skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
There are models for this that could probably work. Tim Berners-Lee has been working on a scheme called Solid for years now.

It is important to realize that Facebook is not the first, second or even tenth of its ilk. FaceBook combines a bunch of ideas from previous systems, in particular MySpace and USENET. It is more or less the third generation of Web Social Media. There is no reason to believe there can't be a fourth.

My interest in these schemes is to provide a discussion space that is end-to-end encrypted so that the cloud service collecting the comments does not have access to the plaintext. This allows for 'Enterprise' type discussion of things such as RFPs and patent applications. I am not looking to provide a consumer service (at this stage).

The system you describe could be implemented in a reasonably straightforward fashion. Everyone posts to the timeline service of their choice and choose between a collection of user agents discovering interesting content for them to read. These aggregation services could be a paid service or advertising supported. Timeline publishing services might need a different funding model of course but bit shoveling isn't very expensive these days. Perhaps it could be bundled with video conferencing capabilities, password management or any of the systems people already pay for.

As for when the Internet/Web was not so vast. One of my claims to fame is the last person to finish surfing the Web which I did in October 1992 shortly after meeting Tim Berners-Lee. It took me an entire four days of night shifts to surf every page of every site in the CERN index.
I could accept that argument if it were being made in good faith, maybe there is some real evidence that mail in voting is more susceptible to fraud. But the argument is not being made in good faith, the argument is part of a long on-going coordinated effort across Republican governments at all levels to limit the people's right to vote.
Perhaps, it just jumped out at me because I've implemented one of the classic algorithms and it didn't involve heuristics.
As aspiring software engineers, we are constantly challenged by coding interviews in our career. In fact, it's a must to land our next dream software engineering (or related) job.

Coding interviews can be a little intimidating especially for students who are hunting an internship or full-time job out of college. These coding interview steps and tips can substantially ease out the process for you.

For credibility (and not bragging), I am now a software engineer at Microsoft and had to fight my way up. I have shared these tips with friends and it helped them. So, thought will share with broader audience. Let me know if this helps you or if you have any questions :)
My Dad had one of those PDT-11/150 as his "personal computer". It ran RT-11, had two 8" floppy drives. The CPU box was about the size of a countertop microwave oven. He had a video terminal, and a printing terminal (LA36 DECwriter II) connected to it. I'm gonna guess late 70s.
nodejs-httpp – Run HTTP over UDP with Node.js
> Physics once held that there was a substance called aether rather than vacuum, and chemistry that fire came from phlogiston, but we didn't need to rename the discipline when reasoning evolved.

The key difference being that physical theories based on aether never actually worked, whereas computer programs based on graph algorithms solved many problems they set out to solve.
That...doesn't seem to connect in any way with the question? Are we just free associating now?
There are quite a few countries with compulsory voting (1) and it seems to work; it'd make more sense to bolster education than to gatekeep voting to "good" education which slowly over time in the US has moved to private, expensive schools.

1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_voting
Yes! I usually "played computer" with pencil and paper during undergraduate work in the 1980s. Some of my most productive work, actually.

Now I use an interactive shell to speed up the flow of ideas. But it's basically the same thing.
At least that is legit business.

If you have the misfortune to listen to the really crazy radical talk radio, it’s all scams and thinly veiled money laundering via ads.
There's no such thing as "truth" really. What gets reported through "official" channels is always in accordance with someone's agenda. You may agree with that agenda, but that doesn't make the reporting "true" in any sense of the word. Nor does disagreeing with the agenda make reporting automatically completely false, although people tend to perceive it as such.

Soviet people knew some version of the "truth" though, from reading between the lines. When all the news is fake, "citizen journalism" naturally arises, and it did in the Soviet Union. There was always the "official" version of events that everyone knew was a lie and the "unofficial" one that you'd hear from e.g. your relatives near to where the events took place, or, if events took place abroad from Radio Svoboda or Voice of America on the shortwave (naturally, with corrections for _their_ propaganda). From that you can build up a fairly accurate version of what's really going on, if you care. Americans are only now learning this skill, I was "born in it, molded by it".

To give you a concrete example, people knew about the real extent of Chernobyl well before the Central Committee of the Communist Party decided it was necessary to tell us the _sanitized_ version of the news. We did not know why it blew up until years later, but we knew it _did_ blow up pretty much the next day. We also knew firefighters were dousing an open reactor core without any protective equipment, that stuff could leak into the river and poison Kiev, etc, etc. All in spite of KGB's very best efforts to conceal the facts, and its near unlimited power.
Recently? That sounds like OLE [1], which has been around since the 1990s. Have they redone it?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_Linking_and_Embedding
> every poor ignorant impoverished

There's some serious bias here. There are poor and impoverished people who are not ignorant. There are also ignorant millionaires. The moment you start saying who shouldn't be voting, make sure you realise how many people think you shouldn't be voting either.

At an extreme of that, see what the threshold of "rich" is for people saying "eat the rich".
> In what sense are CBS, CNN, and the Washington Post hard left?

>> The issue here is that everything here is considered the hard left of the media by Fox viewers.

Maybe the edit here makes the statement clearer because before it was implicit.
I don't know that the users are directly there to interact with the pres, but Twitter certainly benefits from being the US President's megaphone.

They get mentioned in the news hundreds of times a day, and they're "the" platform for all celebs posting their thoughts.

If POTUS moves to, say, Facebook, they lose all that free advertising.
> Shareholder responsibilities

There's nothing I'd rather say on my deathbed than "I was really good for the shareholders." Seriously, life is too short. Ban the president. Go down in history. Be someone. Jack or whoever will die being nothing more than a low-tier mascot for the long dead American dream. But banning the president... it would be very literally epic.

What I really want to say on my deathbed is "I lived a great story," so IMO it's a no brainer.
Ask HN: Ubuntu getting slower, what is alternative?
Recently my ubuntu linux started getting slower after each update (maybe false perception). X-org eating 50% CPU, firefox, chrome competing for CPU, battery drain and other problems with pre-installed software (snap is one example) and so on.

On same laptop I use dual boot with Windows 10, and not feeling any of above problems, but I am used to be in Linux for development.

Any recommendations for distributions which is fast and non-bloated?
By “interact with the tweets” I see as fwd, replies, sharing

How much digital ink is spent on exhaust from his tweets?
Well, Cloudflare did fork out the money for this tool so it's already done and now free to use.
In my view, if platforms like YouTube/Twitter/Facebook are going to exercise editorial control over the content they host, they should be held fully responsible for all of the content that isn't taken down.

If these organizations don't want to be responsible for the content on their platforms, then they shouldn't censor content unless ordered to by a judge.

They want it both ways - full editorial control, but no responsibility.
I am thinking about the concept of “the last mile to user’s attention”.

Currently, software clients of Mastodon or Twitter hold that mile. Mastodon gives all content unfiltered, which could be too much at times, while Twitter does some oft-annoying opaque black magic in its timeline algorithms.

A better solution would be to have a protocol for capability that filters content with logic under your control. A universal middleware standard that is GUI-agnostic, can fit different content types.

By adopting this, open/federated social could start catching up on content filtering features to for-profit social (in a no-dark-patterns way, benefitting user experience), hopefully stealing users.

Ideally it could be used by the likes of Twitter and Facebook—of course, given the size of for-profit social, such an integration would take some unimaginably big player to motivate them to adopt (the state of their APIs is telling), but if it’s there there’s a chance.
Same. So far - https://awesomeblogclub.searchableguy.now.sh

it's not ready yet but I would love to hear more about what features people want. Email is in the profile.
I am not sure whether there has ever been mail-in voter fraud, but it seems like the relevant agencies actively or passively avoid collection of data which might demonstrate or disprove such fraud. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
If Google created systems to defend against a single actor spamming their reporting system, it would be an admission that they're aware that they aren't capable of identifying and filtering that out automatically.

"We don't pay for fraud traffic, we don't bill our advertisers for fraud traffic, and youtube analytics represent real users not bots" is pretty much Google's whole business model.

They can survive being caught being mistaken, but it's much worse for them to be caught lying.

So they have to pretend to believe that reporting spam represents large numbers of real humans filing mistaken or dishonest reports that they have to manually review.

This doesn't have anything to do with the media cartels though -- they have access to ContentID and can take down YT videos without filing reports or involving Google employees at all. Media companies wouldn't care if YT removed the report feature entirely.

If you're looking for a corporation to blame for this it's the advertisers, they don't want to see their ads next to brand-unsafe videos. YT has outsourced the hard work of actually watching and classifying videos for appropriateness to the report system. They assume that once they take down anything that catches a lot of reports, whatever is left will be anodyne enough to be brand-safe.
You are thinking about the set of two actions {growing a forest from bare ground + burning it}. That indeed would be zero-emission.

But burning a preexisting forest is cancelling an existing carbon store and converting lots of solid carbon into atmospheric carbon.

The fact a forest is a carbon store is precisely why a startup such as Pachama exists: they help grow new forests to capture carbon.

https://pachama.com

Would you then just unnoticingly burn them for energy, and keep telling the customers that you just captured a net amount of carbon?

PS: oh you are jacquesm! :) didn't notice. How are you?

PPS: some critic about the link you sent me ("wood-energy.extension"): I disagree with what they say, in that fallen wood too is a carbon store, and in a forest at equilibrium the amount decomposed by fungi/bacteria is roughly compensated by the newly fallen wood. So that's just a carbon store, and if you begin to burn it you shrink this store.
They also have a Roku channel and an iPhone app. The iphone app lets you do audio only to cut down on BW. But with a course like Understanding Greek and Roman Technology (one of my all-time faves), the video is pretty invaluable.
https://www.thegreatcoursesplus.com/understanding-greek-and-...
But it does avoid becoming paternalistic.
>> The issue here is that everything here is considered the hard left of the media by Fox viewers.

Maybe the edit here makes the statement clearer because before it was implicit.
Why so angry. The title reads:

> How I helped reposition a database product that went on to make $1 billion in revenue

It doesn't say "How I single handedly repositioned" or even "How I repositioned". The author literally helped in the process that led to repositioning. By uncovering a key use-case for the product, which then became the key feature and selling point of the updated product.

And regarding the comment about $1B in revenue, is there any good reason not to give her the benefit of the doubt? She literally worked with the team and rubbed shoulders with them every day. A lot of non-public numbers get talked about casually at the water cooler.

There seems to be a trend where people are hyper-obsessed with nitpicking titles and calling out "clickbait". In this case, the article title is a pretty great representation of the article's contents - or at least as great as you can get in one sentence. I personally enjoyed the article, and was hoping to read a discussion about the main points raised in the article, or similar stories others may have. Instead, the top comment is an angry rant nitpicking the article's title.
I think this is perhaps an example, on a grand scale, on why you (generally) can't use technology to solve cultural problems.

Before the Battle of Trebia, Hannibal wanted to set up an ambush for the Romans. He gathered 200 of his best troops together, and told them (a) that they were squad leaders; (b) they each should pick 10 of their friends to form their individual squads; and (c) the plan of attack.

A modern person might ask: "Well, why didn't he just gather ~ 2000 soldiers together and communicate the plan of attack directly? That must be better than passing a battle plan via a game of telephone".

The simple answer is that, before electronics and without a purpose-built theater, you really could only speak, directly, with about 200 people at once, because that's as far as the unaided voice can carry.

Many inventions and societal changes over the course of the past 2,000 years have accelerated the flow of information. Printing presses, movable type, widespread literacy -- I doubt that many of Hannibal's troops could read! -- postal systems which eventually spread across the globe, telegraphs, telephones, fax machines...

Each of these increased the speed, range, and coverage of communication to a varying degree, and each had a profound impact related to the scope of that change.

Humanity is only about a decade or so into a world where J. Random Person has the potential, through viral spread, to communicate with the full extent of their social graph, and to find like-minded actors.

Compared to before, this is a massive change, and if you weren't old enough to understand The World Before The Internet, it's hard to grasp just how massive of a change this has been.

Our cultural and legal mechanisms simply haven't caught up yet, nor have they adapted to the new evolutionary tempo.
You're forgetting that people want to be in an exclusive club, and if masterclass is able to really get 'masters' instead of jokesters, then being selected is worth the ego trip; plus if you get 30% of revenue, and you feel like you're god's gift, then you assume that number will be super duper high as well.

Personally I just love their name. Brilliant marketing. I'm starting to see it used outside of their product.
How are the user agents funded? Probably through ads.

The problem is actually how to fund the timeline publication services. But systems like Medium etc seem to work OK.

I am now spending several hundred dollars a year on content subscriptions. Plus subscriptions for Gmail, Zoom and a few other things where I have outgrown the free service. A freemium model for the timeline publication services would probably work.
Is this true? I don't think it is, and I think that has been borne out in several of our most recent presidential elections. In the last election alone, Clinton won NH by a mere 2700 votes, for instance.
What I don't understand is just because someone is highly skilled at something (Ron Howard) doesn't make them as good a teacher of said something. Maybe Masterclass is helping them put their teaching information together? But they sell it like they're putting together the best of the best teachers, and I don't know if that's the case.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23317286
Mail-in voting has been used in both republican and democratic states, for a long time, without issue.

Let's be honest: Trump does not believe there is a problem with fraud. He believes he is likely to lose the election, and he is preparing to stage a coup when that happens.

He laid the same groundwork during the previous election, and only stopped when he realized he had actually won.

This is a very naked attempt to destroy American democracy, and stage a coup. Nothing more, nothing less. It should be treated as such. It should be discussed as such. It is absurd to pretend his concern is about such vulnerabilities.
I think arguing based on outcome misses the more fundamental point. The president is a citizen. When Angela Merkel speeds she gets a ticket, and when she goes to the supermarket she stands in the queue (which she actually literally does herself regularly, in contrast to Trump I suppose).

So regardless of whether banning him is good or bad in terms of exposure or whatever, he's a user on the platform and he ought to be treated as such. If Trump wants to speak as the president with authority I assume he has the white house press department at his disposal.
> The problem is that no one has the incentive to host such a service for free

matrix.org is approaching this
I'd never heard of it and my best guess based on the name would have been some kind of way of "storing up" marketing effort to release it later, like if you had extra marketing $$$ and needed to use it before the end of the quarter but would prefer to spread it out.
It does help, there are some early decisions that were made pretty well (the first or second time, at least).

Oracle's EC2 is called "compute instances", S3 "object storage", SES "email delivery", Lambda "functions" etc.

And object storage could have been Casper, load balancer Flamingo, or data transfer Rhino.
Getting Hands-On with Io_uring and Go
There is also this ...bay
> Boo to twitter for this. This is twitter obviously putting their finger on the scale of an election,

Pointing out that trump is lying isn't a bad thing.
I'm more curious as to why you're giving Trump such a high benefit of the doubt giving his rampant lies in the past.

The reality is that most mail-in voting operates via what is effectively a two factor auth system or a handshake authentication system. Person A gets official mail being told they can register to vote. Person A goes to site and registers to vote. Then they receive a ballot sometime before election day, fill it out, certify that they are who they are, then it goes out.

The government can send a further correspondence indicating that you voted and where to check your vote to confirm. If someone attempts to vote multiple times using the same person this is easily verified. If the dead vote, you can cross-reference with obituary data to identify identity fraud. If someone votes for someone else (like their parents or their siblings) then that can be somewhat identified through the final check and letting people file a claim.

The reality is that actual fraud for mail-in votes is incredibly low and committing mass fraud requires the fraud to occur at the point of ballot counting. At which point you have a politician issue [1] not a voter issue. Which again, is pretty easily caught. The increase in mail-in fraud is likely offset by the disenfranchised voters that could gain the ability to vote as well as the voters in areas without easy access to voting booths.

[1] https://www.npr.org/2019/07/30/746800630/north-carolina-gop-...
I thought someone might interpret it that way, which is why I quickly edited to say "or rich" as well. However, you must admit that the ignorant poor vastly outnumber the ignorant rich.
And some links for anyone who wants to see more about these topics...

Sinclair Broadcasting owns local stations, most likely at least one near you: http://sbgi.net/tv-stations/

Scripps I believe is a bit smaller, but also owns a lot of local stations: https://scripps.com/our-brands/local-media/

So if Sinclair and Scripps both run the same newswire story, for instance, that is a country full of people getting it through their local -- often "most trusted" -- news station. A lot of stations get the "final say" on what does and doesn't run, but sometimes they do not.

Wikipedia entry for "Video news release": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_news_release

Wikipedia entry for "Satellite media tour": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_media_tour

And finally: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_literacy
But that’s not how it actually works. For example, it’s agreed among journalists covering social media that Facebook’s greatest crime is that it “created a genocide in Myanmar”, as you can read in an ocean of longform articles. What they mean is that people shared hateful messages privately via Messenger and Whatsapp, two services that use a completely deterministic algorithm (“show all incoming messages by recent”).

The only practical way to stop this is to employ an army of censors to read private conversations and delete the ones deemed bad. But of course this is also horrible and dystopian. So, as always, it’s trivial to write a scathing critique of Facebook no matter what they do.

The problem is that hate doesn’t need an algorithm to amplify it; it can just amplify itself, as it has throughout all of human history. The problem isn’t the algorithm, it’s the people. And you can’t just “fix” people.
Yes and I live in Arizona and mailed in my ballot for the 2016 election. The point is not that it is possible to do some mail in voting. The point is that it isn't ridiculous to think that mail in voting could be succeptible to fraud. Certainly not so much so that twitter should be trying to influence an election in this way.
This is a great example! Thanks for writing it up. I appreciate especially the 200 number for unaided speech, really puts the power of technologically aided communication into perspective
Left for American politics at least I guess. "Left" in America is right of center in most other western countries.

It's a relative measure - left compared to Fox. Not left compared to SZ or Haaretz.
> Having a human lifeguard plus an AI that alerts the lifeguard when it spots something suspicious could lead to better outcomes than employing two lifeguards.

I disagree. I think you'll see the same thing as with drivers falling asleep while Tesla autopilot is running. The lifeguard will let the computer do all the monitoring since a low false negative rate combined with a low incidence rate means that most bodyguards will experience the computer being 100% reliable for weeks or months at a time. In fact it's not unreasonable that if the lifeguard sees someone drowning but the computer doesn't register it as such the lifeguard may question their own judgement based on experience.
relative level of (dis)respect of any country to another doesn't mean that country won't use something to their advantage
If that's the case, start with his free stuff on YouTube.
Especially if, I would say.
All their documentation says they will never do this.