skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> I thought masks was a good idea from the get go but there was an opposing view that existed at some point about this even from "authoritative" sources.

This is a very valid comment, especially when the chief source on truth in this case - WHO - changed their stance on this several times. Not to mention that their director general is a "former" high-ranking communist terrorist - something that doesn't make his organization appear too credible and something I am not really OK with.
> Ask some oracle what "fact" is and shun every other point of view?

This statement concerns me, greatly. Its implication is that facts are merely point of view statements. That is just, well, it's just wrong.

Facts are facts. The truth is the truth. They don't care what your beliefs are. If it is empirically true, then it is true.

Why and when did it become okay to hand-wave and dismiss anything you didn't believe in, personally, just because you don't believe in it? What is this world?
Facts are very effective against homeopaths, you just have to dilute them 100x first.
A license is "GPL-compatible" when code released under its terms can be used in a GPL-licensed project.

However, using any GPL-code, no matter if linked statically or dynamically, requires the author to release the combined work under GPL.
It's easy to tell them apart because ethical and instrumental reasoning have distinct value systems.

It is irrelevant that Triplebyte's public profiles may have been instrumentally valuable for the company in the long run. No one arguing against them cared about that. But they did care about the ethical implications of that decision -- it was wrong even if it turned out to be good for Triplebyte, which it didn't because their plan was so brazenly unethical that they got a spanking.
Funny you say, but on social platforms we know you are kind of forced, through suggestions and ads.
Yes I am aware of CDA section 230. Another way of saying what I said is I think CDA section 230 needs to be repealed, or define exemptions that don't allow the type of draconian actions places like Twitter, Google, and Facebook are taking against free speech to qualify for protection under the act.

Joe Biden is for the idea: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/01/17/opinion/joe-b...
So the question is, what did you move on to? I'm echoing a lot of your sentiments internally, just haven't admitted it to myself yet. But what is left for us to go to?
Plasma, a promising Covid-19 treatment, has a weirdly dark history
> XPS 15

OH YES?

https://www.google.com/search?rls=en&q=dell+xps+15+crashing

https://www.google.com/search?rls=en&q=dell+xps+15+coil+whin...

https://www.google.com/search?rls=en&q=dell+xps+15+battery+s...

https://www.google.com/search?rls=en&q=dell+xps+15+overheati...
No it doesn't. Humans aren't a constant box of skill, your intelligence grows or reduces. A young candidate with X amount of skill is more likely to reach 2X skills in 10 years than an older candidate who has stayed at X for past 10 years. Growth potential is what counts, and you saying that you have been at skill level X for past decade just proves that your ability to grow is reaching nil.
There are games you can't really opt out. Like politics. Whoever wins will have control over you. (So people are highly motivated to play it.)
If there's a public health crisis, and people can't safely leave homes and can't vote by mail, there is no meaningful election.

Right now, he's:

* Doing everything in his power to have a public health crisis (which means people can't go out to vote)

* Working to bankrupt the USPS so people can't vote by mail

* Threatening to go after states which support vote-by-mail (that's the tweet and similar statements -- withholding federal funding to states which vote by mail)

That's a concerning set of signals.

That's not a verbal threat like a declaration of war, if that's the link you're looking for. It's a threat like when a country conducts military drills on your border, or like when there's a new virus outbreak on the other side of the world. Problems might or might not materialize, but you should take actions to be ready both to minimize the odds of problems, and in case they do.

Our current PoTUS is an opportunist. He hedges and hangs out ideas to see if they'll get traction. If he gets any traction on an idea, he exploits it very effectively. If he doesn't get traction, he moves on. That has upsides and downsides, but in this case, it's to everyone's advantage that he doesn't get traction.

And the response should be very similar. If a country appears to be preparing to invade, you prepare to defend yourself. That doesn't mean you need to be obnoxious about it or try to provoke a war (politeness pays), but you do want to respond to the threat.

I apologize if I was imprecise in my wording. The word 'threat' has multiple meanings. I don't want to vilify the PoTUS, but I do want to make sure the checks-and-balances stay in place. That take vigilance against threats, both real and potential.
Reaching Idiocracy is a pretty big understatement.

To be honest, it feels that the president should have a babysitter, if you look at his constant tweet tirades.
> You say you are a person, I say you are a banana. Who are you to dispute my facts?

I'm not quite sure about your intent, but I think this is a more effective phrasing:

"You say you are a person, but I say you are a banana. As a banana, who are you to dispute my facts?"
> should be able to move to a nice job without any network push

Then you're probably playing much more of a numbers game. Short of having extraordinary credentials--in which case you probably have a pretty good network anyway.

Everyone's different of course but, after my first job out of grad school--which I stayed in long enough that I was pretty senior by the time I was ready to move on--every job I've had came directly through people I knew. I probably never actually needed a resume other than for pro forma reasons. (I've admittedly also somewhat shifted careers a couple of times--and had one job description basically written for me--so my experience may not translate well to hiring developers for a specific set of skills.)
Isn’t this inevitable? The number of new things to take photos of is not going to increase that much year over year and digital photos last forever.

The squeeze is going to come simply because at some point there is far more content than buyers.
Mass disinformation campaigns become more expensive and difficult to orchestrate if you have to target them at zillions of decentralized forums, each with their own moderation policies and local cultures.
Same here. It was frustrating to not see a fix for this in the changelog. Hopefully they fix this soon.
Yeah, $499 per year is reasonable. It's similar to Adobe Creative Cloud all-apps plan pricing.
It's illegal to do that in the EU, so probably only affects non-EU terretories.
Scientific networks helping African countries to access coronavirus lab supplies
Voter registration rolls are pretty notorious for being out of date and unreliable.

Personally I don’t have a problem with anyone who wants to vote by mail being able to request a ballot. Most states already allow no-excuse absentee ballets.

I think the problem arises when the State automatically mails ballots to every registered voter at an address.

If too many ballots show up at a house because someone requested it, there’s a paper trail. If too many ballots show up at a house automatically, there’s zero paper trail to be able to tell if they were all filled out and mailed back, besides the overall voter participation rate going up, which surely it will do.
The first amendment isn't a catch-all freedom-of-consequences thing; if (to use a straw man argument) Twitter did not remove ISIS propaganda, the US government would shut down.

While technically proclaiming the virtues of joining an army to fight for them can be considered freedom of speech and should be protected, in practice it's not because they're a deplorable terrorist organization.
you are right, first and second paragraph had no connection, just 2 random thoughts poorly written :)
I wrote a few small cli tools and the first 2 things i always add is urfave cli and goreleaser... even if you only deploy and use local, this is a great way to release getopt compilant multiple platform builds with or without subcommands.
If you expect reliability and quality, you also find the ownership experience to be different. I have owned three.
The techniques aren't that new; all that is new is having the gigabytes upon gigabytes of RAM to run them, not too mention CPU power, and scads of data.

I knew what a neural network was, and understood it as part of AI, when Wham! was in the Top 40 charts.

The hate isn't for the "new" techniques, I think; just for the posers who claim to be AI experts because they know how to use some Python library or whatnot.

You don't have AI creds if you have no background in the symbolic stuff.
What's trending on the underground market? – Help Net Security
Sure, I didn't mean to sound like I am stomping on the Dream. What I meant was, how specifically did this family that came from poverty accumulate $300k?

Quick research says that Mike Bezos worked as an engineer for Exxon after graduating college, and saving that money wisely can add up to $300k.
Ok here's the conversation, but the thing is that it's not reeeealy a debate: "Money is good to have".

But everytime you say exactly this, there are swarms of people trying to explain to you why it's not so important. It's just pure rationalisation.

That doesn't mean "you should or shouldn't dedicate your life to money because it will not make you happy", but this specic argument IS the strawman people give usually everytime you talk about money, and THIS is actually how most people actually kill the conversation.
Because Twitter changed its TOS specifically to legitimize Trump's violations of the earlier version.

Trump is working the refs even though they are already very much in his favor.
Machine Learning on Mobile and Edge Devices with TensorFlow Lite
Do note, however, that keeping the battery _in_ while the device plugged in usually results in the battery kept "floating"; which results in many short charging cycles (i.e. discharge to 99%, then top to 100%, rinse and repeatt). This is what this type of "battery management" updates are designed to avoid, and many manufacturers allow configuring these cycles in ways that are much softer on the battery (e.g. avoid 100%).
Why you should always read the terms of use.

In Sinclair v. Zi Davis and Mashable, a professional photographer sued Mashable for embedding a publicly visible photo through Instagram's API (they'd previously offered to license the photo for $50, which the photographer rejected).

Instagram's Terms of Use state that users "grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license to the Content that you post on or through [Instagram], subject to [Instagram's] Privacy Policy." By using Instagram's embed option, Mashable became a sub-licensee, allowing them to post the photo without paying a royalty or needing additional permission.

Therefore, Judge Kimba Wood in the Southern District of New York decided that "...by posting the Photograph to her public Instagram account, Plaintiff made her choice. This Court cannot release her from the agreement she made."

+

From the article (behind a paywall):

"The court's decision noted that Mashable did not make a copy of the protected photograph and reproduce it in the published article. Rather, Mashable "embedded" the photograph which appeared in the article. Embedding is a technical procedure whereby a website can use code to direct a user's computer to fetch an image from a third-party server. Instagram utilizes computer code called an API (application program interface), which allows any Instagram user to access and share any content posted by other Instagram users provided those accounts are set in the "public" mode. The end user's Internet browser is instructed by the API to locate the image and display or embed it as part of the website's content. This process occurs so quickly that the user sees the image as direct, even though the photograph actually resides on a third-party server. Instagram's API permits any of its users to embed Instagram posts created and owned by others into their own Instagram accounts or on their websites."
Wikimedia was also one of the worst interviews I've ever had, but it wasn't a video interview. They sent me a take-home "test" that needed to sort some files into different folders based on the file contents and said it should take about three hours to complete but it needed to scale to several million files.

So I set a timer, and started working on it, and got a simple solution working, which ran using Docker so that I could package the dependencies... (some ruby gems, the test's stock files, etc.) I included a readme that said 'simply docker build and docker run'. At the 3 hour mark, I stopped iterating and sent the github link.

The recruiter called me the next day and said that the person who looked at the code said it didn't run, when he looked at it, it was the worst code they'd ever seen, I didn't use object-oriented design and didn't unit test it.

Wut? A 3 hour script to sort some files should be properly structured OOP with unit tests, and the examiner didn't know how to run docker?

Wow, I guess I dodged a bullet there.
>There is nothing in the law that says a publisher is responsible for user generated contact. In fact the law says just the opposite.

I think you're misunderstanding the section. A publisher of content is very much responsible for it. After all, it says that "no provider [...], a platform, shall be treated as the publisher" i.e. a platform is not a publisher (so therefore a platform is not liable).

However, if you stop being just a 'platform', you could become liable for the content you host. I think moderation in general is fine, but if you started curating the content I think you could get in trouble.
Context for the next bits that are worth remembering, or maybe the tone of the paragraph/section changes and suddenly an interesting or exciting part pops out and you read that normally.
Whatsapp forwards is largely a solved problem. Now you can't forward whatsapp messages to more than 5 people at a go. And if you try doing 5 people at a time consecutively, your account is automatically deleted even before you reach 30 total forwards.

Some people adopted a strategy of adding users to a group and dropping whatever message they have but that too is solved by allowing only known contacts to add you to groups.
Of all the things Trump has said, why add a fact check on this point that includes all kinds of vagueness?

How is it a fact that mail-in ballots will not lead to rigged elections? Just that there's no evidence to support it doesn't mean it can't be true (however unlikely). If we're really to police politicians, surely it should be only on absolutely logically false points?

The point about that only registered votes will receive ballots and not just anyone might be a real correction, but it sort of depends on who can be a registered voter, I don't know the details of that. It also seems like a relatively minor point.

And the third correction is just horrendous. Trump targeted California, and they add a "get the facts" that other states also exist. How is that categorically relevant? Obviously Trump is concerned with leftwing influence, so he's singling California out, it's most certainly valid.

So Twitter releases what's possibly the most culturally significant feature they've released in 10 years, and they fuck up 2 out of 3, and the only one they might have gotten right has not enough information and seems to be minor?

To me it seems there's only 2 rational explanations: whoever made the check the facts did so without oversight or involvement of a committee, and will be fired, or Twitter simply does not want to actually do this, and tries to get out of the public pressure to do so by making a weak attempt and then giving up. I hate to be cynical, but the first one option just doesn't seem very likely given the gravity of the situation.

edit: if I was the CEO of Twitter and I would have given the final 'go' on the "what you need to know" it would have looked like this:

- In the state of California only registered voters receive ballots.

So: no hear-say about evidence that is missing, no accusing a politician of lies and definitely not naming that politician in every line. Just the facts, and let the reader figure out how that reflects on the tweet the politician made.
There's a massive difference between...

1. Questioning whether the Electoral College (and its tendency to devalue votes in some states) has a place in the modern US.

2. Questioning whether the election itself is completely rigged (via fraudulent votes).

#1 is the question many liberals have been asking. #2 is thee claim that the entire GOP has been making for years, despite their own investigations never turning up more than a few individuals voting fraudulently (but never systematic fraud perpetrated by the political left, as they claim).
the real shame is that integrity is a politically biased position now.
There isn't one. It's just fearmongery.
Hot New Data Tools and What They Don’t Do
They have been fact checking other people. It was precisely that they weren’t fact checking trump.
> No surprise that this doesn’t include any consideration for the profound moral, ethical, or social implications of AI and AI solutions.

Would you say the same thing for an undergrad in SE (actually asking)? I feel like the hype train for AI has moved it into a plane where it has to be some moral arbiter but it seems to me that the same demands could be placed on most fields of study including general software engineering.

> Nothing about bias in models. Nothing about communication. Nothing about privacy. Nothing about security. Nothing about resiliency. Nothing about the responsibility of the individual practitioner. Nothing about the economic or ecological impact of the work.

Maybe it is just my bubble but I feel like very few AI jobs actually deal with hot button ethics (facial recognition for dubious purposes etc). It is just that these fringes get all the attention as if they represent the broad community (they don’t). For instance I work in AI for satellite communications, most of the things you bring up don’t really apply (any more than they do to the software engineers I work with). My former work was in AI and computer vision in marine ecosystems. Again... your moral questions don’t really apply (privacy of coral reefs?). I agree it is important to be aware of these issues but most of the real jobs in AI I feel like are more scientific in nature.. not the privacy busting, bias inducing ones we hear about a lot. Again that could be my bubble to some degree I suppose though.
No but it's literally censorship to remove people from Twitter because they use the correct gender pronoun for a biological sex.

Where are the fact-checking in all those cases, I wonder?
>Idiocracy

Or how they call it on the right side: Clown World. Guess nobody is happy with the current affairs.
AMP is the worst. It breaks the web and should just die.
Twitter already regulates speech though, to their own agenda.

I got into the gender debate recently (a big mistake), and so many gender critical people get suspended or banned just for believing in reality (that males can't be women) and standing up for women's rights. A man (Zuby) got suspended for simply saying 'dude' to someone. People get their accounts deleted for 'misgendering' people.

Twitter is already, hardly a bastion of free speech.
My IT director doesn't know every facet of what is in our environment, and generally is not up to date as to what changes are happening on the day to day. And he doesn't need to be.

The point of high-level workers is so they can focus on high-level priorities. They have staff -- legal aids, system admins, business analysts, whatever -- whose job it is to digest that stuff and put it into simple briefings for leadership to evaluate in the context of other issues.

> I don't blame them with it being hundreds of pages of reading that could easily be parted out to aides, but the electorate certainly doesn't have this advantage

The electorate isn't expected to have this advantage, and is not expected to read the bills. The whole reason for representative democracy is so that the common voter does not have to parse this stuff -- that's explicitly the point. I find someone who reflects my views and I put them in office, and trust that they'll be able to digest what's happening and vote accordingly. The common man isn't expected to understand tariffs, international banking, military theory, computer engineering, social justice issues, and food scarcity.
> akin to a developer not knowing whether his computer had an SSD or hard drive, or how much memory

which is definitely not unheard of -- particularly for some of us who use a number of different devices any day.
The app? It’s called Strong.
There's a setting to toggle gallery view...
Mainly cultural reasons I'd say. In some countries you jump right into a professional program like medicine right after high school. But then it takes 6 years or something. The net long duration is still basically the same due to all the additional specialized knowledge needed for professional degrees.
Why wouldn’t they update the support ticket? Their statement seems very boiler plate. “It’s a glitch, we’re looking into it”. Weird it took all this attention for that little statement.
I'm not sure how you managed to pull that quote out without reading the sentence immediately before it, saying that you should take a supplement during this indoor lockdown.
What's sad is that the movie was meant as a joke. (I think?)

And here we are? How did this happen?
Physicians Say Lockdowns Are a ‘Mass Casualty Incident’
4Simple Steps to Turn Your $5 to $200 in Less Than 60Days on ANP Without Stress
It is deeply satisfying to watch politicians get fact checked, especially when this reaffirms our world view. It's simply another tool in the toolkit for social media platforms to get us involved. To wield this more effectively to maximize engagement --which is an unsurprising move for social media companies, given their profit incentive to maximize ads-- the companies could choose to show individual fact-checks from a user's opposing political party only. I agree that fact checks don't change people's opinions, because people do not care if their world view is based in lies or reality, all that's important to the average social media consumer is the affirmation.
If Twitter wants to fact check, fine. But posting links to pieces by anti-Trump news outlets is not fact checking.
> However, it does mean I have to move on.

To what, though? I came to the same conclusions a few years back, but I'm at a loss as to what to do next. So I plug along, take what work I can find, shake my head and watch the exact same cycle happen to React as happened to Flex.
I would be interested in seeing a list of all the banned phrases for some perspective. It's hard for me to understand why they would ban these phrases in particular. From the outside looking it it would certainly seem that Google is taking it's cues from the Chinese government directly on this matter.
I'd say Trump appropriated it to point out how untrustworthy the "real" news is. And he was and is right about that in general, even if he's often wrong.