should be protected.
Human life is so far a game of cross-purposes. If we wish a thing to be kept secret, it is sure to transpire: if we wish it to be known, not a syllable is breathed about it. - Hazlitt
They'll know the IP addresses, but unless the DPI the SNIs, they may not know the domainnames, especially when an IP serves multiple domains.
> I will say that it takes a certain level of privilege to say one shouldn’t discuss politics at work.

Having a discussion is hard. While you come to this well-intended, participants bring their own life experiences and hardships. They may not agree on the starting point of the conversation:

How is "marginalized' and "privileged" is defined? Some may not take that perspective on the above issues, and people with these characteristics may not consider themselves part of the "group", they may believe overcoming hardship by the way of grit and merit being the ideal.

People with these characteristics who don't consider themselves part of the "groups" may find the rhetoric being used patronizing, they don't want to be treated special or different, they want to be recognized for their contribution to the collective. That's where role models come from, to some.

They may disagree on what "empathy" means. Casting a group as marginalized draws broad strokes about others, because who isn't marginalized? How could someone know how someone else feels or what they have faced in life? If you don't like having your hardship belittled, why potentially do the same thing to others? We all have feelings and bring our unique stories and experiences to the table.

The definition of "inclusiveness". To some, the qualm isn't the subject, it's how some people who cite these groups disregard the larger collective or group they're apart of (e.g. their team, their workplace).

The definition of "discussion". There are stories of people being fired for merely citing agreed upon academic social/psychological research. Some sense viewpoint discrimination - fear of being sanctioned for stating their perspective - or to even say they're hurt by the topic's inferences.
Did you choose your DNS resolver?
I hadn't heard about these e-waste and energy statistics, can you provide a source?
Why do you think LGBT rights (first item on your list) is something that should be discussed at work? There are laws against discrimination and companies have to comply, but I don't see a good reason why this kind of topic should be addressed at the workplace. Some employees are uncomfortable with discussing politics at work as it may create unnecessary tensions.

Those who like debating about politics can always gather after work.

I don't see what it has to with a level of privileges.

That being said, I also don't like being told what type of conversations I'm allowed to have.
Interesting.

Cosmos throwing rocks at random vs humans throwing rocks precisely.

One would hope the cosmos was significantly worse at hitting people
Did IBM actually know that the Nazis were committing / going to commit genocide when they sold the computers?
In science, the only kind of control you can have is keep the research secret , or not do the research at all. Both are worse options
It's a manifestation of a larger debate between equality and equity, or put another way, equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome. This is a political and ideological debate that has been going on for many years, and will continue for many more; it is split almost entirely party-line. Even if something is not originally political, enough politicians arguing about it makes it nearly impossible to disentangle the political elements.
Public-facing communication has always been trickier and much more muddied.

Twitter is not like telephone (except direct messages I suppose).

A more apt comparison would be newspapers (which have publishers and editorial staff) or radio/TV (with similar structures).

So the analogy only really works if you claim something like “Twitter should have been like paper mills“, but I’m not sure whether that’s the right analogy or useful way of thinking about Twitter.

Sometimes things are just complex and I do actually think it’s wrong for Twitter to run away from this responsibility. They are the ones who want to run this public-facing way of communicating as a capitalist enterprise, they should be beholden to doing it right (whatever that means – but that’s the hard part and it’s ok that it’s hard).
Cultural respect should not be contingent on monetary incentives.
I don't understand how any of these conversations(besides the first one, in perhaps an HR meeting), could possibly be topical at work? The company isn't paying me to preach my political agenda.

Have you also considered that while a "marginalized" person might be keenly aware, researched and emotionally invested in discussing these things, a "privileged" person may feel ambushed and distracted by these questions while they are trying to focus on work? The language and obvious expectation in many of these "discussions" is a with-us-or-against-us recruitment for the agenda, often backed up with moral blackmail(e.g. "we're fighting for our lives here and you won't even help us"). At work we try to afford each other respect, politeness and professional courtesy, but from what I've seen, these "discussions" are anything but.

I don't think imposing oneself onto other people like these "discussions" do is effective. Surely you've seen the hyperbole, the aggression and vitriol that goes with them and can imagine how it seems to someone who isn't invested in the agendas? After all you ask to not be downvoted even in your meta-discussion about the topics, what about when discussing the topics themselves?

I agree with the progressive arguments - that you can't just say "no politics in X", that politics are inherent to what you do. What I absolutely disagree with is the tactics employed, and I think they are not just ineffective, they have a negative effect on engagement. People may want to help, but they don't want to feel like they're being coerced to. People may want to discuss, but they want to do it on their terms. People may want to listen, but they don't want to be lectured.

I think this is why there is such a strong push to disengage and ignore these problems - and I agree that they are problems that need discussion and need solutions. The in-your-face unapologetic advocacy, the constant motte-and-bailey argumentation, the extreme emotional reactions to any dissention, the preaching from a perceived moral high ground - these are not a conductive environment for changing minds.

So I agree with you. I'll go even further. It's bullshit to say "no politics at work", and it's hypocritical. I will keep supporting that policy, because it's the lesser of two evils, because I think progressive strategy is counter-productive and a recipe for disaster. I'm happy to have any of these discussions, on a neutral, preferrably anonymous forum, where there is enough distance that perhaps we could have a productive argument. Work is none of those things.
I've never heard anyone make the referenced argument. You can find stupid idiots on any side of any issue. Trying to impute the stupid idiots to the entire side of the issue is an entertaining past time, but all heat and no light.
Both are based on WebRTC: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebRTC

(RIP Screenhero)
'Arbiters of morality of society' is only possible because American capitalism is rigged to favor gravitation towards one or a few consolidated entities. This need not be. When Americans ask, where's Europe's Google, I smile, because the landscape, for now, seems to prevent consolidation into a handful of olicharch, and therefore no one company can arbit anything. There's always loads of choice, or there should be.

Next, the bystander effect. Is it commendable a company watches as bad actors use its platform up until a court ruling puts an end to it/ Another area where Europe has history and Americans would do well to learn.
The author doesn't really take into account that many people seek stability, not maximum profit. The article is out of scope for most who consider a house in favor of renting.
I hope more tech companies follow their lead. Politics in the workplace is paralyzing to productivity and as a customer, I don't want platforms to be our morality police.
Eventually they will be cheap. How much would you spend for a computer with the processing power of an iPhone in 1990? Thirty years from now that $100k tech package will be $500 and it will be orders of magnitude better.

When cars stop colliding with each other, safety standards can be relaxed. Get rid of heavy bumpers and structures added to withstand 50 mph offset crashes. The cars become very light weight which lets you decrease the size of the drivetrain and batteries. You end up with something closer to a fancy golf cart than a Camry and they will cost less than $10k.

Your 99.9999% argument doesn't sound right to me. In the US at least, we have a very high tolerance for danger when it comes to cars. We could eliminate thousands of deaths per year by simply limiting the top speed of all cars to 25 mph. But we don't because we are willing to accept the risk that comes along with 85 mph speeds (in Texas) for the convenience.
You're describing the BART model, and parking is slowly being removed from it in favor of apartments.
First of all: thanks for the feedback, I really appreciate it. I've tried to make it as much of a "free market" as possible, in the sense that the community regulates itself (products and users have reviews). With that being said, for this initial phase I'm verifying all vendors myself to make sure they're legit. However this can only go so far, as the number of users grow, so I do intend to have a small team to manually verify vendors. I might also implement a system that automatically suspends sellers whose reviews drop below a threshold.
This is whataboutism. Please stop.
Enriching early investors at the expense of the later ones, is how pyramid schemes work, as well.
I hate the X11 ICCCM selection system
Well, no, that is still the current time picker. I find it the fastest and easiest way if picking a time on a touchscreen. Not sure if it would work as well with a mouse, though. And it takes a lot of space.
Correct. My concern is if young folks, such as when I was in middle or high school, read this they might become too underachieving.
For example I was deeply moved by Executive Order 13769 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13769 and posted so in our Slack. The first comment was 'F* Trump', written out. At the same time many people in our company probably voted for Trump.
I think antifascism is probably more the common thread on the left than anti-authoritarian; the distinction being that fascism is largely associated with right wing authoritarianism. The left still supports authoritarian policies. Some examples of this include gun control and censorship of hate speech.
Point is that there are jobs in places that might not be the most desirable, but you can afford to buy a nice home on a modest salary.

Making it possible for everyone to live in their most desirable city isn't realistic.
Getting financial support from your users
Not everything that is the way it is, is right or just. We can work to better ourselves, we can have multiple problems, and we can work on all of them in parallel.
It's real great to know that I can get and set all the fields. Thanks previous programmer.
> Auto-complete also really helps with discoverability. Consider checking for the presence of a key in a map/dictionary. In Java, auto-complete will quickly lead you to `map.containskey(key)`. In Python, though, you'd have to know that the syntax is `if value in dict`.

This isn't an argument for noun-verb over verb-noun, though it's an argument for more homogeneous syntax. `if value in dict` isn't noun-verb OR verb-noun.

There's not really a reason that f(<tab> couldn't complete with arguments (and it does in many systems). I think if you wanted to use autocomplete to make a point, you'd have to argue that it's more effective somehow to complete on verbs than on nouns.
Because in a sense of practical power, state sovereignty comprises most of the benefits of tribal sovereignty.

At that point you ask if the differences in sovereignty are worth 2 votes in the Senate and (at least) 1 in the House. I'd argue yes.
I was hoping for some weird time-bending effect from general relativity, but no, it’s just that the ages are within each other’s error bars.
Elon Musk is many things and his fortune has always been uniquely tied to that mystique. Belief in Elon the man lends belief to Elon's companies which in turn makes him valuable. But none of his companies have reached the point where they can freely exchange that value for commodities.
> Do you honestly believe I'd be able to express that in such an environment, as much as someone who believes it is "a thing"?

Should you be able to comfortably express that to your trans co-worker, no matter how uncomfortable that makes them?

That's why this is not a symmetrical issue.
There are sources for the reverse.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/bjbp9d/do-social-media-ba...
You do not need covert communications for things like banking or corporate email. You only need a safe way to perform authentication.
It seems to me what you want is not to discuss politics at work but dictate politics are work. Unless you are perfectly okay with your co worker coming in with a MAGA hat every day and explaining to you why they think LGTB people don't deserve the right to marry.
depends on the type of work. if you're in tech and you change jobs every 3 years, yes that's harder. but in medical people stay much much longer, 20-30 years. Most of my team has been here over 10 years. It's seems stupid not to create strong friendships.
Yes. If you're concerned that your third-party resolver is monetizing or otherwise monitoring your DNS, you can run your own DoH recursor, semi-anonymously, from a public cloud account. In the long run, presumably trustworthy organizations will stand up DoH resolvers that people can trust.

I preemptively agree that Cloud Flare is not one of those organizations.

It is unclear to me why any home user would deliberately opt for DoT. DoH and DoT solve the exact same problem, and DoH is by design harder to filter.