skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Is that argument dumb or evil?

As a pro-free-speech advocate, I think that argument is important and smart and good.

Free speech does have disadvantages, and those disadvantages can have serious consequences.

The attempt to hand-wave those disadvantages away with "but enough people will just be perfectly rational and care about truth, and then all those good people who love truth will prevent genocide!" is... extraordinarily naive.

Whether to support free speech is a question of weighing advantages and disadvantages. I happen to think the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages. But if you seriously can't see any of the disadvantages, and can't empathize with a person who reasons that those disadvantages outweigh the advantages, then you're probably not thinking clearly enough.
This article is making a long and explicit case for censorship. The author is unhappy that "[Candace Owens] can insult the victims of police killings with impunity" and "seven of the 10 most-shared Facebook posts containing the phrase 'Black Lives Matter' over the past month were critical"; he recommends that Facebook should change its recommendation algorithms to "amplify the right voices" and ensure that trolls cannot "hijack the conversation".

I'm extremely disturbed to see the New York Times calling for Facebook to try and prevent discussions it doesn't like.
A lot of people judge him negatively because of what happened post his death: a non-fiction book about him, a feature film, hundreds of imitators, a cult of "hard survival". This lead to people dying, getting malnourished, government funds being spent on rescuing them.

However, he never knew and never will know any of that happened. All he cared about is the journey, how is he possibly responsible for inspiring unprepared people to go into the woods? It's not like he's a still-living lifestyle blogger who goads people into doing this. He's not a hero but he's not deserving of all the flack he gets.
You might want to read the actual study. It’s horribly mischaracterized everywhere.
Private equity is commonly how the rich got rich. Theres all sorts of asset classes not available to the common public that keep them from reaping rewards. Another being investing in catastrophe bonds and insurance. Tons of fortunes made off all sorts of financial assets, that really arent that esoteric, they are just in the shadows.
it appears the North Face is the biggest/first major brand to pull out:

https://twitter.com/thenorthface/status/1273985578564870145
My experience diverges from yours. Reuters feeds have been highly reliable over the last 3 years for me, with near zero downtime. There were at least one new entry per hour, almost 24h/24, but it can go up to 5 new entries per hour.

This is not a small "hiccup", this is a total blackout for almost a day now

Meta : HN doesn't let me downvote your comment, that doesn't seem very fair.

Edit : I invite everyone to look at webarchive : https://web.archive.org/web/20191029165306/https://www.reute...

The tools/rss page went offline October 29th 2019, which seems to indicate a planned shutdown of the RSS prepared months ago. Possibly, they delayed the shutdown with covid19 to now
> By not using Android you're missing a lot of good free apps that don't display ads.

My post wasn't meant to push one perspective or another, merely to point out that wanting your platform to be better doesn't mean you want to switch. If I was on Android, I would complain a lot about Google's advertising policies, then someone would say "Quit whining about Google and just stop using them".
Oh, wasn't aware of that. Not that I'm surprised that is Deutsche Bank. They have a long track record of shady dealings reaching back to, as far as I remember, the 90s.
yes, even Apple uses AWS for some of their services.
Not a real chemist but my understanding is that there is no other solvent with all of water's properties - cohesion, adhesion, high specific heat, pH neutrality, polarity, density (in solid and liquid form), and reactivity - no matter how rare. It is the only "universal solvent" (for polar molecules). In order to imagine other forms of life, you'd have to make the jump from carbon to silicon based life forms. Unfortunately, the energies involved in the chemical bonds would mean that the reactions leading to self replicating molecules would have to happen at very high temperatures or densities which seem to make any life form extremely unlikely. Theoretically catalysts could lower the reaction thresholds enough for life to take hold, but it's an open question how such complex catalysts (enzymes) would emerge while bootstrapping replication. Earth went through just the right series of steps and until the planet cooled down, "stuff" just didn't stay in one place long enough to react and form big molecules.
>There are more on the android platform, and therefore enough for viability.

Is that true for customers who are interested in a high end email service that costs $100 a year? I'd wager that the vast majority of people in that segment are on iPhones.
The Mind of Saruman
I recently lost 2 days troubleshooting an iOS 13 Safari bug: It just froze, when it got certain html. Wasn't possible to connect a debugger. Never seen that in a browser before.

FF, Chrome: all fine, page rendered correctly.

(I had to bisection-comment out half the html page and so on, until I found out what made Safari freeze. The problem: Radio buttons in separate divs but not wrapped in separate forms, killed Safari.)
Close, but not quite, IMHO. The people in the "Family" wants the rest of believe in the Just World Hypothesis, so we toil. They themselves are not bound by such considerations. Whatever they do, they are chosen, by God. That is why they have power. They are the representatives of God on Earth. It's not that they can do no wrong - they can. But if they do, they are still the chosen.
Short answer: Because I need to grind more leetcode.

Longer answer: I like my team and manager, although not my company and org (non-tech company), and the work has become very unchallenging.

But if I make a change, I want it to be to a company that will give me a significant benefit in terms of some combo of compensation, work, culture, and prestige. If I'm only going to get a 10%-20% raise but end up with a bad team or manager, I don't feel it's worth it.

...hence, I need to grind more leetcode, because all of the companies I feel worth jumping to are heavily gatekeeped by leetcode interviews.
They were probably attempting to weasel their way out of it by raising extra cash (which they did recently) and stuff like that. However at some point their lawyers probably told them they will go to jail unless they come clean now so they did. What I don't understand is why nobody has been put in pretrial custody up to now.
It must be uncomfortable being a google engineer on these products.

Having your work cancelled and thrown away is one of the most disheartening things as a developer.

It has to be back of mind for them when they are building. When it gets released they get to come see all the comments better on how long until Google kills it, and the people who won’t try it because of that risk.
You're certainly not using SCOTUS arguments for Enlightenment ideals. I sure hope not.

My argument was mean in the generic and at an abstract level. I understand that for some people this is not compelling. Conversely, if were to dive down into specifics, we would need a somewhat lengthy conversation about where the guardrails were and where the (hopefully unmovable) goalposts were.

Of course at some level of analysis free speech can cause harm, otherwise there would be no point in defending it. My admittedly-oversimplified point, which I have yet to see refuted, is that in the main, we really suck at predicting the difference between harm and progress. Many times it takes decades or centuries to sort it out. From there we can end up with the law being an ass[1] or some finer definition of legitimate public policy choices. But unless we can all admit that we suck at determining who should speak or not, we really don't have a basis to continue the conversation, legally or philosophically.[2]

It's fine to say "Let's start here, and given the current tech, governmental structures, and laws we live under, where do we go?" It's also fine to say "What is the purpose of letting people say things that can hurt others, anyway?" Pick one. I chose the second one. If you'd like to talk about the first one, that's a completely different conversation. However if you don't grok the conversation on root principles, it's unlikely any sort of more complex or nuanced conversation is going to lead you anywhere useful. That has to be where we all start.

Also, insisting man is a rational animal is yet another can of worms which I didn't open up. I don't think man is a rational animal at all, and that doesn't change my opinion or where I think the conversation has to begin.

[1] https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/the-law-is-an-ass.html

[2] When I say that we suck at determining who should speak or not, I mean in a moral, ethical, and public policy sense. I do not mean in a legal sense. Obviously there's a ton of case law around most all of our amendments. I'm surveying a landscape, not preparing a legal brief.
It is because you as a human are supervising and improving their algorithm.

Another case of free products where you are the product.
Side Note for anyone joining later: I/someone should make a timer for post visibility, contest to see which gets buried faster by HN.

Do some heuristics, we might even calculate a bias score.
A good adblocker and using this tool on all of your devices:
https://optout.networkadvertising.org/?c=1

Its difficult to actually opt out in full, but we will definitely get to that point in the future. Also if you use niche hardware/software (like netscape on an old linux distro) you're data will just get cleansed out. Nobody does fingerprinting unless you're a spy or in charge of purchasing for a hospital or something, so I wouldn't worry about that.
> Documentation doesn't change in real time.

If you are a javascript developer chasing the bleeding edge of web dev, it's pretty close to real time!
> I’m sure you view would be different if someone started tweeting hateful things towards you that incited others to take potential harmful actions, no?

Yea like BLM(the organization) saying we need to dismantle the nuclear family?

I've had tons of experience with people in college (friends no less) that will casually talk like this: joke about guillotines, glorify Robespierre, etc.
What does "attack" in this context supposed to mean?
> Xbox Games Store remains at 30%

I believe it is a lot more complicated than that. Non-game Apps on the Xbox see the same splits as on Windows (the 85/15 and 95/5 based on "marketing"). The 70/30 is offered to game developers that want to do only the bare minimum Xbox integration possible to get on the platform, almost every other scale and publisher agreement is presumably covered under NDA of one sort or another. Some rumors are that the sliding scale is today competitive to Steam's (and better than Sony's, maybe? Sony's seems even more NDA encumbered), with a lot of complicated other factors such as Xbox Play Anywhere titles and allowing Xbox Game Pass rotations are rumored to get substantial cut discounts based on the shifting whims of Microsoft's marketing teams.
This sort of thing exists!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Synchrotron_Light_Sou...
Brace yourself; it’s the yearly wave of Apple-negging just before every WWDC.
> What person from an underrepresented group wants to be chosen just because of their group status? Isn't that highly patronizing for someone who likely had worked hard to get to where they got?

Your question rests on the assumption that that's actually how they feel about it.

If they are from an underrepresented group, then by definition there is some factor that works against them. (Or multiple factors.)

If you appropriately counterbalance that factor with another factor that works in their favor, then it shouldn't make them feel bad about themselves. Competing on a level playing field doesn't reflect negatively on someone. It doesn't undermine their confidence or cast doubt on their achievements.

Of course, this assumes the playing field is actually level. In theory it's possible to get this wrong. (You could apply either too little or too much correction. It's ultimately a quantitative question.) But my point is, to argue that someone would feel bad, you need to do more than say that correction has been applied; you also need to show that it is the wrong amount of correction.

> But if the top 90 of the 100 medical students are chosen and then 10 are chosen because of non-relevant factors (race, gender, etc)... doesn't it become rational (and maybe morally acceptable) to try and avoid choosing those lesser-qualified 10 for your life-or-death surgery?

What if the 90 were chosen in a process that is also not really entirely about their qualifications? Isn't this also a problem? Why focus only on the problems in choosing the 10?

Particularly as, when you get surgery, you're way more likely to get surgeon who is one of the 90. If this is the real concern, Amdahl's Law tells you to look first at the 90.
I was talking about when it comes to speech and ideas. Not crimes. Don't be disingenous. Ideas that crossover to discrimination or fraud are actions that are criminal and we have laws against this. People who discriminate against others can be charged or sued, which is perfectly okay. But if someone quotes someone who asks the question "why do people not talk about black-on-black crime?" and then their entire livelihood is at risk just for asking a question, that is fascism and censorship of ideas. This is what Matt Tabbiti talks about in his article https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-news-media-is-destroying-i....

The problem is that "banning every thought or idea that hurts people" it has crossed over to just simple thoughts and discussions, which is wrong.

People need to be tougher. If you're "hurt" by an idea, then you are fragile. That's the whole point about talking, discussing, arguing and ultimately agreeing or disagreeing.
Please note the :)

It was cheeky. Takin' the piss. Etc.
Thank you. I've seen this article on HN a couple times this morning and each time I briefly think "A flying grand piano, that sounds awesome!".
These kind of hyperbolic statements don't do much to educate, they're over sensationalized.

> These quickly get in trouble and either die by bears, by drowning, by freezing or they are rescued by park rangers or other rescue personnel–but often, not before risking their lives and/or spending a lot of government money on helicopters and overtime

Since 1992, only two people have died trying to reach the bus, they both drowned in the Tek (which was hard for me to cross, at 6 foot 2 and 185 lbs). One in 2010, and one last year.

As for the number of rescues:

"The state carried out 15 bus-related search and rescue operations between 2009 and 2017, authorities say" [1]

[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53106441

For what it's worth, I lived in the Yukon for 4 years. I've been bison hunting at -45C, I've spent months hunting, hiking and fishing all over the Yukon and a ton of time in Alaska too. I know what it takes.
I "participated" in a less nefarious strategy. In 2010, when the collection of short stories "Machine of Death" was about to be released, the editor Ryan North asked us not to pre-order. Instead, he suggested that we all wait and purchase the book on the same day from Amazon.

The strategy worked -- the book was #1 in its category that day, which certainly led to increased sales over time. Probably didn't hurt that it's a superb book.

(Ryan North is also the author of the popular webcomic "Dinosaur Comic".)
I don't know the current answer, but the vast majority of companies just turned off all operations to avoid an GDPR mess.

I don't know how it was turned off though. Likely ip.
I haven't read this paper, but...

What separates a good paper from a blog post is the attention it devotes to second and third order consequences, its discussion and dismissal of likely counter-arguments, and the author's framing of the new idea in the context of existing literature. This is true for social science papers and law-review articles as much as it is true for machine learning and engineering papers.

These are the hallmarks of careful analysis that are generally lacking in hot-take blog posts.
SeventyTwo – Articles and comments delete after 72 hours
> Maybe it's about what forms of success one is exposed to and what one sees is popular among one's peers?

Fashion is fashion. For some it's a rebellion, a coming of age story, for others it's a way to blend in with the peers, be one of the cool guys.

On a tangent: many (most?) investors are playing the same game, only by proxy. This is why the VC industry is losing money as a whole - they aren't there for the money.
If they make a bigger super collider they should call it the super duper collider.
I was going to say something similar to you, but then I read https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/080515/econo... and found that consoles are loss leaders. With the plan of making it up in subscriptions, licensing, and games produced by the manufacturer.

In other words it is a "sell the razors at a loss and make it up on razor blades" strategy.
> It's just hard to say that collective action can be used for evil as well as good so it should be restricted.

We're not talking about "collective action" in general, we're talking about mobbing specifically. Mobbing (like other forms of vigilantism) is never good. Enforcement is a different matter--I think there are couple of ways to approach it that would have a huge difference and wouldn't be authoritarian at all:

1. Make it harder for employers to terminate employees on the basis of mob action. In other threads, others have talked about various "cooldown policies"--employers aren't allowed to fire an employee on the spot for ideological offenses, but must wait 90 days to see if it's still a problem. Another candidate solution would be making it employers liable in some way for terminating an employee in response to a mob or perhaps for ideological offenses altogether (at least not those that create a hostile workplace environment for some sensible definition of the term).

2. I would also look into ways to regulate social media. It's clear at this point that social media is detrimental to our society in many ways ranging from addiction to toxicity to inciting mob violence. Social media companies are allowed to curate sensational and "fake news" content at their convenience, but they claim to be "dumb pipes" when held to account. Make them choose whether they are curators or dumb pipes and if they choose to be curators, hold them accountable when they curate content that threatens or incites violence, etc.

I'm sure there are details to work out with both of those proposals--I'm not going to completely solve the problem in an HN post, but I'm very confident that both of these proposals could be fleshed out into effective policies which together could marginalize the problem. There is a third option which is to simply enforce the laws we already have--when individuals threaten or incite violence on social media, we should prosecute them regularly (these cases are rarely prosecuted today). I don't think this option is as effective (it wouldn't prevent people from demanding a person be terminated) and it's certainly more costly.
Top Areas Small Businesses Need to Automate
"roughly the same size as Bendigo or Ballarat, which don't have roads like this in residential areas."

Eh, I don't know. Munroe in Ballarat is a residential road but doesn't have sidewalks or street parking either. I mean, the gutter is nicer, but that might be down to a soil/landscape difference. Pine St might have the better drainage because it's been built up so high from the ground.

https://www.google.com/maps/@-37.5573014,143.8142714,3a,75y,...
That's very idealist in nature but you still have to go to where your users are if you expect to have any users. There are lots of iPhone users in the world.
Ask HN: How do you keep track and organize your life?
I am doing a little research into a project I am thinking of building and would like to get some more ideas to validate it.

I want to build a web app that helps you keep track of your life. This means things like random thoughts and notes, birthdays, friendships, films and music you discover, and a whole lot more that needs fleshing out.

So the questions I have are more open ended to see what people use and what still needs solving.

1) How do you keep track of your life?

2) How do you get reminded on important life events and thoughts you once had so you do not forget them?

3) What apps do you use?

4) What things do you find hard to keep track of?

5) How do you write down your thoughts?

6) Any other things?

So if anyone feels like contributing, feel free to submit comments here :)

thanks!
Not to mention, anyone with half a brain that they are willing to use should already know that it’s absurd to think that 2 people with a different skin pigment have an advantage over 2 people with the same skin pigment. The willful delusion and mental gymnastics to justify reverse racism are a wonder to behold.
>so why would the tourist fare any better?

The sad part is even a little preparation and caution would save most of them. That area isn't particularly dangerous or impossible to escape. McCandless just didn't prepare much at all, he could have potentially gotten out / help, had he bothered to know about his surroundings / or prepared.

The scale of dangers and etc can be hard for folks to understand who aren't ready... but that area / situation was hardly notably dangerous.
Why not torrentfs? What are the needs for obfuscation or association with btrfs ('better try remaking fs'? )
Agreed. I imagine a lot of the blindsided users would be wary of using the Microsoft Store thereafter.
Because people who promote these policies have their own vested interest. The formula is always the same:

1. You pick a minority that suffers from something, compared to the majority. The minorities usually feel intimidated by the majority, and the viral/network effects within them are much stronger. Once you get them to back you, this directly translates to political capital.

2. You find a way to offer help to them, that is seen as beneficial at the first glance, but in the long run will not solve the problem. This entrenches them, making them dependent on your help.

3. You find a party that will pay for your policy. It needs to be a relatively large group with much weaker network effects. They also need to be wealthier than the minority, so you will be seen as a nuisance, rather than a real threat.

4. You use the "*ist" label to quickly shut up people criticizing your policy and pointing out its long-term inefficiency. Because most of the critics won't have a vested interest, they won't fight you till their political death. Instead, they will quickly retreat in fear of social media outrage against them.

Rinse and repeat. The minority continues to suffer, the silent majority is scared to criticize anything, the society becomes more and more polarized and divided.
Looks like they lost the long-tail opportunity to sell their "One Weird Trick That Movie Critics Hate and Will Make You Rich"
I think I get it. Everyone knows his name, but no one knows the names of people who lived and died trying to rescue people like him.