skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The example is a demonstration that a member of the opposition party to the incumbent President was both willing and able to commit election fraud for even a paltry sum of money in a local election. The implication is that election officials from that party cannot be trusted to NOT fraudulently influence the election. If they are willing & able to exploit System A, then they are probably WILLING to exploit System B, and it's likely they are ABLE to exploit System B because its security sucks.

Basic risk management principles would lead to implementing controls to either reduce the probability of the risk, or reduce the effective impact of the risk. The US has been stuck doing neither since the Bush/Gore election.
The FDA is a US body, so if you take a global perspective I'm sure you'll find lots of examples of things that are 'alternative medicine' according to the FDA but just 'medicine' according to the equivalent bodies in other countries. Someone brought up St. John's Wort as an example above, apparently now legitimate in some European countries.
Sorry, what's a fact?
Your link doesn't provide any evidence of this.

"Communist propaganda of the time claimed that the insect was being dropped from parachutes and balloons"
Just found this module as a GitHub action:

https://github.com/marketplace/actions/s3-sync

Shouldn't be too difficult to hook this up to a build command for hugo, jekyll, or whichever static site generator you'd prefer. But this gets away from the self-hosted part of what you were saying a bit.
It’s hard to tell why automated feeds are treated differently to manual feeds. If a blogger repeated a libellous claim, they could be sued, even if their primary activity was curating other people’s opinions. Why companies that run algorithms that do the same thing at scale get a free pass is hard to fathom. These aren’t dumb pipes, but carefully programmed algorithms, tweaked for generating maximum engagement.

I would suggest that any service that provided a curated feed of content pushed to users, should be treated as a publisher and held liable for the content it promotes. Importantly, “curation” would include spam filtering.

Google News, Facebook and Twitter would all be deemed publishers under this rule. Search engines wouldn’t.

It would probably kill their business models, but that could well be a net gain for humanity.
Bees: "Oh no! They have found us again, we're in trouble!"
It's like you people think the world began in 2010. We've been through a drastic shift in what popular culture considers polite in the last decade. Nothing was weird about that metaphor in the nineties, it would have been seen as middle of the road edgy and nothing more.

As for "obviously written words can't literally punch you in the face"—No. That's what the theory GP plucked the phrase from implies, that hurtful language is literally violence.
To my surprise they have just done this with a pair of his tweets about mail-in ballots (adding a 'get the facts about this topic' button to each tweet) and as you might expect he's throwing a fit.
Twitter's rebuke has consequences in the larger culture war battle being fought online, it's an acknowledgement from twitter hq that they view Trump's behavior as a violation of twitter rules even though they are not willing to go so far as to ban or suspend him since he's the president. This is as much about PR as anything else since twitter has come under increased pressure to take some kind of action with regard to Trump's conduct on the site.
We can hope. Along with various psychedelics and ketamine.
It seems an obvious solution would be to incorporate historical data into future decisions on whether to take down immediately vs take down after manual verification.

If someone has been hit with these takedown requests over and over where the resolution was always to put it back up, what likelihood is there that future resolutions will be different? By standing by your content creators with a history of improper takedown requests you'll build brand loyalty. By making it just as difficult on content creators the 100th time as the first time makes me think YouTube isn't going to be the "platform of the future" for content creators.
I would argue that how you define the inputs, outputs, and architecture of a model is quite precisely providing a spec. That doesn't necessarily mean that any intermediary within the model is explainable, as you allude to, just as a spec doesn't specify how a feature gets implemented.
Creating a Demotivational Browser Extension
In a highly competitive market prices tend toward marginal costs plus some small profit margin. Think agriculture or plastic trinkets. The fact their prices and profits have remained high for so long indicates lower competition, likely due to high barriers to entry from competitors and high switching costs for consumers.
Allow me to introduce modern theoretical physics, where comments like "X is obvious in context" never is, except to the person that wrote it. Don't worry though, they helpfully add that "When X isn't what it seems in context, this will be called out". Okay. "Sometimes it may not be." Wat?

Of course, every individual researcher, or at least each individual Physics department has their own conventions, and the conventions are critical to the meaning. It's like the programming paradigm where the naming of functions invokes "magic glue" instead of using strongly typed interfaces. It's unbelievably confusing to the uninitiated.

If you're trying to "cut across" a bunch of theories being worked on by different groups, you basically have no hope. Everybody ends up being super specialised not only to a specific sub-field of study, but to a specific research group.

I just watched a 1 hour lecture on extending GR by some physicist last night. He was reading the equations out loud, and at one point he was making noises like the following non-stop for about 2 minutes: "Eta mu nu, one minus one zeta nu mu, mu nu eta zeta one". It was ludicrous.
"Human capital stock?" Really? Have the Republicans jumped the shark yet, because it's hard to believe anyone said this in front of a national news camera.
> but accomplishment in a field does not necessarily equate to expertise and certainly doesn't imply any significant teaching ability.

This is interesting, because you could make the same assessment about famous professors at famous institutions.

There were definitely professors that I had that were well known for their research, but were awful at teaching.
There are definitely benefits to the 24 hour news cycle, like the Ahmaud Arbery case you mentioned, but I don't think it is clear that those benefits are worth the cost to society as whole. For every case where the outrage is justified, there are cases where there was public outrage that was based on completely false information, or directed to the wrong individual. And this also can motivate people to do things like mass shootings, since you know that the story of what you did will be talked about around the country for days.

Outside of people being targeted for no reason, this news cycle just polarizes the American public. People have their set of news sources that only push them the news supporting their opinion, and spin the news in their favor, moving peoples opinions further to the extremes - politics stops being about real issues, and there is no room for real debate. In a building I lived in they had CNN constantly playing in the games room, and all they ever seemed to have was talking heads discussing Trump, mostly speculation about Russia at the time - does that really lead to anyone being more informed, or cause any positive action? I don't think this cost is worth the few cases where the public outrage was correct and effective.

I think it would be a huge problem if the general public stopped consuming any national/international news at all, since injustice would go unnoticed unless it affected you directly. And of course with things like COVID it is important to be informed about what is going on. But I think we would all be better off if instead of looking at the news every day, we just looked at the top stories once or twice a week on a set of reputable news sites, and stayed out of the comments.
While not exactly a convertible, the Honda e sounds right up your alley.

It's probably the only electric car I'm looking forward to anymore.
"The beauty of an abstract film is it's open to interpretation."

I think requiring each viewer to bring their own brilliance to the reading of his films is Lynch's aim.
The point is that fighting Facebook on Facebook is a losing game and "innovate a better business model" has been tried, is being tried, and is not working because it is hard. A plan that does not work is indeed "flawed", no matter how noble and natural the intentions.
Wow second reference to Demosplash I have seen in a week. Guess its more well known than I thought. Looking at the pouet page, it looks like 2018 was a banner year for Demosplash, tons of prods from that year on there. I went for the first time in 2019. The CMU alumni crew that organize this are a bunch of cool cats. Wish we had demo parties at my alma mater. :)
> This presupposes some kind of universal value function.

Yes: "a majority of HN readers of this comment found it useful / not useful". That's the best you're going to get.

But for the most part, it does actually work. If 80% of people on the site agree that a comment is useful, that's good enough; it's unreasonable to expect any evaluation of subjective matters to be universal.

And that's why moderators will step in and do some manual tweaking if things get very divisive. If that 80% number (that I made up) drops too low, getting too close to 50%, then that means that the discussion just isn't likely to be productive. HN is not a homogeneous group, and sometimes the there isn't a clear majority in agreement.

> Here's what I'll say though about modern forums: they fixed a system that wasn't broken as far as discourse goes. When I was in high school the were forums where responses were ordered in time rather than by popularity

I don't agree with this.

One reason is the lack of threading. phpBB and its contemporaries just had a list of posts, and all replies linearly under each post link. Digging through for the bits you actually care about was a huge pain in the ass, and it's one of the reasons why I never enjoyed fora like that.

The other reason is just scale. I'm not sure how old you are, but I was in HS in the late 90s. Back then the internet was much smaller, not as commercialized, and people generally behaved decently well toward each other. We didn't have the spambots we do today, and every forum site wasn't under constant attack by people who want to destroy online communities just for fun. I'm not saying it was perfect, but it was a lot easier to manage communities back then and keep discourse civil and on-topic, with very few automated tools at hand.

These days it's pretty much impossible to create high quality discussions at any scale without a ranking system. Sure, you see smaller communities of a few hundred, maybe even a thousand, people where these things work sorta like they did 20+ years ago (but I guarantee you the board itself is doing a ton of automated spam filtering to get you there).

HN has... what? Tens of thousands, or likely more than a hundred thousand users. If you enabled showdead in your profile page, you'll see a lot of garbage that gets through the automated filters and ends up flagged out of existence. And even regardless of that, with a community this size, you're going to have enough disagreement on the fundamentals of any complex topic that you're going to get a ton of disagreement. Voting and flagging is far from perfect, but it can help it from devolving into a cesspool of low-effort comments and outright name-calling.
Has there been a more polarising American politician than Trump in living memory? Voter fraud is not a constant. It is completely dynamic. Just his Tweet completely changes reality. Now, if it does proceed, we'll see increased scrutiny of mail-in voting, which in turn would reduce fraud. This would then be cited by opponents as another counter-example, when in reality the increased scrutiny was the catalyst.
I've been aware of these for around 20 years, I've not seen that nomenclature growing in popularity.

It doesn't help that it just sounds silly to my ears.
The House Is Voting on Section 215, Again. The Bill Still Needs More Reform
Since pretty much all the reviews here are glowing I'll offer up an alternative.

If you want what they are selling, then it does work quite well.. but there are drawbacks.. one primarily.. that made me end up not using it for my whole network and only on my ipad when I don't want ads in a game.

As mentioned in other comments, you can whitelist domains, but unlike the whitelist in ublock or something in your browser, this means you need to know the exact ad server domain/domains. For example if I want ads on for certain websites to help support or troubleshoot my own site then I'm unable to do that or if the wife needs to see an ad in her game to get gems, you have to dig through the logs to find out what ad server its calling.. or set up another profile to not block any ads.

In short, you're not whitelisting the domain you're visiting, you need to whitelist every domain that website might call too. Perhaps most people are okay with then and if so then ignore :)

Another thing I didn't like, which I mean makes sense, but in order to label a device you need to run their client. I had set up nextdns on my router which worked great, but if I wanted different devices to have different rulesets they each needed to run the nextdns client. So good luck knowing which smart device is calling what because you're not going to be installing the client on your Alexa. One other downside of this which honestly I probably could have fixed was their client broke WSL network connections so on my primary device I ended up operating in logged out mode.

That said, I might end up giving it another shot at some point but running on a very limited set of rules rather then the pretty comprehensive rulesets I had enabled. I did like how it blocked the device telemetry calls.. perhaps that is all I need to block and then handle everything else client side.

Hope this helps someone!
Where does he mention the 1st amendment?
YouTube auto-deletes comments with phrases critical of Chinese government
The FCC’s advertising disclosure rules apply to every form of broadcast media.
of the 58% of eligible voters who actually voted.
Doesn’t much news involve heavy ... collusion with the subject of or source of the story?

Having it completely produced by the subject isn’t a big leap from the current situation with many publishers and reporters.

There seems to be very little news which isn’t engineered to benefit one group or another. In other words real, objective, and independent reporting seems to be quite rare, and the mistaken expectation that most news is exactly that seems to be very common.
Excellent idea, soon this will be a requirement for using the web in any productive way, considering the ratio of good information to junk info is getting worse rapidly. We already do this in a way; only visiting certain sites that we like and following certain users. A personal AI would make this process much more efficient.

I do see a content filtering AI as very difficult to achieve, and I don't think it will be possible for quite some time. There are so many small problems, even getting AI to recognize targeted content is difficult, given that websites can have infinitely different layouts. And what about video or audio? The most practical way to achieve a content AI would be to persuade websites to voluntarily add standardized tags so that the only problem becomes predicting and filtering. Although I could see some issues with that like people trying to game the system.
> For fun, let’s inspect history.com and see what the heck all those headers are.

I don't know for sure, but those seem like they might be response headers from app servers meant to be picked up on the way out by proxy servers for the purposes of analytics, or possibly for applying caching rules.

Normally you'd have the proxy strip these out before sending back to the end user.
If you are any decent size and you pay for a partner’s “Well Architect” overview, they will give you the money back in credits. I am not at liberty to say how much we spend, but it’s not over a million.
Just as an example, a friend of mine had a fishing video get picked up by a few different news outlets. He gave a small writeup explaining the video to each of them. Not one of them reported the correct information. None of them got the location correct, only one got the kind of fish correct and one of them might as well have been talking about a totally different video, they literally contradicted what you could see in the video.

The way I see it, of something as trivial as a fishing video can be reported on so completely and utterly incorrectly, without the slightest regard for even the tiny amount of facts provided alongside the video, then why should i assume anything else is reported correctly?
I copy paste them :) http://japaneseemoticons.me/all-japanese-emoticons/
Why do you want to be in "the middle"?
What I'm hearing is: Great Courses for technical content and MasterClass for motivation.

Progress may require different weights of the two for different people.
You forgot to take a jab at the president too. Try:

"Rare Blue Bees Rebound After Coronavirus, Devastated By Murder Hornets, while President golfs without a mask"
I’ve always thought it was because living a life with meaning requires faith in one way or another, and the Christian existentialists were simply more comfortable with the concept. The involvement of Christian theology really just muddies the waters imo, because the broader topic is really just about faith, and any effort to impart your own meaning (whether religious or otherwise) to your own life is naturally an act of faith. Kierkegaard was a Christian, but his philosophy revolves primarily around the concept of faith (believing something you can’t prove). Nietzsche was an atheist, but his Death of God was a rejection of faith in general as the basis for providing any meaning to life.

The leap of faith as a philosophical concept is not about religion. It’s the concept that a person can provide their own life with meaning, without any rational proof to support such a conclusion. If you find the work of Christian existentialists to be superior, it’s likely because you find the leap of faith to be the superior response to the absurd.
> I'd start with treating users as partners, and not cattle.

What does this mean in practice? How do you treat 2.6 billion people as partners?
Sadly, Kindle only really provides English content. Finnish books only really get released on Finnish propietary platforms that, like Op's experience, are laden with DRM.

I don't really need to read Finnish literature (although it would be nice to be more well versed in my own culture) but I can't recommend ebook readers to my family and friends because there's no way for them to enjoy any content on them. Which is a shame as they're dope.
Trump short-circuits the media gatekeepers using Twitter.

But the relationship is symbiotic. While Trump loves him some free platform, he's a big traffic draw.

So, if Twitter wants to be too uppity, Trump could, for example shift operations to Gab.

I submit that a key point here is THERE IS NO CORRECT ANSWER to the policy question.

If one engages in social media, one's feelings will be hurt.

This is no blank check to be a dick. Criticisms of Trump cheapening the office are trivially shown correct. Vote accordingly this November.
IMO, Google's profit per employee isn't an indicator of Google's obligation to increase its customer service headcount. Taken to it's logical conclusion, we should let poorly-performing companies off the hook for having awful customer service.

The rest of this comment is going to be somewhat critical of Google criticism and seemingly apologistic. Please assume positive intent.

I agree that Google certainly could do more to help people on its platform. But this will always be the case until every single customer service issue is solved to the user's satisfaction. The important question that I never see anybody asking or answering is "How much is reasonably enough, and how do we know (subject X) has done enough?"

It all boils down to what we believe the moral obligation of people (and companies, by extension) ought to be. Any extra service that Google provides beyond those required for profit maximization (e.g. customer retention, maintaining reputation, being only slightly better than the second-best option) is purely charity. Then, how do we evaluate when a certain amount of charity is sufficient, let alone necessary? Public sentiment is fickle, and therefore not a great measure. I bet even if Google increased its CSR by 10x, we'd still see communities eagerly latch onto any criticism of the tech giant and shout "you have to do more!" without quantifying what the final demand actually is!

I take the moral position that we as a society certainly can and should do much more to take care of each other. Telling each other to be better is absolutely valuable and I will never argue against that. But I believe we ought to do a much better job of suggesting desirable and realistic end states, instead of perpetuating insubstantial discourse amounting to one of either "They need to do better!" or "Come on, they're doing the best they can."

Admittedly this places me in a non-committal position. I don't have any great suggestions for what the end states of YouTube, Twitter, et al should look like from a content moderation perspective. But I would love to hear input from actual experts in who can offer some reasonable ideas about the most cost-beneficial solutions for society as a whole.
The Green Line
he doesn't mention the first amendment - free speech is about more than american laws.

Saying that what twitter is doing is "stifling free speech" is a matter of opinion, and while you can certainly argue against the statement there's no need for the amendments to the us constitution to come into it.
Nice idea. Anyone working on this?
A lot of people wouldn’t know about the policy avenues that can be used to regulate these companies (of which FTC is not the only one), or how even advisory groups to the president could help.
Dump the charge into a third capacitor, connect the two you want equal, and dump the charge back.
My home network is running a VPN I can access from my phone & computers while away. The home network includes a PiHole that is running DNSCrypt (DNS over HTTPS) with Cloudflare's DNS service.

Edit: so ultimately, you'd be trusting whoever's on DNSCrypt's resolvers list. Better than trusting Comcast, in my situation.
> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EYoIrdZXQAILKlB.jpg*

Am I misunderstanding something? Are you saying they completely closed down all those polling stations? It seems like the less populated areas have more* polling stations than denser ones, what is the justification for this?
What a bad-faith take. Technically, no, twitter's statement is not a fact about the future, but merely a fact about California's policies. In the utmost of pedantry, it should read "According to California's election policies, ballots are only to be sent to registered voters at the addresses listed on their registration."

But if we're really drilling into semantics, you posted a link about dead people on the registry. That does not, in fact, preclude twitter's statement. Hundreds of dead people have active voter registrations! Twitter's statement is not invalidated by this.

But neither does it support Trump's claim about "significant" voter fraud. Hundreds of votes in the state of California is neither significant, nor guaranteed that the dead people's ballots will be used.

But Trump's claim is that ballots will be sent to everybody in the state. That's a far greater lie than your overwrought interpretation of their statement.
Must-Have Meats; Charcuterie Board Essentials