skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Rather I am saying - and this was my fault for not being clear enough - that I reject the notion that we should try to pick a side to suppress. Because the same part of human nature that leads to rampant spread of disinformation is the part of human nature that tries to decide what the capital-T Truth is.

Yes, we really can't have it both ways. Either we have free speech for everyone, or we have censorship. There are exceptions, of course: calls to violence, libel against non-public people, and so on. And yes, also inciting panic by crying "fire" falsely in public places. But I believe that's distinguishable from spreading "fake news".

The problem with censorship is needing to trust censors. And even if we have honest censors, how do we know what the "truth" is? Do we trust "authorities"? That seems iffy, given how often we've learned that they've been dishonest or just plain wrong.

Also, authoritarians always start with the edge cases. And then they widen the scope. By the time your position -- which always seemed so reasonable -- becomes unacceptable, it's too late.
Beam | Technical Lead | REMOTE (based in NY, NJ) | https://www.beam.health
70% (630M) of the 900M doctors' appointments in the US can be done virtually. Because of this, vertically integrated practices, such as American Well, Teladoc, & Ro have seen a lot of success, raising billions of dollars over the last five years. If you believe this adoption will increase over time, then you agree a billion-dollar marketplace will be formed around this capability. At Beam, we’re the first to build this marketplace, consolidating a distribution network of both brick & mortar and telemedicine clinics under one roof. We’re well funded and backed by some great investors, including the founders of Komodo Health. COVID-19 has accelerated our growth & we’re looking for strong product-minded engineers to help us scale.

If interested, you can email me directly at sas@beamhealthgroup.com. I’m the CEO/co-founder of the company.
It's not a "marketplace of ideas", in practice it's a used car dealership. Just about anybody with the slightest bit of cleverness and free time can convince any trusting person of anything whatsoever, no matter how horrible, given enough exposure.
Fascistic/authoritarian control of platforms is not compatible with the principles of free speech that allow our society to be free. Calling for censorship based on any wing, is wrong. People should be allowed to express their views, and platforms which repress that should be avoided.
This is a good read that made me think twice about what youtube is doing.

https://waitbutwhy.com/2019/09/american-brain.html
Google already modifies it’s search results. Try searching for “Clinton Epstein” and see if the first page of results gives you unbiased sources from all viewpoints.
I'm concerned that if we go this route on a permanent basis without a more powerful labor movement, it'll mean that work and home will seamlessly merge. Employer surveillance will enter the home and corporate domination will seep into every pore of our existence... and that's for white collar workers.
it did it by getting into programming
Neither of those are cases of the government prosecuting you for opinion or belief.

One is the government prosecuting you for destroying government property. The other is the government prosecuting you for sharing information that you are not allowed to share.

It has always been the case that certain forms of protest are legal, and certain forms are not. Protesting in ways that are illegal doesn't mean that your right to free speech is curtailed. You can still say whatever you want, you just can't say it while burning cars or whatever.
I have no idea how you managed to misconstrue what I said so badly that you came to that conclusion, but that is not the case at all. The people in the concentration camps did not get talked to death. They died because of actions that people took.
Does it matter if the majority is using it or not? The same concept of freedom of speech should matter. And HN is one of the largest tech forums on the internet; making it effectively the 'Youtube' of tech forums.

So given HN's expansive reach, why do you think it deserves to be excluded from the concept of being a provider? Why shouldn't it be forced to house all content?
When the cheaper 20lb bags sell out, people buy the 2lb bags.

My guess is that more production is for the 20lb bags, and the 2lb bags usually sat on the shelf longer.
You will also faithfully deploy any security vulnerabilities you decide to, during your manual deployment process. I’m not sure how it is that you think you’ve dunked on Ansible here.
There is a protocol. It's called "Shut the fuck up or they will think you are smoking dope and you will lose your wings."
Seriously, that's been the way of handling these sorts of things for the past 50+ years.
Of course I understand how it works. I just can't constantly keep in mind what garbage I played around with 3 months ago that might be responsible for the issue I'm looking at right now. I don't expect it, and more importantly, I shouldn't have to expect it.

It's a basic tenant of development. Eliminate all additional sources of issues and complexity by presenting a clean, well-controlled sandbox in order to effectively diagnose it and fix the real bug.

In fact, you should be able to try a newer version of a dependency, an older one, or run 10 variants (containers) each with different versions to e.g. test whether the project you're working on is widely compatible with a flexible range of that dependency. These things are done all the time.

The tools are inadequate, not the developers. Engineers on both sides need to stop assuming everyone else is an idiot.
I agree with you, but I think there is enjoyment in getting a deep understanding of one area and having a plan can help you do this. Instead of walking around it can be fun to climb a mountain or go for an over night hike.

For example if you want to get stronger having a workout plan can help you get that goal. Going to the gym and do whatever will keep you in shape and if that keeps you motivated that's great, but some are motivated by doing something they can't do right now.
vezzy-fnord! I have always enjoyed your commentary and perspective of operating system, it's nice to see you back again!
Ask HN: How do you learn of new posts in favourite blogs?
Many blgos don't use rss. And I don't check all these blogs every day, but I'd still like to get some sort of notification when a new entry appears, how do you go about it?
Right. In general contradiction arises when we try to prevent people from doing stupid things. It becomes very difficult to maintain a logically consistent view on what's okay to censor and what's not.

Most of us agree anti-vaxxers are ill-informed and that adopting their beliefs causes people to engage in patterns of behavior (avoiding vaccines) that are not in what we think is their best interest.

What about other beliefs? If someone posts a video saying that they don't think seatbelts are effective in preventing injuries during car crashes, should they be suppressed?

What about someone who claims that vaping is safe and popularizes the practice? Do we ban that?

It's easy to pick a few almost-universally hated groups and rally against them: racists, anti-vaxxers, flat earthers. Few things are that cut-and-dry. And watching the widespread rise of "benevolent censorship" wrt COVID-19 has really shown me how far we can take the idea of "protect people from information that could harm them".

For example, I recently submitted a highly controversial 7500+ word blog post that advocated for ending lockdown in the US. I got some matters of scientific fact wrong (and have since addressed or am currently working on addressing those), i.e. things like accounting for the phenomenom of "overshoot". Some sections probably did not give a perfectly fair view of "each side" and could be/were criticized as being cherry-picked. And I think I got a lot of things very right. I've now had 9 people e-mail me in the last 24 hours saying that they tried to share my post on Facebook/Messenger and that the entire domain is now blocked for violating the community guidelines. Is that something worth banning? It advocates for a position that could easily be argued will lead to death, and therefore reading it could kill people. So it's a very easy argument to make, if you take the position that we should suppress "harmful" information.

As I said at the start of this thread, I basically reject the entire concept of "disinformation" for that reason; it inevitably gets used to suppress even the most good-faith and well-researched (or in my case, somewhat-well-researched :P) arguments. Therefore I think the entire concept is inherently dangerous to a free society.

Okay, that's enough rambling for one night. I'll let everyone else duke it out :)
> We wanted to make it easier for software publishers -- think games, desktop tools, browsers -- to deliver their software to Ubuntu users, but debs were both too hard and too powerful to make that a viable proposition.

Is there somewhere--a blog post on Canonical's website, perhaps--that explains this in more detail? Off the top of my head I'm having a hard time seeing how snaps improve the situation, unless it's simply the "dependency hell" problem.

> nobody in the community reads through the source code of every patch applied to binaries in their systems

That's true, but irrelevant to the concerns of users like me. We aren't saying we insist on controlling when all updates are applied to our systems because we want to ensure that we have time to read the source code. We're just saying we insist on controlling when all updates are applied to our systems, period.

> There is a degree of assumed trust in any update.

Trusting that, for example, a particular update doesn't include malware is one thing. Trusting a third party to control when an update is applied to my system is something quite different. It seems to me that you are trying to conflate the two, which might be fine for some set of users (and, again, if that's simply the only set of users you are targeting, that's your call), but is not fine for me, nor I suspect for other users with similar concerns to mine.

> All of those installed as root!

Doesn't any update get installed as root? I certainly don't want system-level binaries installed to my user account; that would be a huge breach of security since my user would then have write access to them.
As a FreeBSD and Mercurial user, I get more than a little schadenfreude when Linux users complain about something being foisted on them by someone with a more dominant mindshare or marketshare.

Linux users spoke and set the system up to do exactly what it does--use a dominant position to drive out alternatives. They only complain when they suddenly wind up on the receiving end.

Perhaps if you don't like getting the pointy end of the stick, maybe you shouldn't sharpen it in the first place?
Less complicated software -> less complicated deployments -> less complicated systems -> fewer vulnerabilities. It's a mathematical fact.
> More importantly, I've also seen the opposite: Private platforms actively suppressing people trying to harm humanity does work. Deplatforming these people and, importantly, showing social pressure that these are bad ideas and shouldn't even be entertained as valid debate, has shown to work repeatedly. In fact, social pressure is one of the most effective tools against hate and ignorance like this.

Really? Seems to me like there is a resurgence in hate and ignorance right now and deplatforming seems to only be adding fuel to the fire.
You see no difference in their role as a content-host and a content-aggregator?
You don’t see a pattern? We went from questionable analysis of COVID cases by actual doctors last week, over to 5G coronavirus conspiracy theories this week.

This is the proverbial slippery slope, albeit a bit anachronistic as the more egregious case is the latter (5G conspiracy), so the escalation is unable to be painted by the sequence.

I’d also ask you consider that your line of thinking as a framework has been misused throughout history, often in the context of censorship.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair

Of course, the obvious retort is that these people aren’t Galileo, but I’m arguing that this framework is bad on a societal level.
Weren't Debian maintainers affected by the fact that it was... problematic to run Gnome without systemd? (Which might be entirety not systemd's fault.)
Exactly. But who are we trusting to tell the difference between bullshit and not? Would you trust youtube employees with that?
This is a nice list, and your numbers for salaries look at lot better than for the submitted post, but I would question your methodology.

While housing is absolutely ridiculous in the Bay Area, the total compensation much more than offsets it without having to live in a tent. I moved from a solid job in Raleigh NC (low COL) to a good (but not especially remarkable) job in SF and my annual savings increased almost 5x. It would take a few more years here before I could _buy_ a house, if I wanted to pay the absurd local prices, but I also have the option to work here for 5-7 years total and then _retire_ to one of the many low COL areas in North America. Living in an apartment for a few years is not that big of a deal when that’s the payoff.

I would say being able to retire comfortably to a low COL area in a decade or less a lot nicer option than going straight there and _needing_ to work a full 30-40 year career. Of course you can still work after retiring from SF if you want, but not _having to_ is kind of a big deal.
Syntax wars are harder than it might seem at first. If you're not going to invest that amount of time, I don't see how it’s reasonable to expect an equal voting share with those who do.

Sometimes vocal minority is just that.
> Neither of those are cases of the government prosecuting you for opinion or belief.

Really?

> One is the government prosecuting you for destroying government property.

A draft card is not government property.

> The other is the government prosecuting you for sharing information that you are not allowed to share.

Which is protected under whistleblower protection laws.

Maybe I’m not convincing you? What about Schenck v. United States? In this case, all the prosecuted did was distribute flyers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

Abrams v. United States?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrams_v._United_States

Dennis v. United States?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_v._United_States

> It has always been the case that certain forms of protest are legal, and certain forms are not. Protesting in ways that are illegal doesn't mean that your right to free speech is curtailed. You can still say whatever you want, you just can't say it while burning cars or whatever.

All four cases involve some form of protest against the government. All four were peaceful; They did not harm others. All four involve the Supreme Court upholding their convictions.

> Your speech is not illegal. The government cannot persecute you for your opinion or beliefs.

Don’t you tell me that the government doesn’t try to censor speech or that they can’t.
Why is censorship resistance touted as a good thing without addressing the shortcomings?

I understand the govt argument, but they never address fake news, child abuse videos, and copyright violations? Is this because they need to obfuscate this to be successful? It will eventually surface as an issue, so why not get out in front of this?
Ah, but it's not bad when we're censoring the wrong opinions, don't you see?

/s if it wasn't obvious.
Please consider the following situation.

1. Government passes law that websites that get a million eyeballs a day and display user-generated content are forbidden from curating the content on their site.

2. Government produces propaganda, or through some legal indirections, arranges the production of propaganda.

3. Producers of above propaganda publishes or arranges astroturfing of the propaganda onto every large platform.

So this is a situation where the government has the power to dictate speech of private parties. Is that seen as a positive outcome by free speech advocates?

And what happens when the government lowers the bar? With precedent set that the government has the right to halt censorship by private parties, will they stop at a million views per day? Will they expand to things such as messaging services?

And what will happen to spam content? After a website crosses the million views threshold, must its genuine content be diluted into oblivion?
Some of the prices were insane, some of them are exactly what I pay at my grocery store in Brooklyn. $7.99 for a block of cheese? Yup. But as the weight/volume increases, their prices skyrocket where wight/volume doesn't seem to matter at all here. Obviously that's where the cost comes from.

What is interesting is how similar the extremes are. In the middle of nowhere, the cost of the product is dominated by shipping. In the center of modern society, the cost is dominated by rent. It's only when you go out to the suburbs, probably one of society's least efficient constructions, that you see the lowest prices -- a perfect balance of efficiency, I guess. It is weird and I wonder if there's some lesson in here.
It sounds like sarcasm to me, suggesting that the only reason people would move is the salary ratio
Contagion really nailed this whole thing even down to the opportunistic asshole peddling misinformation on the web. Well done.
Ask HN: Where do you host internal tools?
I'm halfway (?) through playing Death Stranding right now, and I'm enjoying it. It is, to me, a really compelling game.

It is really interesting the new gameplay loops and player interactions that Kojima has found. Death Stranding is a connected single-player game. You never see other players, but your world is quickly populated by everything they've built to help themselves -- and you.

And fascinatingly, once I had the resources to spare, I started contributing to structures or building my own, just in the hope that some other anonymous player, that I would never meet or interact with, could benefit just like I did.

In a gaming landscape filled with aggressively competitive (Battle Royale!) or at least "tit-for-tat" interactions, I've never seen another game implement so brilliantly "pay it forward."
If they did so unfairly, there'd be hell for them to pay.

As you say, they are fundamentally the same argument, except for one thing.

A water company that decided to cut off water to people that its CEO doesn't like would, in short order, have to face both political scrutiny and the proverbial torches and pitchforks, if you will; unlike speech, if the water goes away, people start dying or they are forced to leave.

Speech is necessary, but it's cheap as dirt, and most people don't have a lot to say in the first place. If the speech started going away, even in ways that are fundamentally unfair or flaunt the ideals of the country, not enough people would make a fuss about it. You won't die without speech. It can be comfortable to live without speech, or freedom of speech, anyway.

Otherwise, the argument is the same and, in either case, regulation and the pissed-offedness of the little guy could change the outcome. Such is less likely in the case of speech.
I genuinely don't understand some decisions Microsoft has made with Windows 10. The unavoidable telemetry / updates / ads, this Python thing, etc. are just so different from what I want an OS to do.

I can only assume that I'm somehow outside of Microsoft's target market and just don't realize it. But is there really a sizable fraction of computer users that want an OS to unavoidable behave like this?
If it works, it's delicious and you end up eating heaps more than usual.

If your first two or three attempts a baking bread fail, then you end up becoming one of those people with 85% of a 20lb bag of flour in the cupboard waiting for the weevils to move in...

(The temp calibration on my oven is way out. Doesn't matter too much for roasting chickens or cooking lasagne, but baking is more temperamental than that, and way too easy to fuck up. Luckily I only bought a 1kg bag of flour to fail hard with...)
The article has no research or statistics that try to prove why or how this would work and what the marginal difference is over a full workweek.
It takes a lot of IT knowledge to get a Python script to work properly on Windows. And yet somehow you figured out a way to blast Microsoft for trying in good faith to help out the Python community. And it was done in concert with the Python community, so it's definitely not "fake".

This makes me sad.
> . One would expect the flour not being shipped to the restaurants would be redirected into the retail supply chain but that doesn't appear to be the case.

So I have friends that are reasonably known restaurateurs who obviously shut down their restaurants. I was talking to them about the logistics and the issues with the supply chain. It was rather eye opening to me.

TL;DR : the problem with the supply chain is that the restaurants pay more for ingredients wholesale than what the public is willing to pay retail.

We do not have a product shortages -- we have excessive amount of perishable product that was offloaded at excessive markup to restaurants/cafeterias/schools/etc. I'm in NYC - I can still walk into a regular grocery store in Queens/Brooklyn ( non Whole Foods ) and get chicken quarters from Perdue for $0.59-$0.89/lb. I can get a tomahawk steak for $14.95/lb (the chefs were shocked), a whole salmon (whole) imported from Canada, received today for $6.95/lb. I can get 10 lb onions for $4.95. Leg of lamb (whole) is $4.99/lb

Restaurants pay 20-30% more than these prices as the baseline to Baldor or Sysco. I guess that 20-30% slippage does not matter for the restaurant when it is charging 4x-5x of the raw cost per plate.
Is this just Wells Fargo hitting a capitalization max or more wide spread across the industry
US says ‘significant’ evidence shows Covid-19 came from Chinese lab
My flour usage has gone way up, but there was a shortage of yeast in my city and when I was eventually able to get some, it was a werid brand and such a large package that had more yeast that I could use in years.
Wow thanks. Looks neat
Yes. My last Windows machine just died, and I'm migrating the last few Windows things to Linux. Have to use Wine once in a while. I don't plan to replace the Windows machine. It's so unnecessary today.
Deploying your less-complicated design consistently through automation reduces complexity; it doesn’t increase it. I don’t think we are operating from similar definitions of “mathematical fact”.
On prem equipment can be depreciated, and you can drag out the useful life of the equipment you own if necessary. Cloud opex evaporates each month, never to be seen again.

CTOs/CIOs call the shots when times are good, CFOs when times get lean.
What about the plethora of companies that provide B2B IT services? If your company’s business is “deploy $insert_products on-premise for each customer”, and you’re doing good business, you’re going to quickly approach thousands of servers.
Do you believe that YouTube has an obligation to publish objective, demonstrable lies that harm people?

What about cryptocurrency scams, what about media co-coordinating assassinations of targets they don't like?
Nobody should be above scrutiny, that's the point!
So you already do things like this for, say, rap music. Right?
Flour isn’t the problem now, it’s yeast. Fortunately my mother in law traded us a few packs for an old iMac, so my daughter can now make pizza dough.

Joking aside, we did give her an iMac, but you can’t find yeast anywhere.