skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I’d like to live in a world where businesses apologize and adjust their behavior when they make mistakes. I think it would be great if they’d do that regardless of internet mobs.

My point above is that I don’t think internet mobs incentivize businesses to behave that way, and in fact it seems that apologizing to the mob, or adjusting behavior in response to things the mob does not approve off, are counterproductive for the business. They continue to take heat for the wording of their apology, they get another wave of media coverage about the thing the mob is pissed about, there’s not really any visible upside.

Given that, I’m surprised more business don’t just ignore the angry people on the internet and just proceed as-is, continuing to rake in money from the people who aren’t outraged.

But maybe I’m just a lizard, unfit for your civilized society.
You can probably run the environment itself, but other systems (release management, monitoring, billing, etc) probably rely on the account_id being unique.
While I like whereby, you cannot call someone. You can only meet when all parties know it is time to meet.

Good for calendar scheduled meetings, bad for casual chat.

Skype and zoom cover that part, I do bot know for meet.
> I cannot believe that everyone is ethicality (sic) challenged...

Why not? Ockham's Razor says to accept the most parsimonious explanation, and I think that's it.

I mean look at little kids: they're amoral monsters. If they weren't so cute our species would have gone extinct ages ago.

Look at our methods to train ourselves to be better people: religions cause wars while "Wolf of Wallstreet" is a big hit. ($392 million worldwide.)

Look at our leaders.
I'm still of the firm opinion that a blog on Ghost is a great option for most people. It works with very little maintenance; Letsencrypt is built into the CLI tool so it's very easy to get SSL; the editing experience is great; images are optimized for sizes; custom theming is possible; and if don't want Ghost to render your pages, you can hook into the API and use it as a headless CMS. I use Ghost for every blog I run as well as the marketing pages for my apps.
How does that explain me getting solid results from DSL Reports, Ookla to a random server I picked in Ashburn, and to Google Fiber's servers in Atlanta, Charlotte, and locally.

I think there's something about the methodology of Cloudflare's test.
Can I get Facebook to show me all posts from someone or is that still not possible?
I keep reading these horror stories about YouTube. It must really suck, as there are alternatives, but they just don't have the audience YouTube has. I guess there just isn't much we can do about this apart from hosting elsewhere when necessary?
What really scares me is how many people I know who acknowledge that platforms like Facebook and YouTube are designed to create echo chambers which tend to distort people's opinions and perceptions towards extremes... but still actively engage with them without taking any precautions. They know it's bad for them, but they keep going back for more.
A16Z Podcast: New Fan Engagement Models for Athletes and Influencers
> More so than the fossil fuel industry? Big tobacco?

I already addressed this in my second sentence:

> I imagine the same effect can be observed among tobacco and fossil energy executives

No, that wasn't meant to be an exhaustive list of unethical industries.
Thanks for sharing. Not going to lie it was the title of your post that got me to click. But the content was solid too.
There is 2.5Gig and 5Gig ethernet. It is often called MultiGigbit Ethernet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2.5GBASE-T_and_5GBASE-T

It is still not very common. The main use case for it is backhaul for access points in commercial settings.
If you meant "function", would you generally write 𝑓(3) instead of f(3)?

(I have no mathematics background past K-12)
> I really didn't realize until perhaps the last 2 years that Facebook fundamentally tapped some hidden human need/instinct to argue with people who they believe are incorrect.

Hidden human need/instinct to argue, period. These arguments aren't intellectual debates, it's people getting pissed off at something, and venting their rage towards the other side.

It's odd how addictive rage can be. But that's not a new phenomenon. Tabloids have been exploiting this for decades before Facebook.
I can't recommend Bear enough if you're using all Apple devices. I've used many note taking app but Bear is the only thing that gives me Markdown note taking + not getting in my way of writing. I especially like the infintely nested tag of Bear, such a time saver when you can drop a #hastag/anywhere/with/inifitely/nested/hierachy .

Disclamer: I'm not affliated with Bear in anyway, just a happy customer.
How does one do proper "technical analysis" without access to the code, or knowing the architecture? None of those were available when the app was released. Was the shrill noise over the top? IMO, perhaps; but that does not detract from the fact that the application was just announced, with mandatory use if you had to travel (now diluted to encouraged), without any transparency..

National herald is not an unbiased source; it's clearly anti-current incumbent govt, but the argument that people were criticizing without "technical analysis" when no data was provided nor were they (initially) open to even sharing the code for scrutiny, makes me wonder how one could have assumed the app did what it said on the tin, except by blindly trusting the govt.

Which, personally, I'm not a fan of. There is a reason the US federal govt is constrained by the 1st amendment, and not private corps. Govts are unique entities in our societies, with a monopoly on multiple forms of power, and their oversight should be held to a higher standard (again, IMO)
> I think it’s important to note that Facebook didn’t invent any of this.

I don't agree with that. I very strongly think that Facebook did invent a lot of this.

> They just built the biggest mainstream distribution channel to do so

Scale does matter though. There is a lot in life that is legal or moral at small scale but illegal or immoral at large scale. Doing things at scale does change the nature of what you are doing. There's no 'just' to be had there.

> Nothing they ever did in terms of facilitating pointless arguments has been all that original either.

I don't agree with that either. They have even published scientific papers, peer-reviewed, to explain their new and novel methods of creating emotionally manipulative content and algorithms.

> People have been doing this forever, and even on the Web much, much longer than Facebook has existed.

I also don't agree with this. Facebook has spent 10+ years inventing new ways to rile people up. This stuff is new. Yes I know newspapers publish things that are twisted up etc, but that's different, clearly. The readers of the paper are not shouting at each other as they read it.

I think it's super dangerous to take this new kind of mass-surveillance and mass-scale manipulation and say, welp, nothing new here, who cares? I think that's extremely dangerous. It opens populations to apathy and lets corporations do illegal and immoral things to gain unfair and illegal power.

Facebook should not be legally allowed to do all the things they are doing. It's invasive, immoral, and novel, the way they deceive and manipulate society at large.
Similarly:

“Technology is a word that describes something that doesn’t work yet.”

Douglas Adams
It just feels like weaponized Usenet from the mid-'90s, or almost every popular online forum since then. Multiplayer game communities even. They're like tinderboxes for negativity. Very small numbers of bad faith actors (griefers, trolls, scammers, spammers, or just plain assholes) can trivially derail entire communities. Even without people trying to screw everything up, plain old human nature, and the nature of electronic communications, can make it happen as well. It just takes a little longer.

Put another way, each flame begets one or more flames, whereas each good comment might get responses but maybe it stands on its own. Over time the signal to noise ratio of any forum tends to degrade to nothing as the forum becomes more popular because of this. Moderation, scoring systems, etc. can ameliorate this but in general the less specialized the forum, the worse it is. It's like entropy in that it only goes in one direction, it's just a matter of time and how much you can push back on it. Bad comments beget more bad comments, but good comments don't necessarily beget more good comments. And at some point, the ratio of bad comments to good comments drives away any potential good commenters and the event horizon is crossed and the forum dies. Or it lives on as a cesspool for whatever.

The difference between Facebook and Twitter in 2020 vs comp.os.linux (or whatever) in 1995 is that it's not specialists screaming at each other about which distro or programming language or OSS license is best (or worst). It's a much wider net of far less informed or rational people, encouraged to argue about infinitely dumber and less knowable or debatable stuff. It's like scammy clickbait, but for arguments rather than clicks. The other difference between Facebook and Twitter in 2020 vs online communities of the past is that Facebook and Twitter make money off of it. All this BS fuels "engagement" and keeps larger volumes of people posting and therefore revealing themselves to trackers and creating a stream of ad views for the platform owners. At some point I do think the toxicity of the platforms will start costing them users, but that doesn't seem to be happening anytime soon.
"All writing" is probably too broad, but I think there's an interesting "meet-in-the-middle" solution where the site is a kind of syndication machine that is creating traffic between separately hosted blogs.

I appreciate people wanting to own their own writing, having permanence of data assured, etc. so this is probably worth thinking about. At the same time, many outside the tech world don't want the overhead of hosting or setting up their own blog.

I wonder if a hybrid would be best? Host yourself option or host-by-us option, with a pricing structure that accords.

The point is really to maximize ones ability to traverse between writers on subjects that interest you, so the physical location of the data is secondary.
"Never underestimate the bandwidth of a truck full of hard-drives driving down the highway" or however the saying goes. Latency is extremely long, but the bandwidth is crazy once it's arrive!

Edit: Original quote (seems I accidentally modernized it a bit):

> Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway – Andrew Tanenbaum, 1981
There's some work on this already, including Holophrasm and work by OpenAI on proof shortening. These efforts are linked from the Metamath wiki:

https://github.com/metamath/set.mm/wiki/Automated-proving
Yep, I think you're dead on. There are competing and diametrically opposed values out there, and in many cases both can be fairly argued in favor of. For example fairness vs freedom. No amount of shouting about the details will convince someone who primarily values fairness that freedom is more important, and the arguments are largely pointless unless the participants are genuinely seeking to examine the ideas, which is rarely ever the case online.

I think people understand that at a very base level, and that's why online arguments are often really more of a performance to score points with your side, or to take shots at the other side. Rarely is anyone actually attempting to convince or learn, they're just playing out some weird tribal warfare ritual and dressing it up as debate.

As the larger thread here suggests, the best move in this game is simply not to play it.
> above having agendas?

Having an agenda is normal and is good. Everybody that plans for the future has an agenda. What is wrong is to have a "hidden agenda".

A "hidden agenda" is wrong because is a form of manipulation. When an organization has a "hidden agenda" means that they are lying to achieve a goal that they are hiding.

If a movie agenda is to "create awareness of human trafficking", and it shows how "human trafficking" impacts peoples lives, that is not "hidden" and it is actually an agenda that most people supports.

So, to have an agenda is intelligent, needed, common, awesome behavior. Stones have no-agenda, rocks have no agenda. To have a "hidden agenda" is what should be criticized.

Why will anyone think that to have an agenda is bad?
It's a little different. Reddit doesn't choose the content presented to users, they allow the community to self-sort into community-managed subreddits with their own cultures and preferences and voting behavior. In fact reddit only barely exerts any control over the selection of subreddit moderators (mostly stepping in only to resolve things in extremis).

Facebook's algorithms decide on everything in your feed. If you aren't interested in politics on reddit you might never see it at all. If Facebook thinks you might be a republican (and often that's just a demographic thing coupled with a few past clicks on political stories), they will literally fill your screen with paid advertising designed to drive your political preferences.

The point is that division is visible on Reddit (and everywhere), but driven and encouraged by Facebook. And that these are different phenomena. I'm not completely sure I agree, but the point isn't as simple as "division exists".
Paseto Is a Secure Alternative to the JOSE Standards (JWT, etc.) (2018)
What about throughput?
Probably coax, only explanation of 13ms
This! It always helps me to take time out and paste what you have on a different notepad and come back to it. Only hit send if it still makes sense.
I just don't know what this product does. Your messaging appeals to me but I have literally no clue what features or functionality I'm signing up for.
Fixing common pain points of working from home
Show HN: Spatially Embedded Video Chat
Well, your reply is being 'deescalated' via downvotes. That shows how open people are to thoughts that defy their values and/or world model.
It was their first time ever buying an ebook so they didn't have a lifetime of experience in buying an ebook.
The first time they buy an ebook legally they become filled with moral outrage about how dreadful DRM and write a blog post about how they'll never buy one again. It's just utter self serving hypocrisy.
The Struggle is not always real
It really depends on the two things being compared. The ratio of boys to girls is 1:2, but the ratio of boys (implicitly: to the total) is 1:3.
> Things good for the company should be and frequently are good for the people using the product. The same thing can also harm the same people, or a different set of people, or the company, in a way that's impossible to disentangle from the good.

> It's never as simple as "this is bad for everyone except us but at least we're getting rich". Everything has more nuance than that when you experience it up close

This too needs more nuance. These points even apply to outright crime. Legal prohibitions should sometimes be expanded in the public interest, because sometimes it essentially is the case that something is bad for everyone except some small group.

This is reflected in the way data-protection laws now exist in many countries, for instance.
So the problem is the catastrophic dismantling of the welfare state over the past several decades.

Ironically, most Americans complaining about getting the economy up and running again also vote against having a basic safety net. I’d say you’re getting what you asked for. Should have at least voted for Medicare For All.
> some hidden human need/instinct to argue with people who they believe are incorrect

This is perhaps a form of "folk activism" [1]:

> In early human tribes, there were few enough people in each social structure such that anyone could change policy. If you didn’t like how the buffalo meat got divvied up, you could propose an alternative, build a coalition around it, and actually make it happen. Success required the agreement of tens of allies — yet those same instincts now drive our actions when success requires the agreement of tens of millions. When we read in the evening paper that we’re footing the bill for another bailout, we react by complaining to our friends, suggesting alternatives, and trying to build coalitions for reform. This primal behavior is as good a guide for how to effectively reform modern political systems as our instinctive taste for sugar and fat is for how to eat nutritiously.

Facebook is a collection of your friends or your "tribe", so repeated arguments with your tribe members is what our unconscious brain pushes us towards. That coupled with the dopamine hit of validation via likes (which is common to other online discussion platforms).

[1] https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/06/patri-friedman/beyon... I don't agree with a lot said here. Only linking the definition of folk activism
If you want something locally and use the command line, I’ve created and maintain a jwt cli tool to encode and decode jwts. https://github.com/mike-engel/jwt-cli
Speaking of good database clients, I actually got my favorite from HN: https://dbeaver.io/ -- it's not "sexy" but it's the best one I've used.
My point is limited to "fast.com could give faster results because you may not even leave your ISP to talk to them"; I'm not here to say "Cloudflare's results are good/bad/better/worse/reliable/unreliable."

A thought, though: Cloudflare reports your p90 time as "your speed". I don't know what the other sites report. Is it the same?
Understanding Kotlin Coroutines with this mental model
Yeah, this is very true. I may have overstated my initial idea. When I think more about it, maybe what I'm looking for is handcrafted curation, but that let's anyone share their curation speccs and discover relevant things to curate from. To me, that suggests some kind of algorithmic component, maybe in the form of search, voting, etc., but I wouldn't necessarily want the whole thing driven by either machine or mob.
"I just wonder how frontend developers keep up with that pace."

Understand the principles behind these frameworks, see that they hit just some point between conflicting tradeoffs, understand problem domains and how they interact with these tradeoffs. It's not like jQuery is accomplishing something fundamentally different than React, it's just that they make wildly different design choices that have implications on composability, maintainability, etc.

After you've learned a few of these (and the principles they are built on top of), you'll understand that it's going to be pretty easy to learn the next 10 of them.
You are lying. I have ran many Pleroma servers that do not require email to sign up, and have used Pleroma servers that do not require email to signup. None of them are overran by spammers.

You have forgotten your origins, James, and it bums me out. Email sucks. Requiring email to join a site sucks. Let's cite a popular essay from our old community:

http://wakaba.c3.cx/shii/

* Registration keeps out good posters. Imagine someone with an involving job related to your forum comes across it. This person is an expert in her field, and therefore would be a great source of knowledge for your forum; but if a registration, complete with e-mail and password, is necessary before posting, she might just give up on posting and do something more important. People with lives will tend to ignore forums with a registration process.

* Registration lets in bad posters. On the other hand, people with no lives will thrive on your forum. Children and Internet addicts tend to have free time to go register an account and check their e-mail for the confirmation message. They will generally make your forum a waste of bandwidth.

* Registration attracts trolls. If someone is interested in destroying a forum, a registration process only adds to the excitement of a challenge. One might argue that a lack of registration will just let "anyone" post, but in reality anyone can post on old-type forum software; registration is merely a useless hassle.
This, essentially. But more specifically: if I were in Triplebyte’s shoes, I’d have probably done one of two things:

Either just release the feature anyway, and maybe default it to opt-in for people with existing content, maybe make it “only content from $now forward is public”, something to that effect.

Halt the feature, but expend the minimum possible effort on the message out: “Hi all, we’ve reconsidered the feature in light of feedback. Thanks, CEO”.

It’s not clear to me that applying more time/effort to explaining themselves to the world has done them any benefit. There’s the bulk of people who didn’t notice / don’t care, there’s people who are permanently angry, and there’s people who are going to want to see actual changes before they revisit.

The people who work for a business are incentivized to live lives that let them sleep well at night, but it’s entirely possible for them to learn from this experience and behave differently in the future without bothering to respond to the mob.
Beautifully illustrated kids book about staying home/saving lives during Covid
I do this a lot, especially in Reddit. Trick I learned is I use my notepad now to type the reply, then wait for an hour and post it. This helped with few things:

1. Slowly improving in checking for typos

2. Reading something after a break helps framing my point better and helps remove the heated emotion from the text

3. I also don't save the comment, so I have to spend time searching for it. This further helps in filtering the topics that I don't care about

4. Using services while not logged in, basically be a lurker
Yeah... scroll to main content and then all the ads / javascript / images / videos load and the main content is pushed out of view.

The main content should always be visible upon page load.
You know what the internet needs? User agents.

We've got this idea stuck in our heads that only the website itself is allowed to curate content. Only Facebook gets to decide which Facebook posts to show us.

What if, instead, you had a personal AI that read every Facebook post and then decided what to show you. Trained on your own preferences, under your control, with whatever settings you like.

Instead of being tuned to line the pockets of Facebook, the AI is an agent of your own choosing. Maybe you want it to actually _reduce_ engagement after an hour of mindless browsing.

And not just for Facebook, but every website. Twitter, Instagram, etc. Even websites like Reddit, which are "user moderated", are still ultimately run by Reddit's algorithm and could instead be curated by _your_ agent.

I don't know. Maybe that will just make the echo chambers worse. But can it possibly make them worse than they already are? Are we really saying that an agent built by us, for us, will be worse than an agent built by Facebook for Facebook?

And isn't that how the internet used to be? Back when the scale of the internet wasn't so vast, people just ... skimmed everything themselves and decided what to engage with. So what I'm really driving at is some way to scale that up to what the internet has since become. Some way to build a tiny AI version of yourself that goes out and crawls the internet in ways that you personally can't, and return to you the things you would have wanted to engage with had it been possible for you to read all 1 trillion internet comments per minute.
On the bottom-left edge of the text area/editor, there is a tiny black play/triangle icon. Clicking that applies the changes.
Effective Java is the missing book for C++