skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The physical space available on headphones for buttons and such is quite limited tho, and adding a screen is probably prohibitively expensive.
The big problem that needs to be addressed is network effects. When the feature that matters most to users is the presence of other users, the result is a platform that can do all kinds of harm.

The power and money in Big Tech result from platforms where network effects leave users, businesses, competitors, even other countries unable to switch to or create viable alternatives. In theory they can, but in practice, they have to be where everyone else is.

If Twitter, for example, were an open protocol that you accessed through your ISP like email to join the world conversation, their own opinions wouldn't matter more than anyone else's. If instead there is a single company that decides who gets to say what on their platform, and network effects build a castle wall, regulations should force a change (such as opening the protocol) to make alternatives viable.
Another plus is you are not potentially leaking information about your users to a third party.
> Owning the libs

We should call what it is. They working to make the lives of other US citizens as miserable as they can. Whoever does this is working against their own country. This is unpatriotic.
Little to nothing. The point is to troll and stir controversy in order to get attention. The man literally built his entire career on that, and unfortunately it works extremely well.
The subreddit GTBAE is a fun place to find more of these - instances where people had the right idea but went about it the wrong way. (And it also has it's inverse ATBGE where people had the wrong idea and executed flawlessly).
Donald Trump signs executive order targeting social media companies
Exactly, for some reason people will throw out toxic lies, racism, conspiracy theories, etc. and then act like those are just their 'political views'. I hope we aren't at a turning point where conspiracy theories and suppression of journalism is a 'political viewpoint'.
But that's entirely his point. Facts can be backed up by evidence. As you rightly pointed out, he can provide no evidence as proof of his wild prediction. We can make predictions based on scientific facts, but a prediction itself is not a fact.
"Split hairs". If that's not... splitting hairs.
I'm not sure if you mean this seriously, or in an exasperated but joking manner.

If you are serious, it's because Trump has done more for the legitimacy and usage of Twitter than any engineer, businessperson, or celebrity other than Dorsey & cofounders.

To be clear: Twitter may take a tough official stance against Trump, but behind closed doors he is the MVP.
True. And other 'problem' is 'facts' vs 'populism'.

I think what happened in Minnesota is outrageous, but probably not as indicative of systematic problems as some people might believe.

I don't think the 'cops are bad' narrative is healthy - BUT - it may be necessary to help fix the problem. Humans are lazy, we fear for our jobs, DA's may not react until there is political pressure and everyone is throwing everyone under the bus.

It's also worth remembering that almost every single measure of 'inequality' has been steadily improving over the last 30 years and our current 'race war conditions' may be really just a function of Twitter, Social Media, and ever more biased press on all sides, jockeying for clicks and attention.
The argument falls apart at the ISP level - why does the UN consider internet a human right, but not, specifically, access to Twitter? It may seem like there's no distinction at all but it is there and it is important.
Does anyone have an actual link to the text of the order itself?
Well... I'm going to guess that the largest kernel written in PL/I was at least one order of magnitude smaller than Linux, and probably two orders of magnitude smaller. I'm also going to guess that it was never subject to a 2020 state-of-the-art fuzzer. (I'm even going to guess that it never had USB support.) So, while you may have a point, your comparison is hardly apples-to-apples.
> Section 230 was not intended to allow a handful of companies to grow into titans controlling vital avenues for our national discourse under the guise of promoting open forums for debate, and then to provide those behemoths blanket immunity when they use their power to censor content and silence viewpoints that they dislike

About time. Social media should have been commoditized and decentralized by now, joining the group of email, DNS etc. Social media companies enjoyed milking free user content for 15 years, it's about time people take hold of their own intellectual property in the fediverse.
They have clearly stated TOS. You can read it at https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-rules
Now, they do a crap job of enforcement, but it appears that that crap job is omnidirectional in its failings.
> Lets fact check "God exists".

Easy, it's the same answer as the opposite assertion:

Undetermined. This statement is not agreed upon and is an ongoing subject of debate among both experts and in popular culture.
We call someone who burn down everything around the person, a pyromaniac, not "good at this game".
Anybody expecting a human response, will continue to be devastated. This is a fine moment to learn quickly what maybe just 2-3% has experienced before.
>"ALGOL 58 had introduced the concept of code blocks (replete with begin and end delimiting pairs), but ALGOL 60 took these starting points of structured programming and ran with them, giving rise to familiar faces such as Pascal and C, as well as the likes of B and Simula."

Is Algol 58 the first known programming language with code blocks (begin..end AKA '{'..'}' ), or was there an earlier language where we see this concept first introduced?

We'd see this concept in Assembler... but was there a computer language that was not Assembler, that was an actual language, that existed prior to Algol 58 where the concept first manifests, or is Algol 58 the language where it does so?

Anyone know?
WD Red SMR vs. CMR Tested
To play devils advocate, isn't this a case of _removing_ a law? Sounds like a reduction to me.
It depends the field. Some companies in some locations will charge north of $250 an hour for some profiles, and more for an end to end product custom software. We shipped custom ML platforms for large organizations as part of our activities. The applications allowed their marketing and sales department to train models or load models on their data according to their workflow. Custom made. Some solutions allowed them to send personalized offers to millions of subscribers.

For some clients, on call 24/7. Going to the client. Meeting their people. Handling regulatory paperwork for some projects in regulated fields. Even taking care of importing the hardware for them. Interfacing with their data people and learning their third party vendor's billing systems.

As with everything, it depends on the domain, the service, the support, and generally speaking what they're going to do for you, and which part or parts they're tackling.

Repeat business is common as when these organizations like the outcome, they want more. So that's my two cents from the vendor perspective.
The aspect of social interaction definitely has an impact on promotions, but what's more important, at least in my company are results. We act on leadership principles similar to what they have at Amazon and employees are getting rated against that.

In my team, at the end of the day, everyone is sharing what they did throughout the day work-wise. You can still list things that are non-engineering related. What I also do is tracking these notes in an application and tag the notes later for a self review. In the end, sharing these notes gives the team some perspective of what the others are doing and because of the random stuff everyone is doing from time to time we had awesome conversations / ideas because of that.
I'm not aware of it being illegal to stand on a soapbox and say racist things in a public park. If you're screaming at the top of your lungs, sure, maybe?
This tension comes from the fact that there don't exist any "traditional public forum" online. All venues online are private spaces, yet some act as extremely convincing replicas of public spaces.

While I don't agree with this weird S230 opposition, the general sentiment that people expect to have a similar protection for free speech that they enjoy in our public squares, street corners, libraries and parks in the online alternatives to these things... isn't really a crazy one.

It's also a tenshion that exists in offline form. Increasingly there are gigantic public "downtown" areas which are privately owned (on land taken from the public through eminent domain then sold to developers), where people's free speech is heavily curtailed.

The general idea that just because the physical manifestation (or legal structure) behind our traditional public spaces is changing our effective right to free speech shouldn't change seems like a reasonable idea to me.

Also the general idea that twitter itself should automatically be free from regulation in how it restricts others due to its own free speech seems extremely specious to me. Twitter is a business, it operates to make money. While businesses have free speech right, commercial operations have a strictly lower level of rights in many areas. Twitter has only refrained from banning the president, who regularly and flagrantly violates their rules, because he makes them money. If twitter consisted primarily of its owners speech no one would visit it. It is effectively a place of public accommodation and its value stems entirely from the public's use of it. We traditionally impose significant regulation on how private businesses that serve the public operate, including extensive rules ensuring equality of access and against discrimination.

This executive order seems pretty foolish overall. But a law that set a threshold where a service like twitter become a "public forum"-- places where the public use is the whole point-- and they had to meet a much higher standard when they wanted to silence people or ideas (beyond "our AI picked you at random, tough luck") and had provide effective modes of redress might be important to preserving people's effective freedom of speech in the long run.
I will reemphasize an opinion I expressed on an earlier thread: this is an overtly totalitarian move designed to intimidate and suppress private entities' protected expression, disguised as a reaction to perceived bias (which would still be an invalid pretense for any such order). It's a disgusting attack on an American industry by our own executive.
I was sure you were going to say Red Matter: https://store.steampowered.com/app/966680/Red_Matter/
The problem there is that these sites have become echo-chambers, where they breed extremism. These kinds of ideologies (E.G. Nazism) need to be exposed to the light, like a bacteria, in order to be shamed and debunked.
CDC publishes weekly number of deaths from all causes:

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm
Hm, if I wanted to do it I would hit them with the federal FOSTA-SESTA law targeting their complacency with sex worker's profiles, and also coordinate with states to levy charges related to hosting child pornography and failing federal record keeping obligations (2257a), then use that to assume their normal financial transactions are illegitimate so leveraging wire fraud statutes, and then hit them with securities fraud statues because they lied/omitted information about all those issues to their shareholders, have the SEC freeze their stock, really prepare to get civil forfeiture laws challenged by freezing their domestic assets too under the assumption of illegality in separate charges against their assets instead of Twitter itself.

Twitter should be able to beat all of it, but the point would get made and shareholders would bounce as soon as they could.

Don't forget to seize the website in the process.

None of this represents my opinion. It would be negligent to not notice the tools already exist.
Nice job moving goalposts.

Terrorism and child porn are criminal activities.

Expressing an opinion , no matter how unsavory, is not

Therefore systematically editioralizing of the latter constitutes control which means you own all content on your site ... Including the aforementioned criminal content
How can they comply with "EARN IT" if they can't moderate and censor?
It is wrong because OP’s premise assumes Trump is corrupt.
Here's how it breaks down for this particular case. People are afraid to vote because they don't want to get COVID-19 while standing in line waiting at the polls. So states are letting people vote by mail. The problem with that is that Republicans tend to lose elections when everyone who is allowed to vote votes. So Trump, in an attempt to win the election, is sowing seeds of discontent with regards to mail-in ballots, claiming that fraud will be widespread. The goal is to get people to pressure states to not allow voting by mail, thus suppressing votes from people scared about COVID-19 (which tend to be poorer people that can't afford a $200,000 hospital stay), and thus leading to a Trump reelection. Twitter has stepped in to say "hey, voting by mail is not a new thing and there wasn't really a lot of fraud".

That is not censoring a conservative viewpoint. It's just giving people some facts. Here's Trump's opinion, here's some data, make your own decision.

I am sure that if Joe Biden started tweeting random conspiracy theories, Twitter would fact check those. But he doesn't, so we don't get to see that in action. Just because a conservative person in power tends to lie and start conspiracy theories on social media, doesn't mean the platform is biased against conservatives. It just means that they're not going to publish falsehoods without a little asterisk.
I wish I could! Proprietary work pays my bills at the moment.
> And honestly, I would be rich if I got a dollar every time a student does this:

> msg.upper()

> Instead of:

> msg = msg.upper()

> And then call me to say it doesn't work.

On this, isn't the student's reasoning sensible? E.g. "If msg is a String object that represents my string, then calling .upper() on it will change (mutate) the value, because I'm calling it on itself"?

If the syntax was upper(msg) or to a lesser extent String.upper(msg) then the new-to-programming me would have understood more clearly that msg was not going to change. Have you any insights into what your students are thinking?
This is the alleged leaked draft from the other day:
https://kateklonick.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/DRAFT-EO-...
Bingo. Checks and balances.
The Pavlov effect over his actions taught him so far he can basically do whatever he wants without any repercussion.

Wrongdoing anything? Noone could call for his accountability.

You're investigating him? You'll be fired. And every successor of yours who does the same.

You're his friend or donor getting in trouble with law? No problem, it will be taken away.

So, yes, I'd think twice before saying any of his actions would do "nothing".
> supposed progressives on Twitter suddenly finding themselves very concerned with the rights of private businesses.

Not much wrong with using the tools available to accomplish a goal. The end game is moral and the means aren't that immoral at all.
RNA concentrations in municipal sewage indicator of Covid-19 outbreak dynamics [pdf]
Atom is slowest editor I've ever used. Visual Studio would have to do pretty badly to reach that level. Atom is good in other ways. It's very extensible. But my cursor actually had noticeable lag.
>"Remote work means anyone can take your job"

It also means you can take anyone else's job

It is up to us to provide better value than competitors

It is up to managers to recognize that value is barely related to initial cost/sticker price/hourly rate

Time will tell how those trends sort
“Neutrality” seems pretty obvious: don’t assume as the platform that you are able to tell “facts” more accurately than those participating and thus take no stance on the truth of the statements made by participants. It’s comical to think that anyone has the ability to be the arbiter of truth and specifically in this case, the truthiness of the statement is completely unverifiable as it’s a forecast.

BTW, don’t think voter fraud with mail in votes is possible? Think again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCrae_Dowless

The GOP knows it’s an issue better than anyone since they leverage it heavily.
One thing that a lot of people miss in the whole "Work from Home" discussion is the fact that not everyone has the ability, talent, skills and experience to be able to work from home. It is the hard truth and lot of us don't want to admit that. It is extremely hard to work from home and stay accountable, productive and not to mention focussed. It is just very hard. Even for senior/experienced folks. It is not a one size fits all solution. If you are junior who needs a lot of guidance and help on the job, WFH is even worse.
Though AWS ECS is run on docker and will be for the foreseeable future.
Assuming he could nuke Twitter off the face of the planet, I wouldn't see it as nose-cutting. His 80,430,710 followers would follow him to Facebook or Instagram. Or even Gab.

His direct pipeline would remain intact.
That's the rub. The fantasy seems great initially for the prospect of breaking up the far too large (in my opinion) social media behemoths but maybe also ruins things for all the potential little guys as well.
telemetry.

docker has a bunch of telemetry.

microsoft is gathering data: linkedin, windows, wsl, github, docker

who's who, and what are they doing, compiling, checking in, deploying
It certainly seems that mail-in voting is more easily corrupted than going in person and showing ID and voting in secret.

There are tradeoffs with accessibility, of course, but it seems depressingly easy to sell a mail-in ballot to someone else or to be verifiably coerced by a boss or family member into voting a certain way.

All-in-all Trump tweets worse, dangerous lies on a daily basis so it's bizarre they're pushing back now on this.
VS can be pretty small, but there are 1000's of optionals. My 2019 Enterprise with lots of boxes checked is 6Gb (in the program dir, it also has some runtimes etc outside.).

Considering the last patch for just one of the games I play was 50+ Gb, it's pretty reasonable...
that may be true, but i think the parent posters point still stands regardless:

> We can’t all be super Linus Torvalds ninja hackers putting out code 12 hours a day.
And this is where the courts are also going to need to do some work to decide what exactly is "disturbing the peace". What if someone says that wearing a red hat is "disturbing the peace"? What if someone says wearing an "I'm with her" shirt is disturbing the peace? Who decides when simply displaying a political view is disturbing the peace?

The left can attempt to immediately equate everything to the right of Obama with Hitler.

The right can attempt to immediately equate everything to the left of Reagan with Stalin and Mao.

Who is going to sort this out? Both sides might think they're being perfectly reasonable about their characterization of the other side. And if a judge on one side agrees with them, the alternative viewpoint becomes criminal hate speech. This is very dangerous.
Back when the CMR vs SMR WD issue came up, a big question came up: "Will the users ever notice the difference in technology"

For many desktop users, maybe not. But this ServeTheHome test indicates the big issue with SMR Drives in one test: https://www.servethehome.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/SMR-...

A RAIDZ-rebuild happens on occasion for NAS users. The CMR drives all completed their rebuilds in 17 hours, but the SMR drive took 229 HOURS (over 9 days) to rebuild.

It is these kinds of "sustained write" workloads which NAS-users will come across that typical desktop users won't. The poor sustained write performance of SMR really shows in this particular use case.
You can save this theatricals for Broadway.
Dismissing this as some petty doom-to-fail attempt to fulfill some narcissistic desire would be foolish, as recent presidential history, from GW and especially through Obama has shown us the levels we have allowed executive overreach to rise. Obama designed the blueprint for achieving things without Congressional approval.
Let’s build Hong Kong 2.0 here in the UK
Dynamic linking is no panacea here.

Yes, it theoretically lets you ship a patch version bump containing security fixes for the few languages with a stable ABI. But even ignoring the deluge of unpatched IOT garbage running seriously out of date kernels - nevermind userspaces - how do you ship that version bump of your library to your Windows users? Your OS X users? iOS? FreeBSD? RedHat? Android? Mint? Debian? PS4? Redox? Xbox One? Solaris? Switch? I've dynamically linked into PuTTY before - a good 'ole C codebase - and I still had to rebuild and redeploy myself when a security patch landed.

Meanwhile, an updated package on crates.io can change deps.rs badges, or trigger dependabot - optionally auto-merging the pull request if CI passes, or altering you to the build failure and need for manual action if that "patch" version broke things. Rustsec and cargo audit/geiger/crev are all hideously platform independent ways to catch problems. My patches to an unsound Rust crate can automatically land on your WASM-enabled website if you have things so configured.
> People have a right to communicate, if a few platforms have the power to block all communication maybe they should be.

Hm.... I don't see how Twitter is preventing anyone from the right to communicate, nor do I sense that Twitter has the power, even if it worked with the next 3 largest social media platforms, to "block all communications." Last I checked, the internet would still exist if Twitter, Facebook, and Linkedin shut down.
This is great!

Does anyone know if there's a similar library that can do rough notations like this within Sketch?
It's further complicated by the people who sued Trump for blocking them. They won, he had to unblock them.

Considering they could log out (or open a private tab) and view the content, obviously it wasn't access to the information that was fundamental but the act of the President taking a step to reduce someone's access.

With that in mind, does the host have the authority to take the same action? Why or why not?

This is not a 1st Amendment issue - after all Trump blocking someone doesn't limit their ability to tweet him or at all - but it's a really weird spot of free speech vs private property vs public forum vs public access vs.. ?
Show HN: Xor-explorer – Explore patterns made with integer math
I think that’s a simplistic view. No one is arguing Twitter is comparable to a store with a display window. The reality is that Tweets are broadcasted to billions of people. It’s a new reality. It’s a newspaper where anyone and everyone is authoring anything, including presidents, and with the roll of a die, the message is amplified to a multiple of the expected audience.

Twitter may technically be a private platform run by a private company, but the issue not one of semantics, it’s about ethics and morals and how we compose a society with mighty power imbalances, fortified by new tech.
One thing is for sure.

No more ability to cut costs like they have had the luxury to do so thus far.
> "I just believe strongly that Facebook shouldn't be the arbiter of truth of everything that people say online,"

No platform really wants to be the arbiter of truth. The problem is, if you punt on that entirely you’re 4chan or some other cesspool.

Anyway, Zuck is being pretty disingenuous here, though, because Facebook does have community standards... they just don’t apply to politicians and other influential people. Facebook wants to give them free reign but control regular people.

Pretty dystopian, IMO, though hopefully more people will recognize this and drop Facebook.
You should check out Tectonic.

https://tectonic-typesetting.github.io

It fixes some of the issues that LaTex has.