skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I mention it because it's the earliest one I can think of in our technological development. If we continue advancing, we will eventually get to that genetic diversification bit, but it seems that happens after you get the point where you can wipe out your own civilization with nukes, so that one is much less reliable.

(The Singularity paragraph is just for fun. Almost by definition, there is no reasonable way to ever collect evidence for it.)
In other words, you did them a favor.
What exactly is the "health of politics"? And what does some discussion in the workplace where you're paid for productivity have to do with it?
> Refusing to serve a customer when you disagree with that customer's goal is pretty far from being a "moral arbiter for society."

This sounds really good until someone refuses to bake a wedding cake for a couple because they're gay. The supreme court ruled in favor of the baker. You're advocating for a world where that's ok. Is that the world you want to live in?
What's an ITT? You seem to mean none of these? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITT
What's the evidence of that? I'm not arguing, but between cosmic background radiation, doppler shift of stars and the relationship between speed / distance, all the evidence of the big bang I've heard doesn't suggest anything about space itself.
You are absolutely right about the design of the news but despite this very bad things are happening (just the facts).

Let me bring in some of those facts:

1. "25.9 million refugees globally -- the highest level ever recorded" according to Amnesty International (https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/refugees-asylum-seeker...)

2. "Global emissions increased from 2 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide in 1900 to over 36 billion tonnes 115 years later" (https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emis...)

3. "Plastic in the oceans" (https://ourworldindata.org/where-does-plastic-accumulate)

4. "52.4 percent decline in sperm concentration and a 59.3 percent decline in total sperm counts from 1973 to 2011 for men in the West" (https://www.researchgate.net/blog/post/sperm-counts-in-the-w...)

Ok I will stop it right here but of course there are many more tendencies that would speak against a too optimistic view on the world at the moment in my opinion.

Of course there is enough media, drugs and be-happy-every-day-mantras etc. to disturb your thoughts and allow to ignore all this.
What would it even look like if it was occupied space? Uneven expansion?
Companies (including Gitlab) have public statements about these things. Discrimination being illegal doesn't mean it doesn't happen, and attempting to address it (or defending current practices) then also quickly becomes political. One of many areas where politics can easily leak into normal operations of a company.
What if it's an easter egg / joke facilitated by Amazon employees... making their calculator [perhaps only for this book] perform incorrectly... hence underachieving?
The context is linked in the original comment edit now: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21275311
Need to include defensive use to have any relevancy. In addition to that number, often the knowledge that someone has effective means of self defense will prevent a criminal from attempting action.
The aphorism does not call upon you to assume good intentions, but to avoid attempting to establish intention when it has no benefit to solving the problem noted.
@xzor :+1: for the suggestion/recommendation
Here is my super dumb implementation. Doesn't handle multibyte, doesn't handle stdin -- but I don't think the Haskell version did either, so I don't have a problem with that limit.

https://github.com/ojhunt/wc

It's the simplest thing that could obviously work, but its generally not tested beyond the most basic versions.
Doesn't Gmail support rules that apply when no other did? That could be used to filter out all emails to addresses that are in use we while deleting all others.
Sure, we can all agree that China is involved in human rights violations.

But if we are going to ban anything, we need a very clear list of what is banned, when and for how long.

We know that CloudFlare has banned all Nazi-esque/White Supremacist material. China is a communist state, and Communism (in all real world implementations) requires violent redistribution of wealth. Should GitLab or Cloudflare remove all Communist material?

Who is the arbiter for which political opinions are not allowed in tech? Or should we just neutral towards customers?
Syria was an example, in practice it depends the relevant questions will depend on your company.

For example: I work at a MedTech company. I consider it supremely important that I (and everyone else) am able to say no, I am not going to work on feature X because it would breach patient privacy, or feature Y that is impossible to do without unacceptable risks of causing malpractice.

Of course, whoever proposed those projects would then be free to make a convincing case for how we could mitigate those problems, or why I might be wrong.
The Jews did not willingly pile into the camps. They didn't send their children across dangerous terrain with coyotes and birth-control pills. They didn't have the option to go back at any time they wanted.

The grotesque analogies just polarize everyone more.
Currently the elites are fighting and not one united front against the non-elites (the rise of tech created a new elite group that wasn't dependent on the existing elites to exist), bit that doesn't mean one side won't either eventually win, or broker a truce in order to go on managing the masses for corporate gain.
My grandfather is a Buddhist and told me he saw solar powered versions of those prayer wheels while he was in Asia as a tourist souvenir. I like the idea of having a solar powered machine do the praying for you ;)
Because someone in such a group might have a workplace issue that they believe should be addressed and pertains to treatment of that group.
Advocating for your customer is different than ranting about geo political conflict.
I most often use Lea Verou's Contrast Ratio site, in part because one can use colors in different formats (by name, hex, rgb(), hsla(), etc.)

https://contrast-ratio.com
I would think the most influential voice in these cases would be managers/leadership adding a provision to company guidelines and the like, in order to attempt to cultivate and safeguard a productive day to day culture.

But this particular perspective isn't necessarily a function of their 'privilege' in the sense of cultural capital and an advantageous background etc, but just of their own self-interest in this exact moment.
If it's important to you, you should be willing to pay for it yourself instead of insisting someone else pay for it.

Whatever activities you're doing on company time are paid for by the company.

If you're yakking about politics, it is impacting the time of coworkers around you. It's distracting and unnecessary.
The telephone analogy is terrible. Phone calls are usually between two people, or a small number of people. At the very least, they're bounded to some relatively small number.

When you post something on Twitter, unless your account is private, you've broadcasted your speech to anyone in the world who cares to see it.

Not moderating any speech at all is a quick way to allow a community to turn into a cesspit of spam and trolling. Look at any web board or forum over the past several decades for inspiration. They either have moderation, or they get overrun.
I feel like someone else can do a better job with a comprehensive list, but I can give an anecdote from my experience.

A few years ago I sat in on a tribal economic development forum in one of the western states. Not a tribal member, just an invited guest.

One of the issues one of the tribes had was: they don't have water rights to the water that supplies one of their towns. The water comes from their land, but they're required by a 1920s-era local ordinance to sell it to a neighboring town, that then sells it back to them. They want that local ordinance removed, so they aren't paying the neighboring town for, literally, their own water.

The neighboring town isn't filtering it, isn't processing it, it's just enjoying the largesse of some local politician nearly a hundred years ago, writing a law that rips off the tribe.

They just want the ordinance removed. They just want to have their water at extraction cost.

This was one 15-minute section in a day-long conference. This was the "rapid fire" petitions to representatives from state government.

Next section: In a city somewhere else in the state, someone's building a police station. The contract is out for public bid, but the contracting language said "Bidders must reside in our county, with zip codes xxxx, yyyy, zzzz excluded from bidding." The excluded zip codes corresponded exactly to where the reservation land lay.

The tribe was there, asking for the contracting language to be changed, so that they could merely submit a bid for one of their construction companies -- not that they wanted any special treatment, but they literally just wanted to be treated like any other zip code in the county.

That was another 15 minute section in the rapid-fire requests.

All day long like that.
SPI is similar to I2C in concept, but there's separate RX and TX data lines and a discrete "chip select" signal for addressing. The chips drive both high and low rather than relying on a pull-up, so SPI can operate significantly faster than I2C.

CAN allows many nodes to communicate via broadcast messages on a shared twisted pair of wires called a bus. The signals are differential, making them fairly immune to noise. The messages are CRC'd and acked, and are automatically retransmitted as necessary. CAN is "content addressed" rather than addressed-to-recipient, and each message's address also acts as a priority for arbitration of the bus; the highest priority message ready to be written always gets the next opportunity to transmit. To make things annoying, messages can only contain 8 bytes of payload.

I2C, SPI and CAN all have different purposes. I2C is nice for interfacing to low data rate chips because of the low signal count. SPI is nice for interfacing to high data rate chips but is 4 signals at least. CAN is nice for connecting microcontrollers that are far apart from each other.

Folks abuse I2C because it's only two signals, and run it over connectors. The protocols built on top of I2C quickly fall apart when the signals are flaky, leading to firmware pain. SPI is harder to abuse because no one wants to run 4 comms signals over connectors, and typically at several MHz, electrical engineers know it's a bad idea. CAN is very robust when done correctly (good enough for drive by wire in cars), but it's also orders of magnitude more complicated.

The typical way to add CAN to a raspberry pi is an MCP2515 chip. The linux driver for the MCP2515 can barely service the chip fast enough though, which means it tends to drop data at the higher bitrates.
PayPal launches Funds Now for sellers with good track record
Would such a thing even be attainable on earth without the tremendous forces that collapse atoms into neutrons? Does matter in a neutron density state convert back to atomic density state in the absence of such forces?
Which launch company would they go with? SpaceX? Even then, they are splitting costs of the rocket (most expensive part) and fuel, while SpaceX themselves can just pay for fuel on an already flown booster. SpaceX are also paying cost, rather than retail prices.

Sure, there are a few more costs, the point being that SpaceX has a supreme cost advantage.
Our universe in it's recent state is incredibly sparse. What would have pushed a star out of the observable edge, exactly?
Neglect.
"Trump just got impeached!". When that happens, are we not allowed to mention it in the coffee-room?

I understand it is not good to ARGUE about things loudly. But no more "free speech" sounds alarming.
I was gonna run this through bullshit detector but it choked and died halfway through
How much power do you think an employee has at a global company - especially one that is now owned by Microsoft?
Which toilet (if any) I use is political. Being dressed as myself is a political statement. My right to have documentation that matches me is political. Whether or not I can be fired for being myself is political. So since one side has decided to make my very existence political then I think I have the right to talk about it. If you don’t want me talking about it at work then convince the GOP to stop trying to take away my rights, women’s rights, and so on. Until then tough cookies.
It's an already known fact that Satoshi Nakamoto's real name is Steven Nathaniel and is my uncle who works for Nintendo.
I mean, I'm a minority in America from a historically oppressed faction in my parent's country. I have experienced racism first hand from peers, as well as systematic racism from government agents. So my experience with 'historically oppressed' populations is quite broad, and informs my belief that the first step to reconciliation between an oppressing group and the oppressed is that the oppressed group gets to be treated as absolute equals. You seem to want to treat them paternalistically. As a current father, I can tell you that the relationship between me and my child is not one of equals.

> To use your analogy: if your friend forcibly removes you from your house and makes you live in a cardboard box in the alley, ruling the alley and not being friends anymore is hardly a just resolution.

Exactly. This is what has happened to the Native Americans. The US removed them from their home and is making them live in a cardboard box (reservations) in an alley (the nation of America) that is ruled by the federal government. I advocate carving out the cardboard boxes from the alley's jurisdiction, allowing the box occupants to leave and make deals with, purchase goods from and sell goods to other neighbors on neighboring streets. You want to simply promise to be a nicer alley owner as long as they stay in their boxes.
CryptoJacking Worm Found on Docker Hub
Russia isn't socialist at all, not even in the Soviet sense.
That list leaves off an important factor: new technology is very rarely an unvarnished win. More commonly, it brings with it one or more new costs. The proponents of the new technology rarely mention (if they are even aware of) the tradeoffs it brings, and the normal person certainly won't know what they are either.

But what most people are well aware of is that there is a cost that comes along with the benefit. That means people are taking a risk by adopting it, and even worse, it's an unknown risk both in terms of kind and degree.

Caution about new tech is rational.
Maybe the rule should jsut be don't be an asshole.
This is honestly a breath of fresh air. It seems that in the past 5 or so years, most tech companies have begun to radicalize and become more authoritarian. It's great to have neutral platforms for people who don't particularly identify as far-left.
TLS is a complex protocol with trusted mainstream implementations (even OpenSSL, at this point, is a fine option).
Whenever I think about this topic, my gut says that a service provider's moral obligation to refuse service to customer relates linearly with the customer's reliance on the service in conducting its morally odious behavior. In other words, I see McDonalds selling cheeseburgers to ICE differently than I see a physical security company selling cages to them.

Is this defensible? From a utilitarian standpoint there's an argument that your refusal of service has greater moral impact as the customer becomes more reliant on it. Practically speaking there's the argument about efficiency. A lot of people need cheeseburgers and so the list of companies you have an issue with is going to be pretty damned large. But other than that is there a philosophical basis for this way of thinking?
Counterpoint: many tech workers want some agency over what they are building and don't want to be forced to work on nefarious applications. I don't seek an outsized claim on society but I do reserve the right to decide what my hands will - or won't - build.
> It seems to me if I had power I wouldn't bother trying to persuade my boss not to do business with certain agencies, I'd just make it illegal and force them to change. Does that seem like a course of action available to gitlab employees?

You're thinking in terms of fighting the last war. Companies of today know how to work around things at risk becoming illegal. Today, a more effective strategy to persuade your boss about an issue is to spin it as something outrageous on social media, in hope that news portals will pick it up. This power is very much available to a Gitlab employee.
What about jurisdictions where the act of allowing something to be published will trigger a fine or other bad consequences? Doesn't it make sense to pro-actively remove things then?
Edit: I see the Naval quote is from the Joe Rogan podcast (which I often enjoy). I haven’t listened to the episode, so don’t have full context but Naval seems to have the timeline, “publisher”, and “platform” confused.

Facebook, Google (YouTube), and Twitter have historically claimed to be “neutral tech platforms” like phone utilities or internet service providers. They maintained that claim so that responsibility for content would be on the user/sharer and so they could avoid regulation.

More recently, at least Facebook has claimed (2018) it is a “publisher”. They updated their claim in order to justify the right to editorialize & choose what content people see on Facebook.

The shift to “publisher” aligns with the reality that the news feed algorithm is a form of editorializing. The algorithm decides what you see. It doesn’t matter if a human or a computer is making the decision.
Trying to choose your customers based on some moral framework is entirely pointless in most situations. Putting aside the fact that whatever framework you decide upon is going to be completely arbitrary. If you take the position that you should only do business with people who’s values are consistent with yours, then you can’t stop at your customers. You need to examine the customer base of your customers, and the customer base of the customer base of your customers, and your entire supply chain, and the supply chain of your supply chain, ad infinitum. To apply this idea consistently is impossible, and to apply it inconsistently is just meaningless virtue signalling.

The idea that you should never do anything that provides utility to any party who’s values are incompatible with your own is not tenable, and it’s simply incompatible with any sort of open or tolerant society.

I think it’s much more sensible to look at the impact you’re having on society as a whole. I wouldn’t work for Facebook or Google, because I disagree with what they’re trying to achieve. But I’d sell them a service if I was offering one on the open market. If I ran a gun factory I probably wouldn’t want to sell them to <insert government that I think is evil>, because I know they’ll take that product and do evil things with it, but I’d sell that same government an SCM service.
Still an interesting read and thought experiment.
I can relate. My biggest disappointment in this regard were Android devices - such flexibility and potential! But still, they couldn't deliver.

This goes to show that consumer-grade hardware(and associated software) is not up to par with the requirements of making music.
Drug Giants Pursuing $50B Settlement of Opioid Cases
A helping thought is that those that commit assault of children don't generally consider the possibility of getting caught and will use their personal phone and tools rather than technology that are safe from censorship and mass-surveillance. Sexual assault is not part of rational thinking.

The major problem is when someone want to earn money by becoming a distributor that sits between producer and consumer, like the one in the article, and those people usually do consider the risk of getting caught. There is however a silver lining in that those are quite few and tend to become major target for law enforcement and sooner or later the opsec will have a flaw. It is questionable if Internet can ever become so safe that a person can be one of a handful few that earn millions for years without giving out any clues to whom they are.

So to me this resolve conundrum. Neither criminal is likely to operate unimpeded even when the Internet become safer from censorship and mass-surveillance.
This is the Roberts court; regardless of who wins, the ruling will be, IMHO, an extremely narrow one. Don't expect any land titles to change hands.
> So our government oppresses a group of people for centuries, and the response is to wash our hands of the situation and wish them well.

Of course not. There is room for arrangements with the United States regarding foreign aid, defense assistance, policing assistance, etc for some number of years. These are to be negotiated as treaties between two co-equal nations, not as laws between a country and its citizens. We make these arrangements with poor countries around the world everyday. Why do we treat the native americans worse than literally every other oppressed nation?

Please stop putting words in my mouth.
Green lights are white to me as well, I guess they have a decent chunk of blue in them and people call them green due to the lack of red. (I see blue + green as white since I don't see red)

But if you see it as white as well then I'd expect your problem to be with the color red and not the color green.
> Which is great, right up until you work with people that aren't straight cis white men.

I find it interesting that you make such an assumption about the places that I've worked.

Also, I should mention that I absolutely have had numerous political discussions with coworkers. They just don't usually happen in the workplace itself.
We all should be worried about loss of privacy, but we can't all run our own resolvers on the cloud.

The choice of DoT vs DoH will mostly be about what is supported by one's choice of resolver. Of course, choosing DoH first will narrow the choice of resolvers.

Then there's captive portal situations.
GitLab ≠ GitHub.
[1] https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption

[2] https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-electronic-waste-monitor

[3] https://www.cbeci.org/
to get more financial support for Homebrew, did you try a maintainers' trademark contract? You can see an example here https://framagit.org/inno3/tm-contract-for-oss-maintainers/t...
Colliding bits of material produce light. Even colliding hydrogen clouds produce detectable signatures. If, for the sake of argument, two big bangs occurred and we could see where they met, there would be a large visible region in the universe putting out some sort of photons. (Not necessarily visible ones.)

More subtle things would be visible too, like, yes, interacting gravity fields, but it wouldn't take such clever analysis; the impact points would literally light up in the sky.
This is also true in the US. See my reply to the parent. The Naval quote is wrong.
> It's composition meant the star must have come into being before iron became commonplace.

Hypothesis 1: the star formed in a way that did not involve or produce a lot of iron.

Hypothesis 2: the star is older than the universe itself.

Clearly, hypothesis 2 is the more likely.A
Nah, I'd rather see such a person beaten and ridiculed. Whch they would 100% deserve and I feel zero guilt about saying.

Which is why I don't actually have an issue discouraging discussion of politics at work. it causes problems.
There are many ways to get indirectly caught, either with physical proofs (fingerprints, gait recognition) or metadata (triangulating your cellphone signal to determine where you were approximately at a given time. None of this are definitive proofs, but it adds up.

And showing up at an ATM with a mask will definitely attract some attention. I wouldn't be surprised if they further improve their system and requires facial detection (not necessarily recognition) as well.