skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Comcast pays to carry CNBC and Fox content. They can freely decline to pay the content providers what they wish and drop their content. It is not an uncommon occurrence.

Fox and NBC cannot provide air time for one political campaign and deny air time for an opposing political campaign. Twitter is more like Fox and NBC rather than Comcast.
Many of these facts are not even complicated things that require "arbitration". Trump has claimed in the past on Twitter that vaccines cause autism, promoted poisons as a cure for diseases, and that the country is being "invaded" by refugees. Propagation of such misinformation can lead to loss of lives and we end up blaming the same social media companies for not flagging factually incorrect content. Let me put it simply - Trump blatantly lies and there are bots that spread these lies on Twitter. No private company with any semblance of conscience and public responsibility would allow this to happen. Twitter doesn't have the gall to suspend his account. I'm happy they at least take a small step to point out these lies. Looking at how low a bar Americans have for their politicians shock me.
I'm suggesting it has the same rules as a public square, which is what Twitter is. No incitement to violence, no obscenity etc but otherwise free.
So in this case what does the Constitution say?

And where does the Constitution say that a corporation spending money is speech?
Do you need Twitter to interact with your bank? To pay your taxes? To buy groceries? Is it the only way you have to reach your family?
Letting false election interference stay up, with a link to facts about actual elections, is pretty much the exact opposite of an "echo chamber."

It's easy to parrot oft-repeated slipper slopes arguments, but doing that is actually the echo chamber. Especially when now even bothering to check to see if it applies in certain situations.
You ask that question as if it were a choice between the two. It's not. We have neither scenario now, and neither is being proposed.

What we have is private enterprise, and government regulation. Neither has complete control, neither should have complete control.
Do you have a quote on eyeball hours? Fox at most gets 2-3 million viewers at prime time. Twitter has hundreds of millions of users and their reach exceeds even their membership, as Tweets often drive narrative on many other platforms.

You can read the order. Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act set out provisions protecting internet service providers from liability for obscene, lewd, etc content on the basis they are a neutral platform (like an email provider) and not an active arbiter and curator of content published on their page. The law clearly states it's protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material (lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessive violent, harassing, etc). Not for editorial protection. Not for arbitrary enforcement of TOS.
org-mode, vimwiki, zimwiki, TiddlyWiki, PmWiki, Dokuwiki (of the latter two, PmWiki is lighter, both can be run locally as standalone PHP apps).
I'm of the belief part of the reason Trump ran for President in the first place was because he knew various investigations were in action against him and that eventually he would be prosecuted. By running for President, he turned every illegal thing he has ever done into a political issue, instead of a legal one.

In the US, we have a long history of allowing politicians to get away with illegal activities in the name of not rocking the boat. Every once in a while someone comes along and tries to use that to their advantage, and ideally the system would punish them by media pointing out the issue and people not voting for them. But somehow, due to some nexus of insanity, someone like Trump was catapulted into office.
If you mean literally writing

asm!("
mov eax,1 ; system call number (sys_exit)
int 0x80 ; call kernel
")

Obviously both are equally unsafe, also obviously both are extremely rare and not "large parts" of any program whatsoever (unless you're writing your program directly in assembly).

If you mean using the wrapper libraries that typically wrap system calls. Rust removes all sorts of possible fuckups. For instance in C one might write

ssize_t bytes = read(some_file, buf, nbyte);

and if buf is null or a dangling pointer or nbyte is greater than the size of the allocation of buf you get undefined behavior. Or if afterwards you write

printf("%s", buf);

and you forgot that read doesn't necessarily return a null terminated string you get undefined behavior. And so on and so forth.

In rust you would write something like

let mut buf = [0; nbyte];
let bytes = some_file.read(&mut buf)?;

and buf can't possibly be null or dangling and you can't possibly have messed up the length of the array because the abstractions checked that for you.

Afterwards if we were to write

println!("{}", buf);

Well it will fail to compile... because buf isn't a string... and doesn't otherwise implement Display. But if we were to try to match the C code exactly and write one of

stdout().write_all(buf)?;
println!("{}", str::from_utf(&buf)?);

the second one would return an error if it wasn't a utf8 string, but neither would ever result in undefined behavior/security vulnerabilities.

(And yes, both of those are probably bugs in most programs, since you probably want to print buf[.. bytes] not buf. But bugs aren't security vulnerabilities. Also in real code I expect you would use read_to_string() if you were going to print it, which eliminates this potential bug too)
Am I the only person around without any cavities or painful dentist memories?
maybe it was fun and games to get a few days of working from home, but now that its a hard reality, some might not like its effect on their way of life. if people no longer have to flock to certain cities for great pay, pay will probably go down as the accessible talent pool increases greatly. So if you dont like that SF lifestyle and pay, pushing for full remote work everywhere, might be shooting yourself in the foot.
At least this President is being upfront about it. Previous administration did things more secretly. See, Operation Chokepoint.
The term "private websites" might be ambiguous. What I mean is "privately-owned websites".
Hey HN!

There's been a bit of talk on here recently about the bloated web and minimalistic publishing platforms.

This won't host your tutorials for you, but it will convert them from markdown to HTML in an opinionated (and I think aesthetic) way.

Feedback welcome
The President can only play in the mall fountain or whatever if the mall management says he can. If they want to boot him they can. The president is not a king.
Twitter is expressing it's 1st amendment rights by labeling tweets. Twitter is not the government, Trump is. The situation is completely opposite what you make it.
It does in English, but in legal construction an ending "or otherwise.." usually limits its scope to items similar to the ones at the start of the list.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ejusdem_generis

> For example, if a law refers to automobiles, trucks, tractors, motorcycles, and other motor-powered vehicles, a court might use ejusdem generis to hold that such vehicles would not include airplanes, because the list included only land-based transportation.

(I'm not a lawyer.)
Major networks regularly quote Twitter. I would hate for Twitter to become an echo chamber like Fox news.
What advantage does this have over WorldBrain Memex, Bublup, Raindrop, or any of the dozens of smaller bookmark organizers already out there?
Selinux can add labels to network packets which can be matched with nftables & al. Its a bit complicated tho. Since you need to add and create labels.

You can also match by owner in iptables. So you can have a network restricted user and sudo to it.
How does fact-checking dishonest (or at the very least disingenuous) comments "restrict the free flow of information and ideas"?

The ideas still flow freely. Twitter isn't even forcing more accurate and factual information right next to the dishonest framing. You have to click the link to even see it.

This seems like world class straw-grasping.
The problem with this way of thinking is that existing markets are probably efficient enough - meaning all easy ways to make a lot of money have already been exhausted. This means that any idea that you generate by encountering a problem and thinking of a solution is probably either too hard to implement or will generate relatively puny revenue stream (nothing to sneeze at, but probably not of much interest to VCs and founders chasing big bucks).

What's the alternative? To wait for tectonic shifts in overall environment and circumstances, look for vacant ecological niches and pounce when you see one. To the outside view this will look exactly like a founder who doesn't know what to start up.

Here is an example I like: John Carmack. The conventional view is that he is a brilliant game programmer (which is undoubtedly true). But the alternative point of view is that his shtick was to capitalize on the period of incredible advances in consumer hardware. Each of his games fully showcased what the best hardware of that time was capable of (order of magnitude more than the previous generation) which made them instant hits. Not coincidentally, he quit making games around the time this period of advancement stopped.

Here is a post by @defmacro making a similar point: http://www.defmacro.org/2015/02/25/startup-ideas.html
Using Weak Electric Fields to Make Virus-Killing Face Masks
They didn't remove his message. They merely pointed out it was misinforming the public.

Speaking of which, shouldn't we make it a crime to lie or substantially mislead the public while holding public office?
I advise you to learn Javascript/DOM before learning high level 'magic' frameworks. You clearly are missing the fundamentals.
Right, again: if your edits cause the content to become defamatory, you may be liable for that specific content. Modifying any particular piece of content does not cause you to lose sec 230 protections in general.

So unless Trump's original tweet, or Twitter's fact check are defamatory or otherwise illegal, Twitter doesn't care.
> So I'm looking for other fun yet informative places to kill some downtime.

I usually try to use my downtime for personal development. In particular, I read books about programming/cs topics that interest me. Recently that has been Forth. I also try to exercise at least four times a week for an hour or more each session. Beyond that, I try to indulge my hobbies. This week I have been scanning my old film negatives.
Hi there. Please check out https://gif.com.ai

You probably haven’t heard of it because it’s a bit under the radar and not really being promoted to the outside yet.
(node) Security updates to all supported release lines on Tuesday June 2nd, 2020
I was surprised to see the performance of php frameworks. Has there been something special happening with this language ? It looks completely on top of all the other dynamic languages on most benchmarks, which i really don’t understand.
LessWrong has a very high ratio of thought provoking content and conversation on it.
How can anyone be opposed to the idea of universal health care? Does your ideology oppose the general welfare and wellbeing of others? I don't get it. I can understand if you don't think that implementing it is a good idea, but the idea?
Note: providing as followup comment since other is very long.

Trump's order is not rulemaking. It's just an order to the federal agencies to start drafting a rule that would strip social media companies of CDA protection. Executive agencies have been designated the power to make legislative rules by laws of Congress (which sets forth the required procedure described above) but this grant does not extend to the Executive Office itself (i.e., the president).

As the Axios article notes, a very conservative appeals court just ruled that under the CDA, social media companies aren't public forums for first amendment purposes, so the agencies would also have to come up with a conforming legal justification explaining why social media platforms are public spaces or otherwise subject to the infringement of their private first amendment rights.
No, it is not "incredibly dangerous."

Perhaps there are other sites where your position will fit in better. This one is called Hacker News.
A ruling like that makes me even more surprised that the government did not take steps to maintain net neutrality. I would say ISPs are a far more "critical pathway of communication" than Twitter is.

Them taking steps to prevent Twitter from "restricting" information really doesn't follow with the approach this administration's FCC took with ISPs.
Worked at a telecom API provider and we were told AT&T still has a handful of these in service in the US.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZePwin92cI
Like this?

https://www.nytimes.com/1933/01/31/archives/hitler-puts-asid...
I'm pro-office, and I'm not a manager or anything. I just prefer working in offices, and prefer when my colleagues do too, because I find face-to-face interaction much more satisfying.
Considering that until the 90s UK nuclear bombs were protected by bike locks, I wouldn't complain. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7097101.stm
Individual freedoms mean having the right to decide what content you want to host on your privately owned servers. Forcing companies to host content against their will their servers is anti-freedom and anti-free-speech. It's no different from forcing someone to place sign on their yard for a political candidate they dislike.
I could see how it would be considered editorializing. I haven't looked much at the facts in this particular case myself, but I've definitely seen cases where fact checks seemed to be dripping with a bias or agenda of their own.

But here's the thing: that's fine! I can see why people would think that Constitutional protections of individual free speech apply on social media, but regardless of if you think they do or not, then adding editorial content to the posts should be protected as well.

Do you think the 1st amendment protects your posts because they're "speech"? Yes? Then Twitter also has free speech on it's own platform, even if it's biased.

Do you think the 1st amendment does not protect your posts, because Twitter is a private company? Yes? Then Twitter is also allowed to say whatever it wants on it's own private platform.

There's a difference between censoring, which is a whole other discussion, and adding editorial or fact-checking content, and I just don't see how anyone can argue that Twitter can't do the latter.

edit: there's also a difference in individual free speech and companies having free speech, but I think Trump is the last person who can make a stand on the idea that commercial interests can't be operated based on individual preferences.
Microsoft wasn't the only operating system on the market. It doesn't matter, in legal terms a monopoly isn't owning 100% of a platform. It is having a majority of a market and engaging in anticompetitive practices, including controlling access to goods and services. Sorry, but Twitter, Facebook, and Google could all be subject to antitrust actions.
These articles are hilarious.

Lots of people are working remotely, and it looks like the #RemoteBacklash has begun because... well, everyone is different. But I don't think I've met a single remote worker who thinks that literally everyone can and should work remotely. It's a totally made up argument.

This article is made up, too. It's totally speculative, cites nameless studies about "trust"(however you're supposed to measure that), and seems to believe that the rest of tech operates like Twitter and Facebook.
Technically yes, other branches are not bound by the first amendment.

By the spirit of the law, no. A lot of historical laws and constitutional writings were to limit power of the government in general. When the constitution was actually written, the executive was just a puppet with military commander powers. But over the centuries there has been power creep into the executive.

Such battles end up in supreme court and the court decides ultimately what interpretation would hold up. The current supreme court is republican/right wing leaning which often ignores the spirit of the law FWIW.
This has been popping up in the news periodically for a few years now. However, as a parent of young children, I'm still trying to figure out the next step. That is, what to feed them that is nutritious, tasty, and also works the jaw. Raw carrots and overcooked meat are not tolerated for long.

Even if I don't serve them mush, al dente pasta and tender-cooked meats are quite soft. Home-made jerky and artisan-style bread (with a really tough crust) are the best I've come up with so far.

I did have an insatiable desire to chew on gum for a year or so while a teenager. In retrospect I wonder if it was innate. Didn't save my wisdom teeth though.
Except shaped and veneered to look and function normally.
Why would it be bad idea? It's pretty easy to just throw WikiPedia links at lies. Of course with AI/ML/deep-learning. Will it be perfect? No, of course not. Would it help? I think it would. At least it is worth a few tries.
There is a great disturbance in the Force --youngling Jedis are practicing their https://CircuitPython.org ways on https://circuitpython.org/board/particle_argon/ kits that have WiFi, BLE, NFC, TensorFlowLite local image/speech recognition and the ability to connect with all types and sizes of displays (ePaper to AMOLED, retinal projectors, touch, multitouch etc.) and interfaces to LTE (150/50Mbps) via https://www.dfrobot.com/product-1834.html as well as headphones, 3D-printed multi-module wearable cases, personal (airborne and ground based) drones, personal indicators and other interfaces that "New" Apple can't even begin to imagine in it's crummy foodcourt (where they fire their best for letting their little girls make a social media post that accidentally shows a prerelease build while hackers and 9to5Mac lay the entire next release bare for all the public). Time to port Blinka to iOS so that it can at least run this Future's apps using something like https://www.adafruit.com/product/2264
Twitter isn't targeting any specific group so this is a moot point.

They have been and will continue to "fact check" liberals and democrats too.

This reminds me of the dishonest framing of the IRS supposedly targeting conservative non profits for audits.

Yes, it is true Obama's DOJ targeted these groups.

What you'll never hear from the GOP talking points is that the IRS also targeted liberal groups for the same audits.
> even if he wanted to be a totalitarian leader the US currently has checks and balances that protect that.

What checks, exactly? There was an impeachment recently wherein he refused to hand over any documents and witnesses. Those witnesses who chose to testify in the House were retaliated against. The Senate refused to hear any witnesses (a first for impeachment trials in the US). The President argued that if he believes his conduct will help his election, and he believes his election will help the American people, he cannot be removed for the conduct. The senate affirmed this view by acquitting him of the charges and refusing to remove him from office.

Or maybe the IG system checks him and his agencies? Well he's been busy firing any IG who is investigating him or his cronies like Mike Pompeo. Michael Atkinson was fired for bringing to light the fact that Trump was extorting a bribe from a foreign nation using taxpayer dollars. Glenn Fine was to oversee the spending of coronavirus federal dollars, but Trump wanted control of the money himself, so he had to go. Christi Grimm was fired for investigating PPE shortages in hospitals. Her findings flew against the Trump narrative that "everything was fine" so she had to go. Steve Linick was investigating corruption in the State Department, so he had to go at the request of the Secretary of State under investigation. Mitch Behm was investigating corruption of the Secretary of Transportation, who is the wife of Mitch McConnell, who refused to hear witnesses at Trump's impeachment trial. So he had to go.

Or maybe the Justice department is a check? They are supposed to be independent after all. Well, they're busy interfering in cases related to Trump's friends and associates. His Attorney General is happy to run interference for Trump in a number of areas, whether that be misrepresenting the Mueller report, intervening in Roger Stone's sentencing, or declining to prosecute a man who already plead guilty to crimes. Oh, and an internal memo of the Justice Department states that the President is immune from indictment. So there's no check there.

Maybe the court system can check Trump. He's been arguing in court that he has absolute immunity from investigation. He already enjoys immunity from indictment due to a memo written decades ago, but he asserts that he enjoys absolute immunity from even being investigated in the first place. If Congress and the DOJ can't even investigate him, how is the court supposed to hold him accountable?

Americans really love to trot out this trope that we have a "system of checks and balances" as if this is a hack-proof system that is incorruptible. It's failing right in front of us.
You are oversimplifying. Both of the languages being Turing-complete does not imply Rust being as good a choice for talking to hardware as C is. What I am getting at is: the imaginary Rust replacement for Linux may have ten times as much code as Linux does and be unmaintainable.

Rust's safe mode eliminates the possibility for some classes of bugs, but this still does not imply the hypothetical Rust kernel would be more reliable than Linux. What I am getting at is: Rust is a quite different language than C, and the hypothetical Linux replacement in Rust could be buggier than Linux.

Regarding the above, my message is not that I know that Rust is worse than C for some applications; but rather that Rust fans and C haters are not even addresing those points. pjmlp deftly avoided saying anything explicitly, but still he should for the sake of the discussion and decency at least try to address those points while making such distasteful comments as "Naturally it was only due to the current shortage of those mythical C developers that never make memory corruption mistakes.".
Most-streamed track of the day by country
Never had a cavity in my life, for some reason, and it's not like I'm OCD about my teeth. I just brush multiple times a day, floss less often than that
You should probably read the actual paper. It doesn't disprove the current narrative. And in his paper he also states that blacks are 21.3% more likely to have force applied against them by the police than whites.

The data is kind of sloppy (the author admits) since it is nonuniform across many police departments. Also, it's the police reporting data on themselves about police racial discimination. Not exactly an unbiased source.

And finally he ends with this:

> movements such as Black Lives Matter should seek solutions within their own communities rather than changing the behaviors of police and other external forces

Which is kind of an insult that have identified a real problem for their community.
Is the free speech of Twitter to be abridged? Section 230 allows good-faith moderation. Whether or not you believe they should do it, current law and court rulings have come down on the side them being allowed to do it and maintain their safe-harbor status.
You're getting downvoted to oblivion but I think that's a fundamental question in all of this.

Does a private company have the authority to impede access to Official Statements? If so, under what conditions? If no, is it "never"?
Google's news articles goes back way further than the 70's. They've been scanning newspapers and integrating digitization archives. This is why you can you can look at word usage trends centuries back. But it's not very well integrated into search.