skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Unsurprising that this is being downvoted. Any call out of far left views specifically gets that treatment.

Does anyone who is downvoting this want to provide counter arguments or reasons this content shouldn’t be viewed by others? It all seems very reasonable and well thought out to me.
Classic Trump. He does nothing, claims he’s victorious and his fans eat it up.
Are there not already viable free alternatives to all of MS's, as well as to many of their paid services? I don't see how MS is in a unique position, aside from being more vertically integrated than anyone else (excepting Apple, on a different range of products).

Users of technical software (I.e. developers, especially for websites) have never had it better.
Eugene Volokh with some legal analysis: https://reason.com/2020/05/28/platform-immunity-and-platform...
How many encrypted emails do you receive annually?

There have been many post-mortems on the Web of Trust. Few mention "corps can't steal my data" as a failure, the failure is entirely in the impossibility of building the web of trust with enough people to gain critical mass. In fact one danger of the web of trust sometimes mentioned is the way it leaks your social graph just like a social network, only without the privacy protections provided by services like Facebook.

https://inversegravity.net/2019/web-of-trust-dead/

https://medium.com/@bblfish/what-are-the-failings-of-pgp-web...

https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/68583/is-the-pg...

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:aHYu1j...

https://cryptography.fandom.com/wiki/Web_of_trust#Web_of_tru...

I've had my keys published and PGP set up on all my email accounts for years and literally the only encrypted emails I've ever gotten are from Facebook, and only because I went through a fairly arcane process to set that up. I even crypto-sign all of my email as a hint that I can do PGP. I doubt anybody has ever verified my signature on even one piece of email.
I suspect a lot of it has to do with cost. Iterating hardware is expensive. On top of that tactile buttons are more expensive than you'd think, and Bill Of Materials can trump a lot of other decisions in hardware.

Some of it is also perception. The first cars that were likely to have in touch displays were luxury cars, and there you could show how advanced the car was by showing that there were no buttons anywhere. That said, I'm starting to see a move back towards buttons in high end cars again. Here's hoping that that filters down to lower end cars. Much as I prefer buying used cars, I'd still like to be able to buy a car newer than 2012 some day.
Yeah I thought that was weird too. All you need for a DC source is a few diodes and a capacitor, after all
They also added a fact check to a tweet insinuating that the virus originated in the US:
https://www.axios.com/twitter-fact-checks-chinese-official-2...

Here's the tweet: https://twitter.com/zlj517/status/1238111898828066823?s=20
macOS and FreeBSD support also. I like it.

oh and zLinux, also!
So, some kind of socialized national communication place?
Not saying this is "bad", but why not use a module for that?
And...? It's their platform. They pay to run it. And it may be news to you, but they already are deleting tweets that violate their policies. They delete and shut down whole accounts for violating policies.
How does adding a link prevent anyone, let alone the most powerful person in history, from communicating?
See later on in the article:

> Another possibility is that everyone made a huge mistake in using left-handed ketamine, and it’s right-handed ketamine that holds the magic. Most previous research was done on a racemic mixture (an equal mix of left-handed and right-handed molecules), and at least one study suggests it was the right-handed ketamine that was driving the results. Pharma decided to pursue left-handed ketamine because it was known to have a stronger effect on NMDA receptors, but – surprise! – ketamine probably doesn’t work through NMDA after all.

Case isn't closed yet.
> "yep, no conservative viewpoints allowed here."

At least it'd be clear if they said so, nothing worse than the current situation where they think it but won't say it because it'd be bad for business.
Agree. I think it's a very bad sign if someone asks for ideas. You don't ask for ideas, you encounter problems and based on those problems you make ideas on how to solve them.

That's also the reason why one should make a prototype very fast and validate by a potential user/customer that you solve the problem the right way.
+1 for Jupyter protocol.
Yeah, this seems more about an attempt to compel speech (require companies to publish falsehoods that are convenient or desirable for current political leadership), than an ostensible attempt at "freedom of speech" or "neutrality".
What are problems with intercom apart from pricing?
Observation: Every single piece of hardware that is, or could ever exist, could be represented generically as follows:

1) One or more "meta-registers", that is, hardware registers for the purpose of reading and writing all of the other hardware registers.

2) Some form of standard callback/interrupt from the hardware indicating that registers have changed and need to be re-read.

3) Once #1 and #2 are defined, then a "linux-memory-region as readable/writable hardware-device registers" (such as regmap), can be easily and generically implemented.

regmap, while it implements a generic device abstraction, is itself not generically implemented, and can't be, until hardware designers implement #1 and #2, which first requires the creation of a standard, and then requires a consensus to use that standard for their hardware devices...

(Of course, DMA, as it exists currently, is still part of the model... what we're looking at here is the non-generic nature of hardware registers, from one hardware device to a different hardware device... that's still OK, but there should be one (or more) "meta-register(s)" to read/write all of the others, and some interrupt-driven way of being notified of changes... you know, in J.R.R. Tolkien terms "one register to bind them"... but maybe two or more meta-registers, for this purpose, make sense... I'm not a hardware engineer, I wouldn't know the optimal configuration...)
Do you have the right to stand in your community's biggest mall screaming racist things or does the property owner/operator have the right to remove you from the premise?
This sentiment is precisely why I have returned to an office job (now remote like everyone) after years for working remote as a full-time employee.

I have specialized in a niche which made employers allow me to work remotely since they could not find local talent. Being the sole remote (tech) employee, or one of the few, means you will not get promoted. Remote-first is a different ballgame.

I now turn down all "only you will be remote" positions that are sent my way. I no longer work in my niche since there is no demand locally, but I will not be the sole remote person again.

PS: I am an extrovert
Does that mean we can sue Fox entertainment fake news network?
Yeah, though it basically amounts to syntactic sugar at this point.
Nothing.... the President is not a king and can't order people/companies to de-exist and can't be above the congress....

At most there will be courts involved, and the order will be considered null and void. Similar to many of his executive provisions that got declared invalid by the courts.

This is just a narcissistic/rage hissy fits, or just another attempt to create noise and detract from the real issues of this country is facing now.

Basically another political show/childs play from our president
This is the point that most people seem to be missing and this is where Jack Dorsey seemingly made a huge mistake. I don't know if he did it on purpose to force his company to do something he knows should be done, but he doesn't have the will to see it through, or if it was just a really bad decision.
Here is a PDF link to the complete Algol 60 language definition (published originally in 1963):

http://homepages.cs.ncl.ac.uk/cliff.jones/publications/OCRd/...
I think it is all good advice but I don't agree with anonymisation of IP addresses. Maybe better option is to remove logs after some time instead of removing it. When you are business owner you also have some right to protect your business. Logs with IP might help finding offenders. So it is a trade off.
Platforms have removed harmful content, for example terrorist propaganda or child pornography with 230 protections intact and governments appeared to welcome it so I think you can actually have your cake and eat it too, or at least you could until you fact checked Republicans I suppose

Platforms both enjoy first amendment protection to moderate their platforms as they see fit as well as protection from liability under 230. They are not mutually exclusive, and platforms have been moderating their content for decades. In fact most online communities could not even function if they had no right to moderate.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/04/no-section-230-does-no...
>It really is a public web space that is operated by a private company

No, it isn't, any more than a store is a public space because it has windows the public can see into. You have to sign up for a Twitter account and accept their terms of service to post on the site. It's a private platform run by a private company for its own private business interests.
As the owner of an offshore shop, I think you are right on the nose!
If this does reach the FCC, based on Pai's last handling of the network neutrality comment period, we can assume another debacle of public interest.
"While signing the executive order on Thursday, the president said he would shut down Twitter if his lawyers found a way to do it. "I'd have to go through a legal process," he told reporters."

Cutting off the nose to spite the face
Or at least people with a critical mass of followers.
A lot of projects write in that style e.g. compatible with both python2 and python3, it's really common because there's so much py2 deployed (was default on centOS until very recently, still default on osx, etc.)

Nearly every py3 feature was backported to 2 you just need to write it in a compatible way. I'm seeing some drop py2 support now though. Which I'm fine with, I haven't written python2 code in maybe 6 or 7 years now.
Or just train them like the military because the military has some actual discipline and internal accountability.
Don't all these social media sites augment content with targeted ads?
Not to mention tuples and (soon in C# 9!) record types.
It will be interesting since I am the "motivated Buckeye" and selfishly, don't want the arbitrage opportunity to go away.
Step by Step SEO guide for your blogs to grow organically
These tips have helped me grow my startup's blog organically and have been using this as a reference to generate topic ideas and rank organically.

Let me know what you think!
> homeopathy believes that the less of something is present somewhere it works better, and it's called "dynamization" or "potentization" by the producers, diluting the material

Did you hear about the homeopath that died of an overdose? He forgot to take his pills.
This is not just true of remote work, it's also true of "remote" offices.

I work in Ireland for a US company. When I started in the company, I was constantly surprised with the competence of people I work with in my local office, in NY, in D.C. & in Asian offices, compared to those I work with in SF (our HQ).

But after a while I realised it wasn't that people in SF were less competent or people in other offices were moreso. It was simply that the levels were different. PoCs for a project who were at a similar "level" to me were clearly less experienced in SF, due—seemingly—to the promotional ladder just being so much more accessible there. Because those responsible for promotions are present in person.

I don't think this is an easily surmountable problem with humans, but I do hope that WFH becoming more common will make people generally more aware of the challenge.
You'd take the risk for people with severe Covid-19 because it might[1] save their life. You can't justify taking that risk in other people because they're probably not going to be killed by covid-19. Balancing harm from medication against not much harm from covid comes out against the meds.

[1] Except now we know (and we always thought this) that it won't save their life; it'll increase their risk of death.
There's nothing repeating here... you define a procedure to achieve a higher-level task, which is a combination of other tasks. Kind of like File.ReadAllBytes() vs. FileStream. Later you use it when you need to perform that high-level task.
Hopefully it will lead to what happened on reddit: the worst go off to a competitor which then fails to gain mainstream attention (e.g. Voat, Gab, etc). While they’ll be in an echo-chamber (which isn’t a good thing at all), at least they won’t ruin other communities.
They _are_ liable for many things published on their platform. And they are also allowed to moderate content in whatever way they want. I don't see a problem as you are free to go start your own platform and presumably it would be popular if this many people have a problem with the existing censorship.

This honestly seems to be the model that Republicans have been pining for all along, they just don't like that they or their supporters are falling victim to its design.
This has been in the works since last summer - it has little to do with the recent twitter spat.

Edit: I find it funny someone claiming it was due to fact checking downvotes me because I fact checked them.
Sometimes I wonder why Twitter doesn't just ban his account like they would any other troll on the internet.
Google never displays AMP documents on desktop (sans mobile emulation), this won't be an issue.
Because for lesser mortals, Twitter just bans people who violate their terms of service. The President is "too big to ban," but violates the TOS. This was a "compromise" solution, which obviously is not going to work.
Why are you all over this topic trying to support this misinformation? You've already been corrected (with citations) and yet you continue. Is it just a matter of being seen as "wrong", because it's okay. Really, it is. It's a very common myth.

You claimed "There is a super high risk of getting sued if you give away food and someone gets sick". Now if you want to continue this claim, you need to provide citations. Who, exactly says that such "high risk" exists?
> Sometimes this phenomenon even seeps into software development where somebody will solve a problem, but uses the wrong solution, and we hate it.

I see what you did there. "Sometimes". :)
Some of them disagree with this thankfully.

But to be fair, I've seen a lot of supposed progressives on Twitter suddenly finding themselves very concerned with the rights of private businesses.
Supposedly being the key word. Those that get into power tend to only grow the size of government and debt.
Good. Here's hoping Trump and the social media companies destroy each other. May a better world rise from the metaphoric ashes.
Brazilian president has been "fact checked" multiple times.

Same for Venezuelan dito.
I find it hard to use the term "lockdown" in any meaningful sense.

Quoting https://www.businessinsider.com/countries-on-lockdown-corona... :

> While "lockdown" isn't a technical term used by public-health officials, it can refer to anything from mandatory geographic quarantines to non-mandatory recommendations to stay at home, closures of certain types of businesses, or bans on events and gatherings, Lindsay Wiley, a health law professor at the Washington College of Law, told Vox.

It goes on to say that Sweden has '"low-scale" lockdown'.

So, when people can argue that Sweden has no lockdown, and people can argue that Sweden had a lockdown, albeit 'low-scale' ... well, you can see how hard it is to use the word.

This page embeds the video "Anders Tegnell shows lockdowns are unorthodox". However, at https://youtu.be/2HWfnZLKfQY?t=214 he comments that other Nordic countries have "much more legal lockdowns than we have", which tells me he sees Sweden as being in a lockdown.

The term 'unorthodox' appears at https://youtu.be/2HWfnZLKfQY?t=168 where he uses it in the context of "closing down their society completely".

Which suggests that FEE is using "lockdown" inconsistently. I can't help but wonder if they want to use his arguments against the extreme term in order to reject any sort of lockdown - even ones that he agrees with.
Nope! Google ignores that too and you just get "400".
That's not so much of a "hack", more like "fraud with enough extra steps to make it difficult to prosecute".

That doesn't mean that it wouldn't work. Adult websites have been accused of something similar: as the version goes, they'll take your (illegally published) video down on request, no questions asked, but "someone" will upload it again later.

I've never heard of anyone being prosecuted for this, though, which means that either it isn't true, or it is and your plan would work just fine.
Why not refer to her by name? Her press statement was in this morning’s FCC Daily Digest so it is not a horrible thing to say that Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel made a statement. Here’s her original statement as released: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-364605A1.pdf
I felt as though I should know the moral of the story, yet I did not.

https://stackoverflow.com/a/11421598
Moral of the story is that closures and objects are ideas that are expressible in terms of each other, and none is more fundamental than the other. That's all there is to the statement under consideration.
Ignoring the mechanical-legal aspects of what Section 230 already does, the discourse on this has been a shining example of logically inconsistent philosophy.

The Citizens United v. FEC decision indicates that corporations have free speech rights similar to those of individuals. Logically, if you agree with that part of the decision, then you should also agree that the government can't punish Twitter for doing this, and vice versa.

Yet very few people seem to hold either of those combinations of views. There are a few principled civil libertarians who are fine with both super-PACs and what Twitter did here. There are a few principled fair campaign advocates who think it's theoretically permissible, if inadvisable, for the government to stop what Twitter did here.

Most people seem to take one of the inconsistent positions.
Either they can control the content, or not. Do they have editorial control?
It’s the same people who said the deficit was the top priority during the Obama administration. Once in power immediately increased the deficit.
They saw that developers are eager enough to do Microsoft's work for free. See .NET Core and its related projects where Microsoft accepts a lot of patches from outside contributors and sometimes needs to admit that others know their code and its sometimes decade old history better than they do.
Did they build a real simulator yet, like iOS? Note, not an emulator, which does hardware stuff. A simulator, so we don't have to use up our entire machine to run another operating system just to run a java app.

Or finally fix the activities and fragment mess?
Yes, it is. Mankind's amassed knowledge of physics, chemistry, and astronomy has lots of evidence to demonstrate why that would not happen, and when it probably will. That can be compared to the evidence you have to show for your claim, which is nothing.
I mean, I even disagree that there's major 'anti-conservative' bias at all.

Some prominent conservatives have been banned from the platform, like Alex Jones, but it wasn't due to their views on Keynesian economics, it was for spreading outright lies about Sandy Hook.

Diving deeper into almost any of the examples that people dig up as 'anti-conservative bias' reveals trolling, hateful attacks, or other bad behavior, completely independent of the author's political views, and earnestly deserving of removal.
Twitter has over 300 million monthly active users. That is roughly equal to the entire population of the United States. You can't see any reason why they shouldn't be allowed to have total control over political discourse with no accountability? No reason at all?
To play devil's advocate, you can't do that in a public park either. You can be arrested for disturbing the peace or some such. So I'm not sure it's necessarily about private vs public.
Multiplattform, tons of libs and tools, statically compiled, supported by major IDEs, mature dependency management (maven, gradle), backed up a major player (Oracle). I’m sure there’s more.
At what point does Twitter or Medium cease to be a neutral discussion platform, and become more like a publisher that pushes a specific narrative (like Fox News, the New York Times, CNN, etc.).

What does "neutral discussion platform" even mean? My understanding is that Fox News, New York Times, CNN, etc, all benefit from protections against what users post in places like comments sections, etc.

This whole "neutrality" aspect seems like a talking point meant to attack social media platforms from a strawman perspective of "Only 'neutral' platforms are allowed protections from liability" that doesn't seem to actually be related to the law itself.

I don't think there is legal basis for Trump's order, but Twitter is wading into murky territory with their actions.

I wouldn't consider basic moderation activities as "murky territory".
> That's not so much of a "hack", more like "fraud with enough extra steps to make it difficult to prosecute".

Demonstrate that users on Twitter aren't bots. Otherwise I don't see a difference here.
TFA, being in Wired, appears to be focused primarily on the tech industry. At the risk of being pithy, the best way to get a promotion in tech has--for a _long_ time--been to get a new job. Even if you do score an in-house title bump, your pay raise is likely to be a single-digit percentage above inflation, when jumping ship can easily net you 20%.

If more people going remote makes this more visible, fine by me.
>> "How do you properly refute someones conspiracy theory anyways"

As usual, with actual facts, based on hard reality and hundreds of years of scientific method.

Or recognize and point out, that it is so detached from such reality that, as physicists often note about the nutters writing in: "it isn't even wrong".

Of course, that doesn't often work for those deeply embedded in conspiracy theory, or actively spreading dezinformatsiya. You can't convince them, but you can point out for others who are not all the way into nutter-land, that maybe they shouldn't keep going down that path.

Currently the recommendation engines actively push people to extreme views. Zuckerberg had research brought to him showing that Facebook exposed users to more and more extreme views, and that 30% of people joining extreme groups did it by FB's reccmendation. He said he never wanted to hear about it again [1]

It is not only fact checking. If you say fact checking is problematic, they could at least not actively encourage falsehoods and extremes.

These platforms' tolerance and indeed active spreading of alternative facts, desinformatsiya, outright lies, and extreme conspiracy theories is actively undermining democracy worldwide. They may be profitable for a time, but the externalized damage is insane.

Let the downvote brigades get to work.

[1]https://news.yahoo.com/mark-zuckerberg-reportedly-brushed-as...
Wait, if this was somehow enforceable wouldn’t the order make Twitter liable for trump posting misinformation essentially making them legally required to censor or flag him?