skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I wish people would take the time to read 1st Amendment case law.

I think people would be shocked, even when the court get it wrong, the justices and opinions explore the subject in a depth that laymen will go their entire lives never exploring or understanding. Plus the bonus of it being maybe one of the more interesting areas of law factually.

Some of the major topics I suggest looking at/googling:

-1st amendment restricts the government from infringing speech Not private parties (I.e. you say something about my wife/kids I can shut your mouth, maybe I will face criminal/civil penalties for damaging your face, but not for chilling your speech)

-the marketplace of ideas (perhaps my favorite concept in free speech)

-government can restrict Speech based on time/location (i.e. require permits for using public spaces or limiting your access to public space such as closing a park at night and arresting you for trespassing preventing you from distributing your speech when/where you want)

-“Fuck the draft” (just lol) vs burning draft cards

-obscene speech (porn - Imagine the justices Getting together with their popcorn and watching porn together...they still can’t define it, “but they know it when they see it”)...this extends to child porn too

I’ll leave it there, have fun!
I think they're fine products but they just don't work for me. I need full control over my stuff and apple won't give it to me. Of course, given that I don't like Apple, some of the stuff they do like iMessage and the hurdles to make apps for ios annoys me
You can say whatever you want: you should also expect to take heat from non-like minded people. At some point the free speech concept transitioned to "I should be able to say whatever I want with no consequences". The First Amendment is very specific:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Says nothing about any one else's responses to your words.
> I'm talking about ships used for relay. Ships used for just internet over the water won't be possible if there are no gateways (other ships with relays) over the water.

I figured that out, but that's not really what the conversation was about. If you add those gateways then you don't have the range problems, and this was a conversation about range problems.

> Those terminals do have to be expensive, just like the gateway ones, because the antenna performance is much higher than the user terminal's, and the radome is very large (see other pictures from reddit on here).

The video you linked talks about using normal user terminals as relays. A couple of those won't be full bandwidth, but your mid-ocean service wouldn't need to be full bandwidth.

If you're actually making a dedicated relay ship you'd probably want a full radome link, but only if it's cheaper than the ship you're putting it on. The limiting factor is the cost of the ships.

> The goal of the simulation was also to show beam size.

I strongly disagree. Beam size is modeled in a very simple way, because it's not the goal of the simulation. The goal is to show how links work in different ways, using normal-scope full-bandwidth service beams.

I strongly doubt that an almost-idle sat is unable to aim even a few degrees wider if they wanted to.

But the person making that sim would have no way to model that, and it's not really worth it to get an extra fraction of a millisecond. Better to make the simulation based on confirmed capability.

But for ships at sea it's not a fraction of a millisecond, it's the difference between connectivity and no connectivity. If ships at sea were starlink's primary customers then I bet they could and would get better range even with zero hardware changes.
So... we're moving the goal posts? Because OP said he didn't believe that double digit people had been assassinated by Russia, so I provided his proof. I haven't seen anyone claim "Russia assassinates EVERYONE that opposes it" besides you.
Every other vendor (and OS) takes my time instead of my money. If I'm not forcing myself to be aware of it I can be fooled into thinking some of this time is work, but it's not—it's pure wasted time. Apple products do sometimes, too, but nowhere near as much. I wish anyone else would get good at this whole "making consumer and 'pro' devices that don't suck" game.

Or if Apple'd take the Mac line back to being somewhat overpriced rather than wildly overpriced, that'd be nice too. They swing back and forth, it seems, and right now the premium is way on the high end, especially with their base specs continuing to lag (a $1300 "pro" laptop should have a base of 16GB of memory, not 8, for instance).
>Free speech is speech which is (at least largely) free of consequence.

Only useless speech comes with no consequences. It's pretty much a tautology. I don't see how your definition of "free speech" is useful. In what world would it ever exist?
Perhaps some people against free speech don't even claim that the people they want to silence are wrong. Is that better?

> are you constructing a strawman argument portraying the "anti free-speech" side as dumb and the "pro free-speech" side as reasonable?

Certainly all the anti free speech arguments I've encountered are either dumb or evil. But maybe that's on me; let's say there is a non-dumb, non-evil argument against free speech. Why don't you share it with us all?
Correction, cherry picked pieces from OpenJDK, occasionally even with semantic differences like the famous String.split().
Thanks, I understand the point you're making about childishness not being specific to Diversity and Inclusion initiatives. Two things make me hesitate regarding whether that actually changes my critique:

1. As I say, other people I've spoken to (specifically, some women) share my dismay at the childishness of Diversity and Inclusion initiatives. So that suggests that they also had higher expectations. If you are right, then all of us had poorly calibrated expectations. That starts to seem less plausible; more plausible is that the Diversity and Inclusion sessions were unexpectedly childish even taking into account the background low expectation for any "sessions" / "initiatives".

2. I can think of no reason why Mozilla's documentation for a programming language would share the characteristics of a lame corporate "session" on something non-technical: I think that the people at Mozilla are intelligent and technical-minded, and to some extent work at Mozilla to get away from those depressing and embarrassing aspects of the corporate world. However, it is, as I understand it, an aim of Mozilla to make their technical documentation more approachable to sectors of society that have traditionally been poorly served by the tech community. Therefore one can think of reasons why Mozilla's documentation might share characteristics with the "Diversity and Inclusion movement".

I know I'm sniping at worthy causes, and being slightly insulting about people who have worked hard to document a fantastic programming language, and even I don't think it really comes across pleasantly. The reason I am doing it is because I, along with many others I think, am concerned about the way the political liberal/left (with which I identify) is damaging itself by uncritical adoption of modern dogma of mostly young "progressives"./ And there, in admitting that, I guess I've violated another site guideline.
> If you say something people don't like, they may want nothing to do with you. They may want nothing to do with people associated with you. Those people may be your employer. Your employer may not agree with the stuff you say AND you're harming them. Thus, your relationship is terminated.

If it stopped at people they were actually associated with, then you may have a point. That's not the reality of the situation though, because people will stir up outrage mobs who have no association with you, your employer, your school, etc., and harass them until you are punished for what you said.
Love this idea and I can totally see my parents using something like this! What's been the most interesting insight you guys have learned so far while building Mighty Health?
See the book recommended by @kasbah above - one of the best parts of that book is that this ambiguity is addressed front and center, and the reference is broken up by domain...it’s the best attempt I’ve seen and works very well.
The existence of irrational numbers was dangerous.

The Earth being on an orbit was dangerous.

Non-royalty having legal rights was dangerous.

The prole having legal rights was dangerous.

The idea of electing any public officials was dangerous.

Women having the right to vote was dangerous.

Not invading foreign soil to extract their natural resources was dangerous.

All of these ideas were dangerous and had severe consequences at the time, some challenged scientific norms, some social norms and some effectively undermined the state. You don't get to look back at those ideas with your 2020 hindsight vision and declare they were harmless now because they were radical, revolutionary and terrifyingly dangerous ideas. Why else would the inquisition kill so many people?
The issue is app stores. Most app developers/companies won't deploy to any stores other than Google's and Apple's, so when it comes to choosing a device that can run most apps its IPhone or Android.

A solution here is to introduce a standard mobile app format, with standard APIs to interact with the OS. Then app developers write one app that can run on any supported device. But good luck getting the duopoly to agree to that.
The comment you're replying to is making the same point.
They choose to go "all in" because it is literally the only option to get an app on the devices of ~58% of smartphone owners in the United States. They don't have a choice, they literally have to accept it in this market. Even in other markets where they don't control the majority, it's still a massive portion of the market.

It's hard to imagine how the precedent established by not forcing change here would be desired by anyone. We're not far from a world where basically all of the software you can consume, how you can consume it, and even the price of it, is effectively determined (or at least heavily influenced) by one of 3 companies. We're not talking about just the services those companies offer, we're talking about all of the software services that any company wants to offer.

The cost of building a new operating system in the modern age is incredibly prohibitive, such that we're unlikely to see any meaningful competition in the form of alternatives here. Even if such a project were to happen, they'd have to overcome the incredible inertia secured from walled garden that the major players have built for their own ecosystems.
Fast adhoc aggregations over firestore isn't a reasonable possibility.

A graphql api or not doesn't really matter since that's just an abstraction for querying a service or database.

I really mean something like an open source Amplitude or Keen where you can dump events into it and then aggregate/group them in any way you like on demand.
Pay more attention to local politics. Traffic is VERY political.
I haven't checked, but I wonder what their policy is on "inline fuel/oil filters" and "solvent traps".
Apple, Google, Amazon, Facebook, MS in the 90s? Which one isn't doing things people consider to be absolutely awful in some way or another.So given that, I stop buying iPhones, and do what buy an android phone? I have not really improved the moral calculus of the world. What we should do is insist on moral behavior from companies across the board, equally and fairly applied to all organizations big and small. If someone is doing something wrong, it's wrong and it's ok to call it out.
Depends on what your after really. In my case subscribing to a nation-wide newspaper feels like a good solution. Or is it an RSS feed specifically that you want?
A website owner's right to choose what to publish is a more important application of the first amendment than anyone else's right to force you to publish their speech.

If you disagree, I command you to post this post on your twitter. If you don't, you're censoring me.
Private Equity Investing Now Allowed in 401(k) Retirement Funds
We are stakeholders in our role as citizens of democratic governments.
AP also did this, I use their app but wish I could pay to get rid of the ads.
I’m a huge proponent for paid news, but that’s a bit of a strawman argument. Reuters hasn’t made their rss paid, or removed all of their free news content.

It is sad that we’re losing a uniquely powerful mechanism for consuming news because we can’t find a business model that supports it. People
Who consumed RSS news can’t just pay and get an equivalent experience. RSS allows filtering and combining news sources in ways that make them much more valuable, and can’t be reproduced just by paying for a single subscription to a publisher.
My job is to fix other people's technology / computer problems. When I'm not working I want to use a smartphone that does what I need, behaves as expected every time, and respects my privacy concerns. I want to spend as little time as possible configuring, fixing, or troubleshooting my phone.

The iPhone is the closest thing to what I want. It's not 100% but it's better than any other smartphone I've come across at that price point ($400 for iPhone SE).
What do you mean?

I don't use Apple or Google products and I use technology every day.
Interesting and totally tone-deaf timing for this article, given the current climate of the world ("Post a black square on your social media or you are committing violence with your silence.")
This seems like a waste of money on countering satellites that already have extensive optical shielding.
Can't use Apple, can't use Google ... can't have a cell phone. Who needs that?
How quickly people forget history.
What death of RSS? There are literally zero blogs I want to follow that don't support it.
99% of times it's just an error on their end and they eventually come back.

Why: I've created popurls fame back in the days (now hvper.com) and I can tell you that this would be the first prominent case that a major outlet would eventually give up on offering a feed. RSS is alive and kicking and its death is just something the tech community loves to agonize over and over again.
Wouldn’t it be possible to create a third-party site scraper that could generate custom RSS feeds independently of the company?

About the only barrier would be paywalls, IMO.
If you make something like say, oh an email client, excluding the 1.5 BILLION people on the iOS platform is not just a handicap, it makes your entire business non-viable. So now Apple is the gatekeeper of new businesses and services. Fortune 500's and small one man shops alike have been terrified to speak up against Apple, because Apple has the ability to deliver a death-sentence by kicking you out of their store on a whim or simply because an app reviewer takes a personal interest in you.

I think what the Basecamp folks want is entirely reasonable, and Apple's behavior is entirely anti-competitive: Basecamp doesn't care to be in the app store, nor do they want to benefit from the app store discovery and other services for free. What they want is the OPTION to have a link on their web page, that when clicked, prompts the user to install the notarized/signed/whatever application. Basically you'd just have the "double click the power button twice to install" card pop-up immediately, bypassing the entire store. Do that, and Apple can charge whatever they want in the store. Suggestions that this somehow subverts the quality of the platform or the experience is entirely bullshit, Basecamp pays their developer fees and notarizes their apps on Mac, there's zero reason this wouldn't work on iOS except Apple's greed and anti-competitive behavior, and let's not forget that sweet, sweet 30% cut of every single business and service under the sun.
> it's interesting to me that the most vociferous deniers of free speech throughout history have made some version of the case "But they're wrong!" (You can add stupid, evil, whatnot

The most vociferous deniers of free speech throughout history are totalitarians or authoritarians who regard the truth or falsehood of the speech they're suppressing as immaterial, and won't bother to make a case unless they absolutely have to. It's a question of whether the speech is threatening or costly for those in power.

> The point is that whatever they're saying, it should not be said because it is not correct

In the United States you can find very recent examples of the press being excoriated by portions of the public and even threatened with imprisonment by the government for publishing things that were true. Think of the coverage of the Iraq war and some big examples should leap to mind.
adds in RSS offer much less tracking, spying, etc... of course they are still ads, but that's not the same animal at all.
The simple truth is that most people like "free speech" as long as they agree with it.
I'm a little lost on what you mean.

In my example with fear someone's ideals (freedom of speech) go out the window when they're fearful... I think that's probably a bad thing.

In your case are you saying you changed your mind about something else in the face of fear too? Is that a bad thing?
If we are going to have rules like this, then we need to sort out what legally counts as a minority.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/lynnwood-man-tried...

https://www.vox.com/2014/12/22/7431391/guess-where-white-ame...
I like this idea! As it would take quite a while to melt its way down, you'd basically have to sink the entire rover or a submodule down with the radioactive heat source (not melting a hole then exploring it). If it's a one-way, single-purpose trip then it's not clear to me that the ice would necessarily pose any sort of issue with non-line-of-sight (aka radio) communications.

Water in and of itself isn't a great communications barrier, but the conductivity of sea/salt water causes it to act like a Faraday cage and kills/significantly dampens any radio waves attempting to pass through it.

Under the assumption that Europa's oceans are in fact salty, the frozen sea ice isn't actually all that salty. Ice in general isn't a good conductor as it's actually almost entirely the pure water that freezes leaving the salt behind (I'm not clear on whether it would precipitate but remain suspended between the the H2O molecules or if - given the lower density of Ice I - the water would freeze from the top down leaving the liquid seawater beneath it ever so slightly saltier while forming a layer of pure frozen ice on the top).

In all cases, keeping a base station while sinking a second module with the radioactive heat source then proxying all communication via the base station would be possible even if the ice did form some form of a Faraday cage that severely limited communication from beneath.
I'm advocating for not using a unilateral, unproven accusation of systematic discrimination, based purely on inequality of outcome, as justification for racial and gendered discrimination.

Why stop at white men? Should we go after Jews next? Because we are drastically overrepresented in almost every lucrative sector.

What about prison? The same logic that people like OP use to justify their discrimination would suggest that prisons discriminate against men, seeing as the ratio is something like 9:1 male:female. But it is socially acceptable to put the blame on male behavior in this case...is it not rational to partly do the same for other examples of inequity?

When we deliberately turn down candidates because of gender or ethnicity, we by definition choose winners based on traits other than merit - which means less optimal function and allocation of resources across any society that allows this kind of narcissistic, closed minded thinking.
If Twitter has taught us anything, it's that everyone should not have an equal voice and an equal platform. A person or company's reach or audience should be a function of 1) what they're talking about and 2) what credibility they have re: 1.

I'm all for anyone being allowed to say anything but I'm completely against anyone being allowed to amplify anything.

Also, the Republicans would do well to introduce legislation expanding data portability and making it much harder for these completely unethical platforms to keep your data locked into their walled gardens. Friends names, birthdays and emails as a csv is basically impossible to export from FB for example.
Totally agree, in many academic settings this is already a thing (and I say it as a social democrat!).
Interesting that their FeedBurner CNAME[0] is still set.

[0] http://feeds.reuters.com/
I don't think intellectual humility tells the whole story.

I have a few opinions where my primary reason for supporting tolerance of the opposing viewpoint has nothing to do with "maybe I'm wrong." (I mean, sure, maybe I am, but that's not why I support my opponent's right to free speech.)

Tolerance always means that you put up with something you think is wrong because there is something greater at stake: harmoniousness, libertarianism, etc.

I would wager (though maybe I'm wrong) that people of higher intelligence have the ability to practice higher level-k thinking: "If I support the government having the power to suppress X, with which I disagree, then at some later time the government might use that same power to suppress Y, with which I agree, and that would be worse than tolerating X." Being able to anticipate potential consequences, especially those that aren't immediate or require a few hops to get to, does seem like a skill that is associated with general cognitive ability.

I see this a lot in the way that people respond to Supreme Court rulings. The court interprets the law in a certain way, and it leads to a ruling that supports a favored ideological outcome, and so people cheer the decision, not necessarily taking into account that the reasoning the court used to arrive at their decision might be applied to later cases where it does not lead to the ideological outcome they want.
My first thought was "the clothing brand is doing coaching"? https://hypebeast.com/tags/mighty-healthy
> The solution is obvious. Sabotage your own business.

Do you mean, by having it depend on the random whims of an Apple account manager?

Either not making apps for iOS and making them are forms "sabotaging" your business; the former in the short term, and the latter in a longer term (for sure) and at a randomly chosen term out of your control (with some probability). It is a rational decision to "sabotage" it towards the form of sabotage that is less out of your control.
"Now let’s say they decide to offer a new service that allows content providers to reach Yo’s subscribers–like a newsletter or something."

I stopped reading after this and came here to say that we all know Hey would NEVER do that. This is exactly the kind of shit they fight against.

So it's not just hypocrisy from their side, they're fighting for an idea.

Of course the PR also can't hurt, but it's not like they planned it.
Doesn't this website use firebase?
Penn and Teller did find themselves on the wrong side of climate change during that series, but I would still defend their right to produce it.
Controlling the terminal from Common Lisp (part 2)