skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
"Concentration camp" as a term pre-dates the Nazis, and has a specific meaning, which does apply here.

>A camp where persons are confined, usually without hearings and typically under harsh conditions, often as a result of their membership in a group the government has identified as suspect.

I would also note that the term does not apply to places where people in Nazi Germany were gassed or cremated, those have a separate term: death camps.
"In short: this author is endorsing a funding model focused on low initial investment and faster profitability."

-> so basically, Canadian "venture" capital. They don't even want to talk to you unless profitability is there or within a few months. So, basically, it distills to a barely riskier than usual bank loan, except you pay the loan with equity.
> But to expect that a _federal agency_ will be denied service from a private entity, especially for essentially political reasons, is lunacy.

Most of the comments here seem to indicate that what was said, and proposed to be done, is political, and politics are bad. This seems to rest on the assumption that one, institutions like ICE are politically neutral, and/or two, simply doing business with a political organization is necessarily "apolitical." It also relies on the assumption that anything that can be identified as political is off limits to businesses, and that many businesses are capable of avoiding being "political" altogether.

Businesses can be largely nonpartisan, but they almost certainly cannot avoid "politics." It is very difficult to be consistently "neutral" on issues like racial justice and equal opportunities for LGBTQ folks. Is hiring a trans woman "political?" Is simply doing business with a political campaign entirely apolitical? When we look to issues of the past, is/was supporting the Civil Rights Movement political? It certainly seems like a totally different type of politics than the kind where you take a partisan stance on economic policy.

IBM rightfully faced backlash for doing business with government institutions in the 20th century that were clearly not neutral on the issue of racial justice. The IBM example isn't to compare that situation to the current, but to demonstrate that you cannot justify an apolitical position in all contexts, and that "apolitical" positions may not be quite as neutral as it appears on the surface (hopefully that avoids a Godwin's Law violation.) Similarly, while to a lesser degree, ICE as it exists today can clearly be identified as an agency carrying out a specific political agenda that has a negative effect on racial justice. If doing business with an institution furthers that organizations' goals, and those goals are not neutral on the issue of racial justice, it certainly can be argued that your continued business with that institution furthers that organizations' goals. To argue otherwise puts one into a position where it seems they'd have to defend IBM in the aforementioned example for logical consistency.
You can support BLM without having a stance on ICE, because BLM is part of a complex venn diagram of political beliefs and affiliations.

This is normal: Just because some republicans think evolution is a hoax, doesn't mean every republican does. Every large political organisation is actually a coalition of people with different beliefs that overlap enough to put them on the same side for now.

Hypothetically, maybe GitHub don't know much about racism, but they're very much opposed to police cruisers intentionally driving into pedestrian protesters.

That would mean they support the current protests, but as long as ICE aren't deliberately driving cars into people, they're not yet opposed to ICE.
Of course you can. One rule for me another for you because I think these two things are different is easily understood by two year olds. Lawyers are perfectly capable of coming up with justifications for anything they like and if the judges feel sympathetic the power of the state will enforce it.
It was more specific than that: a cake shop participates directly in the creative effort with the client in the way a software service provider does not.
The majority opinion doesn't mention the word "bisexual" ... perhaps indeed because their argument doesn't work?

'defen seems to summarize the crux correctly. "Consider, for example, an employer with two employees, both of whom are attracted to men. The two individuals are, to the employer’s mind, materially identical in all respects, except that one is a man and the other a woman. If the employer fires the male employee for no reason other than the fact he is attracted to men, the employer discriminates against him for traits or actions it tolerates in his female colleague."
maybe something like: 'cases that asked the court to _return to the practice of: preventing lawsuits against police, unless the law was clearly broken (therefore indefensible)_
First Qt 6.0 Snapshot Available
Thanks for sharing that, hilarious. Neutrinos really are shy aren't they?
What you're describing here are negative externalities. From an Economics perspective (I was an Econ major) the solution is neither to ignore them (as many libertarians do) nor to ban the activities, but rather to regulate them in such a way that you force the party creating the externalities to internalize the costs that they are imposing on others. Typically through some form of Pigouvian Tax, Cap and Trade scheme, or insurance requirement.
Is this similar to the idea that solar neutrinos might affect nuclear decay rates on earth? And if so, I thought this was very speculative still.
I loved Inbox, but what actually happened there was that there were two visions of Gmail 2.0 internally. Inbox didn’t win, partly because it was written in a nightmarish C++ framework, but some of its best features were brought into Gmail.

Gmail is a conservatively managed product, but it does improve over time.
> How wrong am I?

Very. Did you actually read the report? The answer is right there:

"On a single night in 2019, roughly 568,000 people were experiencing homelessness in the United States. Nearly two-thirds (63%) were staying in sheltered locations—emergency shelters or transitional housing programs—and more than one-third (37%) were in unsheltered locations such as on the street, in abandoned buildings, or in other places not suitable for human habitation."

So being unsheltered has nothing at all to do with being voluntarily homeless. These are completely orthogonal matters. In fact, the HUD report does not deal with voluntary homelessness at all, almost certainly because the number of such people is so small that they can be safely discounted for public policy purposes.

It is also really hard to assess whether someone is voluntarily homeless. My film was shot in Santa Monica, CA. One of the subjects I interviewed had reliable income, enough to pay the rent somewhere, but not in Santa Monica. Given the choice between being on the street in Santa Monica and being in a low-rent apartment in some random place far from home, he chose to stay in Santa Monica. But all else being equal he would have preferred to be inside. Is that person "voluntarily homeless"?
We should demand congressional investigations into the operations of ICE, CIA, NSA, FBI, etc.
> Today it seems if you believe in anything other than fully open unrestricted borders then you are considered to be a racist authoritarian from mid 1940's Germany

It only seems that way to thin-skinned white nationalists who cry and whine whenever somebody doesn't support their attempts to change the fundamental nature of America.

These whiny white nationalists are so self-entitled that they portray themselves as horrific victims just because the policies (which they have been actively implementing) get some bad press. Not only do they want to implement horrible policies, they also demand that we pretend to love those policies.

Thank you for so clearly identifying yourself as a whiny, thin-skinned, snowflake of a white nationalist.
If they don't want to be political, then they don't need to be political. That means:

- No lobbying.

- No campaign or PAC contributions.

- No bandwagoning onto political social causes for marketing-only purposes.

A lot of corporations fail hard at being apolitical, despite the image they try to project publicly.
And who writes the laws of the land? Slavery and Jim Crow were also laws at certain periods of American history. I'd hope it's pretty uncontroversial to say that those laws were also very divisive political issues at the time.
Nope - in free societies you should be able to refuse service on any grounds, including those things. Otherwise you're permitting the government to forcibly compel you to allocate your time and resources to ends they define.

In free societies, governments should only be able to forcibly compel people not to do things (murder, threaten, steal, etc.) - see the concept of "negative rights."
> A high-risk high-reward investment model may still produce higher rates of returns than a low-risk low-return model.

So, this isn’t really my area, but if the market is efficient shouldn’t these come up about the same over a long enough period? In other words if one or the other has dramatically better returns that just means the risk was mis-priced to begin with.

The immediate objection I can see to this (without expertise) is assuming that private markets are at all efficient. But that would point to a fundamental problem with pricing in private markets, not the merits of one strategy or another.
Whether you are "born gay" is up for debate as well. There are many instances of people "changing their minds" on their sexuality:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Spacey

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_Dodson
> It’s the same deal with Amazon or Facebook or whoever. If you work for them you need to admit to yourself that you are an enabler.

Perhaps consider that most people are aware:

- that ICE exists

- that ICE enforces migration law

- that having ICE as a customer helps the US enforce migration laws

Perhaps also consider that supporting the US having migration laws is a mainstream opinion outside a very small cadre of people in a few US cities, so very few people mind that companies serve them.
The filing clearly states investors will lose their money.

If you're intent on losing money, there are many worse ways to do it, and nobody can claim this registration is deceitful.
Scrite – Free and Open Source Multilingual Screenplay App for Mac and PC
Merriam-Webster definition of concentration camp: “a place where large numbers of people (such as prisoners of war, political prisoners, refugees, or the members of an ethnic or religious minority) are detained or confined under armed guard —used especially in reference to camps created by the Nazis in World War II for the internment and persecution of Jews and other prisoners”

Japanese internment camps from WW2 easily meet that definition.

I think immigration detention centers easily meet that definition too: they hold large numbers of individuals whose only crime is being “the other”.
> then people will use that as to push their own political agendas

It's always a very small number of very loud people too. Worse yet, these people have mastered the art of silencing dissent from their colleagues by using kafkatraps.

There are tons of republicans and libertarians in tech, but in the average office, you wouldn't know that given how effectively such people have been silenced for fear of being accused of thoughtcrime and heresy.
On the short term it works. We will have to see about the long run.
And he's still leaving details out! I can't wait to read the complaint itself.
They hate America for being great, it's like the British intelligentsia who were pressuring the country to disarm while Hitler was arming. The institutional narrative is often suicidal like this.

They don't actually want the full consequences, but they get a kick out of embarrassing their country.
"in limit" here means as you approach the edge case of having an unlimited number of parameters.
> You'd have to modulate it by turning on and off an immense nuclear power plant

A particle accelerator would be much more responsive.

The immense detectors on the other side would stay, and you'll need entire minutes just to get a single neutrino anyway (and then, how many do you need to be sure? at least 2, I imagine.)
I'm sorry, but with power comes responsibility. The poor little CEOs are going to have to recognize that their decisions have consequences, and those consequences must be thought through. They don't just get to play Capitalist without any repercussions because they call themselves non-political.

If you have power, you are responsible for what happens with it. It's not just free money.
I think you've identified the basic, classic difference between artists/thinkers/scientists and everyone else: just as a musician can be given a piano and in time they create complex compositions, those that can see and operate in abstract conceptual spaces will see and use AI to create wonderfully complex compositions everyone else will be slackjawed in awe. This is human nature. AI is not an intelligence player, it's an instrument to find and tune like steroids one's own intelligence. Just like a piano, AI is useless to most people, because they do not have the artists/thinkers/scientists drive and comfort with abstract problems that are easier with even the most basic AI.
Why Jesus Wouldn't Have Been Verified on Twitter
"Here here: police!"

"Don't look here: political dynasties and corrupt politicians"
Funny, I recently stared in wonder at a cuneiform tablet in a museum. When I looked at the description, I found out that it was a log of how much wheat was sold in a transaction several thousand years ago. Why do you think we consider that kind of thing interesting?
Interestingly clicking on the link in Safari prompts a "Would you like to use Flash?" user dialog...
In the US at least political affiliation is not usually a protected class.
we'll send you some dumbbells and get you out of your plateau! emailing you today. - jenn
So not to go all Godwin, but take an extreme example...

Do you think a company in 1930s Germany should have ethically refused to provide software that was used in concentration camps? [In fact, there was a bit of "IT" then, used for such, but it was provided by IBM. But to make the analogy closer, let's imagine a hypothetically Germany company].

("Companies" don't do anything by themselves, so I guess the question is if the decision-makers in such a company should refuse to sell software to the German government for such purposes, and if the employees should try to pressure the decision-makers to).

If we agree that in that case the ethical choice is to refuse to supply the software, and that it would in fact be unethical to sell software for such a purpose...

Then we already agree that there is some case where a company should refuse to provide services for 'political' reasons, even to a government agency of the country it's located in.

So it's no longer a question of if a company should ever be "expected"to do this -- but if they should in this case, if this particular scenario is such an example. People can disagree on that, can think that obviously this is unlike the Nazi example, that this example does not rise to that level. I'm not trying to insist that this is definitely a "Nazi-like" example.

But once we agree there is at least one such case, it's not a categorical dispute about whether business decisions should be "politisized" ever -- it's a debate about the particular ethics of the specific situation we (or github) finds themselves in, if this example is one that requires us to ethically refuse cooperation or not. Very particularly. I think that is a fine debate to have. I think the debate about whether a company should ever do this sort of thing is not so much, because really we should all be able agree there are some lines that should not be crossed there, there are some cases where, yes, a company should be expected to refuse service to it's own government, once we examine the historical examples that are obviously beyond the lines.
I went backwards theoretically. The 6100/60 emulated a 68K at about the speed of 68030-25. But by the time I upgraded in early 1995, the software I cared about was native.

I had been using SoftPC to run compilers for school. I bought the DOS Compatibility Card for my 6100 and that was a dream machine.
How to Set Up a Cheap Burner Phone
> "Why would people want power local and limited?"

it's worse if we had the same sordid problems at a state or national level. it's rolling the dice once or 50 times vs. rolling them ~50,000 times.
Has it actually filled the offering? The title says it has, but the link is to the prospectus, which merely must be available before they begin at the market offerings.

There is no indication I see that this title is correct and that Hertz has sold all $500 million of the ATM stock offering.
You can ignore politics, but politics will not ignore you. What you're doing is burying your head in the sand, not avoiding.
While I may not totally agree with you on the politics, I do totally agree that I have a large discount for words made by corporations when it is the popular thing to do and when there are few negative consequences of them doing it. Yes, words of support matter, and I see nothing wrong with wanting to rename blacklist->blocklist and whitelist->allowlist, but I also can't help but roll my eyes a little when I see a LinkedIn post about this terminology change with 40 responses commending how great an action that was. It feels like the ultimate in slacktivism to me.

For example, at an individual level, there is a lot of good research about how housing segregation is one of the largest continuing drivers in systemic racism in the US. So if you have a bunch of BLM posters in your yard, but at the same time fight tooth-and-nail against any increased density in your neighborhood that might actually lower housing costs where you live, well you should just STFU, or at least realize the underpinnings of your blatant hypocrisy.
Well... I consider that posting a bare link with no description to be rude. The poster doesn't take the time to tell us anything (or, in this case, anything useful), while expecting us to take the time to go find out what it is. But there's one poster and maybe thousands of readers. To waste thousands of peoples' time to save your own is... let's say it's not very polite.

So, coming from that perspective, I am inclined to respond, um, less politely than you did. But I suppose than dang would encourage me to be better than the person I'm replying to, rather than just like them...
Relations Between Effort Estimates, Skill Indicators, and Measured Prog. Skill
Oh that would come in really handy!

There isn't one, but I will definitely add it!
I used to work at ebay (not in the US). The company has quite tolerant culture in terms of several things which any respectable public should never tolerate[sexual harassment, use of racial slurs, etc...] There were also anonymous complaints which essentially turned into a witch hunt led by the team leads to figure out who complained. Most of my colleagues were super nice and excellent professionally but those 1-2 despicable human beings and the tolerant behaviour made the environment toxic as hell.
I set up my own firm first. But for my country (Netherlands) that's really just a simple registration that takes all of ten minutes. Then I sent my resume to a number of agencies that broker between corporations and subcontractors. They usually ask your rate, do the negotiations with you and the end custoner, and take 15-25% margin.

I think it's worth it but YMMV.

Furthermore there's a host of smaller stuff that you need to take care of. Liability ensurance, pension, health insurance, bookkeeping, separate bank account, and sending a time sheet and bill every month.
I agree! I particularly liked the one using a two-way plastic mirror and webcam, so that you can maintain eye contact when you're video calling someone. Similar principal to a teleprompter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AecAXinars
They know very well that the kind of people who read these filings are not the same kind of people eagerly buying their stock at this point.
>All corporations are political. By accepting the ICE contract previously it was political. Now by reversing they would be changing sides. They were already in the political fray.

This is only the case if you can find a substantial number of customers Github has turned away. As long as the stance was "as long as it's legal," they stayed out of politics. They were willing to take ICE on as a customer, and they would have been willing to take on organizations fighting against ICE (if for some reason they needed software). That's impartial.

Trying to say that taking on the contract is a political decision just sounds like your forcing your political stances on Github itself... Github had never implied they took politics into account when taking on a customer.
I guess when they start administering ideological purity tests at the bagel shop, I'll know who to thank. After all, providing any type of sustenance or service to a person with the wrong political beliefs helps enable their wrong-ness, doesn't it?
Well, I'd think for a good share of employees, outside the minimum wage earners, their job might be more than just a job. Even if they just put in the contractually agreed upon time, that'll be a significant part of their life. And it doesn't need co-dependence or the equivalent of Stockholm syndrome or "buyer's remorse" to explain a willingness to associate with the employer. It certainly helps with the workplace ambiance. That doesn't mean they typically are willing to commit a crime or go full-on-psychopath as here.
Remembering Windows 2000
> combining codepoints

Combining diacritics are a good thing, I'm talking about Unicodes conflation^W deliberate lies that a code point is a meaningful unit of data in it's own right rather than a artifact of using a multi-level encoding from characters like "ä" to bytes like "61 CC 88".

> For example, this is why Spanish used to drop diacritical marks when up-casing: because there was no room in those typewriter fonts for accents on upper-case letters

Huh, I remembered that, but though it was some badly-designed computer typesetting system.

> Third, it is much simpler to close canonical composition to new compositions by having canonical decomposition than it is to keep adding pre-compositions for every sensible and new character.

Yeah, this is what conviced me that base+diacritic was a better design than precomposed characters.

> Emoji are [...] with color.

That - that they are not actually text - is one of several problems with them, yes.

> but decomposition and combining codepoints are absolutely not a mistake.

Decomposition and combining diacritics are not a mistake. The mistake is treating the decomposed elements as first-class entities.

> Finally, we're not likely to ever replace Unicode -- not [soon] anyways.

That has been said about literally every bad status quo in the history of problems that existed long enough for people to compain about them.

"The dragon is bad!"[0], and no amount of status-quo bias is going to change that.

0: https://www.nickbostrom.com/fable/dragon.html
That's the most bizarre thing about a bizarre episode. I certainly certainly certainly don't endorse someone embezzling or blackmailing or insider trading but I can at least understand the motivations however much I disapprove of them.

But risking your career/potentially ruining your life because someone criticized your employer in a newsletter (or whatever happened exactly)? That's something you rebut in print or maybe get a lawyer involved if you think there are material/malicious falsehoods. The head of Communications must have skipped that class when they took communications in college.