skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
How about don't remove anyone or anyone's post unless it's illegal?

Certainly don't target certain politicians while leaving others alone.

When you can't win your argument on merit, you censor.

It's up to the politicians and constituents to call out lies, why should some Ministry of Truth decide what's a lie?
There has been some work in grounding NN conversations by either giving them factual memory/knowledge base - [1], [2],[3]. Personally I would love to see more work in this area where you have a robust language generator guided by a (1) high level task learner AND/OR (2) a knowledge base.

[1] Commonsense Knowledge Aware Conversation Generation with Graph Attention https://www.ijcai.org/Proceedings/2018/0643.pdf

[2] A Knowledge-Grounded Neural Conversation Model https://arxiv.org/pdf/1702.01932.pdf

[3] Conversing by Reading:Contentful Neural Conversation with On-demand Machine Reading https://arxiv.org/pdf/1906.02738.pdf
>No one wants that. And the proof? You're making the point on a heavily moderated forum.

That's terrible argument. HN already works pretty close to what mchusma proposes. See "showdead" option in profile setting.
This is how I voted at the Portuguese consulate while abroad.
13 staff having the power over 60% of the sites? How can we do better to decentralized the power/trust?
Beating people up for not having your morals is not a great way to get them on your side.

Facebook has been on my list of companies not to work at for a long time, but I have friends who work there. Accepting that other people value different things and being willing to interact with them on a basic, human level is a lot more likely to build bridges and lead to constructive conversation about important matters down the road than casting people aside because they don't conform to your worldview today.

I'll grant you that Facebook, among others, enables exactly the sort of thing I'm advocating against. I'll grant you that it seems to promote people yelling at each other over the internet instead of building the relationships that enable difficult conversations in time. And I'll grant you that they do it to sell ads for shit we mostly don't need.

But that doesn't make everybody who works there bad, and it doesn't mean that people who decide that continuing to work there is no longer consistent with their values should be equated with merchants of death when they publicly leave.

You're castigating somebody for voting with their feet, but presumably mostly because they didn't do it as soon as you did.
Except the Falcon 9 second stage is not reusable.

Shuttle had an advantage since the orbiter was both first and second stages.

The orange fuel tank was lost on each mission, and the solid rocket boosters were recovered and refurbished after a swim in the ocean.

So by some measures the Shuttle system was very reusable, but the complexities of the system resulted in high costs to tear down, inspect, and refurbish between flights.
>they are still heating/cooling their poorly insulated houses

You're telling me! I live in an apartment where my bedroom is on the west side of the building, and during the summer I can feel the midday/evening heat coming through the wall. It doesnt help that the building was built in the 80's at the lastest so insulation isn't as good as it is today.
I'm sorry man, but you sound incoherent to me.

You can write a compiler for python in python--but it still needs the original cpython (or jython, or ironpython, or pypy, etc.) to run, because there is no compiled binary produced by your python code.

You can write a compiler for any language using python, but you need one of the interpreters you mentioned, and you can't throw it away unless it produces a binary. Maybe Cython can do this. But if it needs an interpreter to run, you'll have to keep the interpreter around as a non-python dependency.

But who cares? Unless you rewrite a Pygame from scratch, or replace it with another graphics library, in which case you need to rewrite snakeware from scratch, none of this is relevant here.

It's just insane. You are proposing rewriting entire language runtimes and/or graphics engines to preserve 1400 lines of python code (mostly a menu, a calculator, and a game of snake), with the supposed goal of creating an all python user space, and dismissing it as "Who says you can't do it?". I'm not saying it's impossible, but it makes no sense. You'd be better off starting over and taking this on with a different strategy. If your end goal is an all Python user space linux distro that actually works like linux, this project is a non-starter without being totally reimagined with virtually 0 reuse of the code that's there even at a conceptual level. You wanna rewrite pygame or python's compiler? Be my guest! It has nothing to do with your supposed objective though.

At the very least, you would need to get out of the pygame window simulation, start using a standard graphics compositor, and replacing existing utilities with python alternatives to make this work. But again, even CPython, Jython, PyPy, etc. will need to remain. Maybe Pygame can be made to work with PyPy, in which case you get close to what you want--but it's still a C extension, not python. And that's your graphics renderer. So why not just use Wayland or something then?

I think the quest for language purity at the OS level is a fun dream to pursue, but you need to decide where to cut it off in terms of scope and how to implement the scope you choose.
Not necessarily a symbol. I use "setxkbmap -option caps:super && xcape -e 'Super_L=Escape'" to make tapping Caps Lock simulate tapping Escape, and holding Caps Lock and pressing another key work as Super("Windows key") + that key in X11.

(eg. Caps alone = exit insert mode in vi, Caps + Space = Super + Space for toggling the tiling layout in my window manager dwm.)
There is no conflation. "One person one vote" was a principle formulated to ensure the will of the people is known, and that entrenched powerful interests cannot undermine this will by having more voting power than the average person.

"One person, one voice/account" has a similar rationale behind it. Technology is a force multiplier. The human mind gives more credence to things they hear/see repeatedly and from multiple different sources. This is a somewhat robust heuristic only when they are actually different sources. The "powerful interests" here are those with the knowledge to broadcast their message widely under multiple different aliases. This is why social media is such a problem.

If a particular platform is shown to be important to democratic discourse, there's a compelling argument that that platform should have rules ensuring the authenticity of the people's voice.
By that logic, he could have taken even more money by continuing to work.
10 years is the average life expectancy of a person that is between 75 and 80 years old in North America.

So on average everyone dying at that age loses 10 years of life.

75 to 80 years old is also the mean age of death from covid.

Im going to go out on a limb and say that it is likely that people on average that die from covid do not lose 10 years of life.

This does not make it less of a tragedy for the individuals involved.
You wouldn't shed tears over the death of the little bit of democracy remaining in America and the move to a single party political system?

That's truly sad.
I’m not sure how the question of whether there is fraud now bears on whether there will be fraud and opportunity for abuse if our fairly minimal voter ID laws are relaxed further. The California law allowing “ballot harvesting” is utterly wacky.

At the end of the day, why is it unreasonable to have similar voter laws to say France or Germany? Maybe you get a ballot in the mail, but you have to show up with a photo ID. This doesn’t seem like too much to ask.
you are intentionally diminishing the issues at hand. the police, yes "the police", have increasingly been militarized, abuse their power, and seen a general lack of repercussions when they do something wrong, even heinous crimes. this is systemic. whether you think that this was "just" a bad egg with three other bad eggs standing around or not, which in itself requires jumping through hoops, these issues are well discussed and documented and are systemic.

now, couple that with systemic issues of rascim throughout all of american society, of which the police are part of, you have a terrible mix of rascism, power, lack of worry of consequences, and a general bad attitude of their role in society in "the police". that leaves the general public at risk and people of color at a substantially greater risk.

the point is that this isn't just a one off case. it happens time and time again. i have seen video after video of it, and that's just the ones captured on film! (still don't face any consequences.) i have seen a video of a black emt who had a patient inside pulled over and choked by a police officer because the police officer felt he hadn't yielded properly to his lights even though the call he was on was obviously less important than choking an emt with a patient. there's just countless other videos and documented cases.

so please, take your false rhetoric elsewhere. these are actual problems. if you think it's just a couple bad eggs, then think about what happens when there's bad eggs spread throughout the country. that's what systemic issues are.

riots and particularly looting are not great. but consider what they generally represent. they represent pent up anger of those at the bottom who feel they don't have any other recourse. some do indeed want to incite violence, but that doesn't invalidate the huge line of events that got us here. i would also ask that you view the police as an active participant in the rioting. i have seen video of police actively destroying property without a protester in site. the media is also a participant because we cannot trust what they report as truth.
Totally agree but there are many people there now who could use his help to fight for what they believe in. He's not just one guy trying to get some hair brained initiative passed.

Our problem is we seek acceptance and agreement too much and don't fight for what others believe in on principle.

We're all to blame but now we have one less person who can do anything about it. Look at the world from the outside in for once and quit suffering your blasted anecdoche.

How many times have they tried to manage up only to be hamstringed by their own peers?
I guess selling people's innermost thoughts for a bit of ad revenue is OK in his book, then.
People keep jumping between the extremes of “show or don’t show the post”

There are options in between like decrying the post for violence. Twitter did a good job here IMHO by having the post visible, but restricted behind a click through. They also didn’t cast aspersions on it, and sent you to more links to learn more.
The average facebook dev in the Bay area with 0 years of experience starts over 180. The average FAANG dev hits 250K around 3-4 years of total industry experience.
In re: the Peelian principles I feel that that's addressed in #2:

> To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.

It's a tactical truism that you can't police a city without consent of the populace. You can destroy it, but not rule it. Look at what happened in Mogadishu or Baghdad, it takes thousands of troops and the willingness to kill civilians to hold a hostile city, even for the US military. Recognizing that is pretty much realpolitik.

- - - -

In re: consent and democracy in general, I dunno. It's not like the social contract is an actual document that you have to sign (or not), eh? I tried to build a flying saucer and leave the planet. YMMV.
It's a little better because you know it's happening and have time to prepare.
Is it really more admirable for Zuck to do something that seems more in-line with business motives than anything else?
If you know it's a gaussian blur with a known radius, you can uniquely reverse it.
Point is you could do it if you really wanted to learn enough complex analysis to understand the theorem and its proof. AI progress is impressive but it's nowhere near anything people can do when they sit down to think about stuff.

I don't fear the AI overlords. If they start proving new theorems then I will learn from them, same way Magnus Carlson learned to be the best human chess player by practicing with chess AI.

More generally, AI can extend human planning horizons and extending planning horizons is, in my opinion, a very good thing. The more computations we can do that extend further out in time and the more widespread this capability the better decisions we can make as individuals and as a society.
>why? The only advantage I can think of is that it's easier to remember/enter for humans, which isn't really a good reason because there's DNS anyways.

It'd reduce the size of the IPv6 header, allowing more data per 1500 mtu packet. There's a lot of situations that are bound by packet rate limits, not bandwidth concerns.

BTW, if we're going to radically reimagine the internet, we should really push for a 9000+ MTU.
> Cloudflare generally tries to be a content-neutral pipe

They did a complete 180 over the past couple of years, for particularly distasteful content (in their opinion). For better or worse.
I'm not saying the decision of which political candidates to censor should be cut and dry. Just that the decision of which elected officials to censor should be.
I am Java developer with 5 years of experience, do you think I can be good fit for this role?
Vires in Numeris: Bitcoin Is Stronger Than Ever
The EV1 was far from being the first electric vehicle, even from major manufacturers. It wasn’t even the only one being built at the time.

I think it’s fair to say there would be no Tesla if so many companies hadn’t colluded with the oil lobby to kill off their own electric car lines.

Wikipedia says it better than I can. The article also has a timeline of commercial production of electric vehicles starting in the 1800’s.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_electric_vehi...

> In the early 1990s, the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the government of California's "clean air agency", began a push for more fuel-efficient, lower-emissions vehicles, with the ultimate goal being a move to zero-emissions vehicles such as electric vehicles.[50][51] In response, automakers developed electric models, including the Chrysler TEVan, Ford Ranger EV pickup truck, GM EV1 and S10 EV pickup, Honda EV Plus hatchback, Nissan lithium-battery Altra EV miniwagon and Toyota RAV4 EV. The automakers were accused of pandering to the wishes of CARB in order to continue to be allowed to sell cars in the lucrative Californian market, while failing to adequately promote their electric vehicles in order to create the impression that the consumers were not interested in the cars, all the while joining oil industry lobbyists in vigorously protesting CARB's mandate.
I think he's saying there is no such thing as "non-fear-driven development".
A lighter than air mothership makes a lot of sense. You could have the delivery drones glide to the location, fire up the propellers for the controlled package dropoff, then fly back.
Sure, if the title was, "Workings of a boron hydrogen fusion reactor."

It's not, it's a life interest story, obviously so from the title. History of science isn't a review article but it is still history and some scientists like me find history to provide a lot of insight into how we got where we are.
A lot of universitites translate the overall exam percentage achieved to a 1:1, 2:1, 2:2, etc. For instance, achieving an average of 70% or more is considered a 1:1 in a lot of universities. I think it depends on the course too. I don't know if it's standardised.
Not sure I agree with the premise that this has to be only or primarily about how much this guy deserves the attention.

Maybe the goal of praising him isn't to make his life better but is instead to encourage other people to also stand up for what they believe in.

Or maybe it's to contrast him with other people who are in a similar position of privilege (and feel the same about Zuckerberg's lack of action) but chose not to sacrifice anything at all for their principles.
How is this any different from a President giving a speech that people don't agree with on TV? Or making statements that are covered in newspapers?

Spreading widely is the only reason we should censor speech? If what a person says is absolutely ridiculous, it should be seen and exposed by sunlight and more discussion.
Didn't Facebook have over a billion users then? There's about 8 billion people on this planet, a good 7th or so are blocked from Facebook entirely. Even then, orders of magnitude would be 100, 1000 billion and upwards.

They _can't_ grow orders of magnitude.
Hey, the website that you use to host your report you cite (quark.cards) has an expired certificate, and a whois shows it belongs StackFrame, just FYI since I saw you listed as working there.

I noticed the "Wikipedia's list of American supercentenarians" you cite to cross reference which describes itself as "a list of the longest lived American supercentenarians according to the GRG." [0] is not an exhaustive list of all supercentenarians. For example, the wikipedia page only lists 4 people who are currently alive, but looking at Wikipedia's underlying reference [1] there's at least 7 who are validated and currently alive, and I see around another 9 who have passed away since ~2019.

Additionally, looking at Wikipedia's underlying source [1] it says "The total number Supercentenarians that we have cited above has been frequently been misconstrued in the news media as representing every single person in the world aged 110 and over. The actual estimated number of worldwide living Supercentenarians is more likely to be between [300 - 450] persons. For the USA, we predict something like [60 - 75] Supercentenarians".

This seems like it means Wikipedia's underlying source predicts they're capturing at best ~10% of all who exist in the US.

I'm wondering if theres any census data or other sources that could help with this- guessing not since Wikipedia would likely cite that instead if it existed. Could use their extrapolation (60-75) of expected # of Supercentenarians to Florida along with the fact that Florida has an older population to just get a gut check if the # you found seems reasonable.

I find the idea and approaches looking into the voting data interesting, and I'll definitely look more into the the other reports you released when I get a chance.

> "found some fraud."
As a final note, I'd just suggest that we all be super careful when levying charges like this given 1) it seems you just found some circumstantial non-peer reviewed evidence of fraud 2) how important trust is in our electoral systems to the function of open societies and 3) the vast majority of research points to voting fraud being almost non-existent.

Questioning these institutions is incredibly important and part of an open an effective democratic system, but we have to be careful and specific with what we assert and our evidence.

This is true especially now, with political factions across the US actively seeking to undermine our faith in electoral system using bad-faith and non-fact based arguments for political gain.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_supercentenar...

[1]: http://supercentenarian-research-foundation.org/TableE.aspx
The guy bragging about skipping his Facebook interview takes the cake.
“Just saying” is judging. The anxiety created by his move is real. At the same time we can accept that other people are in a worse financial situation.
When all citizens have the button to nuke the whole world, we can make arguments about equality.
It's not the content of the speech itself that is weaponized, it's sheer volume of speech that needs to be responded to that makes it weaponized. And the volume (amount) of speech that must be responded to is so great that even the concept and need to "remain vigilant" against it is a challenge.
A fairly recent stackechange post on this:

https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/41142/do-the-lates...

(I had no idea what "laser comms" were, unfortunately they're not laser cannons but rather lasers for communications between satellites. Which is still pretty cool)
When you don't prevent looting the looters will be confronted by cops and they will then choose to take the cops life or go to jail. This is what happened to David Dorn.
This might be overly cynical, but it might be possible that he was already thinking about leaving his job, and now found an excuse to do it in a way that potentially gets him more LinkedIn profile views and thus a better next job (he does end his message with advertising himself)
I read this word " privilege" more in the comments. I just want to say to all used it , leaving a job with a public stunt from a high paying job is never an easy decision for anyone. We all love money. But when someone chose to stand up for what they thought is right, is a big thing. I believe we should honor and respect that. Being dismissive or saying he/she is privileged to make a decision is nothing but dishonor.
ClickMonitorDDC – control your monitor from the notification icon
Facebook was also complicit in the genocide of the Rohingya minority in Myanmar
So if you're against censoring any government official, was Facebook wrong to remove posts from Myanmar's military leaders inciting a genocide?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/31/world/asia/myanmar-genoci...
Just like many Polish people work in say England or Sweden, Ukrainians work in Poland. Exactly the same dynamic.
Luckily most of us have the ability to focus on as many as two things simultaneously. You can be in favor of protesting in general, these protests specifically, and still have a problem with seemingly random destruction of innocent people's property. I hate whataboutism as much as anyone, but just as insidious is the same mental failing on the other side of the spectrum where you're "not allowed" to look at anything other than whatever "the focus" is.
I can’t really parse this “article,” which appears to be from a right-wing opinion site, mostly linking tweets from a CNBC anchor.

Taiwan and South Korea being random seems a spurious claim. Taiwan’s Vice President is an epidemiologist invested with a great deal of executive authority in dealing with public health crises and has guided the country’s response from the outset. South Korea was trending in a quite bad direction with the church outbreaks and quashed them through massive interventions in testing and mobile hospital capacity. And neither country has mass-scale lockdowns like the west (because they didn’t need them).
Outside Plato's Cave episode 3 now out
Couldn't agree more. Also the implication that users will manage or update settings to their preferences is incredible in its own right.

So, let's just do it.
It wasn't over a political dispute though. It was over the CEO effectively lying with regard to a red line that was crossed.

The straw that broke the camels back.

> For society to function, people need to be willing to work with others whose politics they find distasteful.

And how are we supposed to work with people that outright lie? Who are dishonest. Who crosses a red line with that lie? Are we supposed to shrug and accept it? Would you accept people lying in a professional environment?
If you're going to go down that route, I would expect that they test using both the latest stable version and the whatever unstable version they want. Bugs found using the stable compiler should be reported to the project, while bugs found only using the unstable version should be reported to the compiler.