skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
One question for the many people that believe Facebook should be a completely unmoderated communication channel is... Why are you active on Hackernews? Hackernews has a variety of community and moderator driven censorship tools, and does not encourage free speech in this manner. Would you call for a completely unmoderated Hackernews, maybe with local down votes and upvotes? Eventually the system could serve as a per user spam and filtering system, but arguably that's still censorship because an individually trained AI is still hiding and removing content. Or.. alternatively is Hackernews ok because if you have showdead on you can generally see the full set of content on HN?
> running you off the road is the lesser evil.

I think we're in agreement here: the use of violence must be proportional to the actual threat, so running you off the road is justified here. If we're not agreeing, then please explain what I'm missing.
Facebook should be trusted to draw the line on Facebook.

Other institutions should be trusted to draw lines where they have responsibility.

Including courts, which have been handling questions like this since we had a first amendment, and affirming that exceptions exist including incitement to violence.
"Secretive" is just generic flamebait. We'll take it out.
There are many things wrong with this article. The 16-year old daughter opining about what is wrong with VC is perhaps the most telling though.

None of the article is based on any deep understanding of the issues. It is generalizations about people (alarmingly, with the implication of race and gender) and an industry that the author doesn't seem to know (if you are using The Code as your source, stop...think about what you are doing).

As an example, people don't understand that SV benefiting from government research money is not the same thing as proving that research money was the cause. In fact, lots of other countries did this, and no-one else got anywhere. The UK, in particular, was entirely convinced by the notion that the govt could save the economy in the 1960s...nothing worked, and this attitude triggered one of the most severe crisis in British economic history (much worse than the Great Depression). The rest of the article continues in the same way: pointing to specific examples but failing to see that they don't generalize (the stuff comparing Nordic/South America/US is actually shocking to read as someone who studied economic history, willfully false).

I think the world is going to see more of this. People in tech are always wrong. Their identity is wrong. They aren't "like us". But saying that they fail to innovate is...insane. I am not a fan of tech people or SV at all...it is a hotbed of charlatanism...but that is the point of capitalism, that is why we don't like in wood houses anymore. No-one knows what is going to work ahead of time. The system must be decentralized, and we must not have people like the author trying to say that certain innovations are more valuable than others.

(Btw, one of the big issues that tech has is that lots of young people actually don't understand the real world isn't like the Lorax. There isn't this group of people who are automatically evil, and are causing all the bad things. Life is ambiguous, and people who often end up doing bad things have intentions...life isn't a movie).
Nixpkgs / NixOS does.
It would be cool have local "intranets", it sounds insane but hang on for a sec - social media can only exist in these small intranets, say max 1000 people. Everyone should be required to put their name and face to their profiles before saying anything. Sounds exactly like China though :( This is the problem and it's a pretty tough one democracies around the world will need to face.
You seem to miss something important: law enforcement does not require violence.

When a govt official threatens violence for inherently nonviolent acts (even if they're illegal), that is a threat of violence that has nothing to do with law enforcement. It is assuming a crime and that the crime requires violence to be stopped.

In fact, the core concept of the protests in the US right now is that violence is not legal solvely because law enforcers commit it in the pursuit of law enforcement.
Not at all. The government could fine you for having a gun. Don't pay the fine? Maybe it's the same as an unpaid parking ticket. Or they could ask you to hand it in if you have a license. Same thing occurs.

Or they could simply add a charge to your conviction if you shoot someone, because guns would be illegal.

Just because they're illegal doesn't suddenly mean they'll be taken by force. That is such a huge mental jump.
The cynic in me thinks this could be a great way to cut costs in preparation of the Greater Depression while hiding behind a worthy PR cause.
One of my exes believes that the tech community suppresses all left-wing discourse.

The President of America believes that the tech community suppresses him personally.

I mean, sure, you could say “both are in their own ridiculous echo chambers”, but the walls of both those echo chambers were built by the tech industry.
One data point in favor of your theory is that local elections and laws - sometimes down to the city level - are now national news stories. It never used to be like this, and now we’re in a situation where resentment builds for people you’ve never met, live 1000 miles away, that you’d have no idea even existed before all this. Some my say this is a good thing, but I flatly disagree.
Static linking has been such a nuisance for the libSDL folks that they implemented dynamic loading of itself [0], controlled via an environment variable, as an escape hatch from executables w/libSDL linked statically.

It's understandable that games, especially proprietary ones, distribute statically-linked binaries ensuring any third-party dependencies will be present and be a compatible version. But the value of that decision tends to diminish with time, as those external dependencies are frequently the pieces interfacing with the system/outside world, which keeps changing, leaving such dependencies behind to atrophy at best or become vulnerable/incompatible/broken at worst.

I don't personally think it makes sense to approach this so dogmatically. Static linking makes sense in the right circumstances, so does dynamic linking. For general-purpose operating systems, it seems obvious to me that you'd want most higher-order userspace programs dynamically linked. I want my openssl updates to touch a single library and affect all installed ssl-using programs, for example.

Having said that, I do wish the average linux distro still statically linked everything in /bin and /sbin. It was nice to still be able to administrate the system even when the dynamic libraries were hosed. At some point it was changed to just a single static binary; sln for static ln IIRC, assuming you'd be able to fix your dynamic libraries with some symlinks if they were broken, if you happened to have a shell running and could navigate using just builtins. It was already an impossible situation, but even that seems to be gone nowadays.

It's a more nuanced issue, taking an "everything dynamically linked!" or "everything statically linked!" approach strikes me as just another form of ignorant extremism.

[0] http://hg.libsdl.org/SDL/file/2fabbbee604c/src/dynapi/SDL_dy...
You're right, fair enough.
FYI SF has legislation in place that allows tenants in multi-units to choose any ISP provider (1). This was part of a broader effort to deploy internet as a utility that I was fortunate to have been a part of (2). Unfortunately the Mayor passed away and we lost political sponsorship (and of course the constant and expected lobbying from incumbents didn't help)(3)

(1) https://medium.com/@MarkFarrellSF/supervisor-farrell-to-intr...

(2) https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/07/12/america...

(3) https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190401/08232241919/telec...
> I’m guessing far more people are getting tested than previously, hence the larger numbers.

Nationally that may be a contributing factor, but in hotspot states, the % of tests which are positive has actually gone up significantly: https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/testing/individual-states and select Florida or Arizona
I’ve made it clear I think it’s a bad slogan, why are you insisting on the contrary?
Take your content free one liners back to reddit please. If you have an actual argument, present it.
Haha. Remember when we all thought that the internet was going to spread democracy, open ideas, and freedom? Good times, good times.
Nope; CA is one of the highest-growing states.

The Bay Area was flat, but it just spiked yesterday and reopening is now paused.
> Not at all. The government could fine you for having a gun.

What do you think happens when you don't pay that fine?
Beto said the government would “take” peoples’ guns. That word “take” (as opposed to all the other words he could have used, such as “buy back”) clearly was meant to emphasize the threat of government force. (Watch the video and substitute “buy back” for “take” and see if the tone still works.) The assertion relies, for its rhetoric effect, on the threat of government violence against lawbreakers.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/26/unilever-pauses-facebook-and...

This article has some more details about some large companies spending habits on FB ads, including this quote:

> The consumer products giant has spent more than $11.8 million in the U.S. this year on Facebook, according to marketing analytics firm Pathmatics.
This critique, which annoyingly has little to do with the headline, is a regurgitation of many of the surface level critiques that have been made of VCs for years. Nothing novel about it.

It also wonders off to random topics, like Elon’s new baby’s name. I have a lot of respect for Elon, but a) I don’t care what his baby’s name is and b) what in the world does that have to do with the article’s main topic??

I usually enjoy articles from this publication and was looking forward to reading it but was sorely disappointed by the end.

Reader beware.
Yes, I find it very convenient for legislators to represent my interests for me by professing their platform to be whatever is electorally expedient at the moment while gerrymandering districts and rigging elections in a couple key counties then legislating whatever gets them paid the most with no regard for their professed platform or my interests whatsoever.

It's great that I don't even have to be aware of how my rights are being gradually eroded and sold off to the highest bidder. It allows me to fully abdicate responsibility for the atrocities and enjoy my carefree lifestyle of mindless consumerism. Fuck me harder, daddy!
Military careers are very short, sans being an officer

Police careers tend to be life-long.
The asymmetry between download and upload speeds on cable connections is really awful in recent years. I see advertised download speeds like 300 Mbps and 1 Gbps available in many places, but the upload speeds seem to never exceed 30 Mbps around here (which is just 3% of the download speed at 1 Gbps!). Having something like 250/250 Mbps symmetric available would be overall more preferable than 1000/30 in all but the most extreme download situations, in my opinion.

I suppose maybe the cable networks are more optimized for average user behaviour (far more download than upload), but maybe there's also a fundamental limitation with the cable infrastructure that prevents faster uploads, perhaps to do with cable's legacy delivering television broadcasts? Whereas with fibre, almost everything I've seen available comes with symmetric speeds by default.
Thanks, nice to hear.

Wow, didn't know about this feature in firefox. I was thinking about adding support for audio and video as well, but I'm not sure if there is really a need for that.
The problem is in concentration of power: gov't and companies. When you have independent printing presses in every town, gov't should let them print (and refuse to print) whatever they like. If one org buys up all the newspapers and puts them under one corporate umbrella, their corp policies determine what the electorate gets to hear. Not acceptable.

The difference is not ownership but concentration, and on the network you have network effects on a scale never before seen. We have no problem with people not being able to say or read what they want in email because it is a federated system that anyone can join through any provider. If Facebook or Twitter were just an open protocol, the users could decide for themselves who to subscribe to, managing their own "safety". But instead, we have giant, centralized organizations being accused of bias from every side because they wield so much centralized control over information.

So, when companies are small, they should be able to say or not say whatever they want. As they get larger, they gradually surrender the power to regulate their own users. They can stay small, or they can release control--their choice. The can open the protocol and become just one provider in an open protocol (like email), and if they have fewer than, say, 10M users, they can totally offer the "service" of blocking incoming and outgoing info for those users who want it done for them, and those who think "no, thanks, I'll decide for myself whose feed to subscribe to" will be able to do so via other providers.
If you want to fix most of the garbage of social media, and actually turn it into a marketplace of ideas, slow the speed at which information spreads through it.

Put a hard cap on a post's re-tweets/shares, and aggressively ban bots that try to copy&paste to circumvent this.
The deaths are increasing too. 2500+ people passed away yesterday (June 25) in the US.
Infinity Category Theory for Undergraduates [video]
We have that to a certain extent with Nextdoor. They take precautions on invites, neighborhoods you live in, and names. Yet, it's one of the messiest of clusterfucks.
And what if you didn't hand it in at that time -- if you didn't comply with the law? The answer is that you would be subject to arrest and imprisonment for up to 14 years: https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/act/1996/46/part3/...
Can you calculate that hash (of the original binary) yourself and patch THAT in the function?
15 eyes is a good one (supposed to be 5 eyes)
might be coming true.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackbrewster/2020/06/25/as-twit...

https://parler.com/auth/access

Although separate spheres for different groupthinks sounds even worse that forcing people who dont get along to use the same tools. We will finish evolving into the dark matter people Scott Alexander called us.
Unilever has made a statement saying they are shifting the money to other advertising companies but are not planning on cutting back on ads.
Because at this point facebook is so big as to be able to manipulate the votes. Corporations stop getting free passes of free speech suppression when they become monopolies.
There is no "experiment" in a purely quantum world.
> saying it profits off bigotry, racism and violence.

People in glass houses...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huileries_du_Congo_Belge
Thanks for stating the obvious, Sherlock. My point is: the WORRY about climate change is mostly focused on urbanism. The loudest voices come from the city. These people have a weak connection to nature aside from the occasional hike and holiday. The mostly worry about their cities going underwater. Country folks are used to dealing with the unpredictability of nature and are more likely to find a way to adapt.
If you had a family subscription, you could use one of the accounts just for shared devices. Then you wouldn't have to worry about music played on your Alexa devices messing up your account's recommendations (although it wouldn't count any music played by Alexa devices that you liked either).
What can I learn that will be useful?
If you're in the US, you can't trust your ISP (most of them farm DNS data), and shaking your fist at the clouds won't change that. If you don't Cloudflare or Quad9, stand up your own DoH server somewhere; it's trivial to do.
More fines? When not paid, confiscation of financial assets, deduction from your pay, loss of access to government benefits. There's a lot of ways to encourage compliance with the law without a sworn officer pointing a gun at you.
Unless locality is not true, which we don't know for an absolute fact.
How long is "[short trench]" specifically? You may be able to find a third party contractor that can run the trunk cheaper, but it will vary by city/state. If it's even a mile in a city, $20k is probably about right. If it's a block with no intersections, it may be overpriced... that will really vary a lot.
This seems like a great idea. We should not be essentially damning people to a much more challenging life due to youthful indiscretions. Obviously some crimes are worse than others.
That's still the same survivor bias as saying, "I don't see it on Facebook, thus it doesn't exist".

Twitter has traditionally given world leaders (like the president) a pass on their community guidelines that bind every other Twitter user. Twitter is now slowly correcting that, but it's only becoming visible with world leaders who had previously received a pass.
What makes you think he’s looking down?
Uhh, if we elected local officials by playing soccer, I would be playing soccer. For the same reason, if I want to have discussion ( albeit moderated ) HN is not a bad place to go.
Why does it matter, at all, that Comcast documented their traffic interception system in an RFC?
dont forget visa and mastercard monopolies doing the same thing
Technically speaking, does Wikipedia just keep IPs of all exit nodes? Other than that, I'm curious what attributes designates traffic as "TOR" traffic.
Cults (which I'd define as groups that respond to criticism/mockery of their sacred cows with action instead of argument) aren't new. They've been rising, taking over huge territories and then falling, since the dawn of history. It's just a bug in human nature. The early internet was anti-cult and insisted on actual arguments, and I thought it would endure, but it's over now.
Thanks for commenting! As it seems like you are bothered by this, you should read what the core git contributors have to say about it.

https://lore.kernel.org/git/nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.2006091126540....
Either something is wrong with the testing script or my computer is way faster than I thought:

./test.sh | awk 'BEGIN { sum = 0 } { sum += $2-$1 } END { print sum / NR }'
-698915
Alas, how do you define neutrality? What happens if Plandemic hypothetically becomes associated with a partisan party? How can Facebook be neutral there?

I agree they should try to be neutral, but I don’t know if neutrality is even possible in a lot of cases.
That's not what my question is, perhaps I can reword it to sound less inflammatory. My question is about the distinction between ads and discussions.

OP asks "what happens if you want to discuss" – that phrase itself says "not ads", so an irrelevant question, correct? I understand this is all about their ad policy.

I hate to even sound like a facebook apologist, I deeply, deeply despise that company and Mark Zuckerberg, and I know the only reason they'd change anything is for money, and have absolutely no scruples whatsoever.

But at the end of the day, they're completely free to censor whatever they want. They're not the public sphere.
We all know what no content moderation spirals down into, and that content moderation is a very hard problem to address ("solve" is definitely the wrong word IMO). I am torn between the idea that a company should be able decide how they want to moderate their own platform, and the contradictory feeling that I don't trust them.

Thinking about the idea of legislation to prevent platforms from all moderation doesn't feel right to me personally, so to those that do hold that opinion I am curious:

1. If we can't even regulate ISP's as dumb pipe utilities, then how would it be possible to do it with social media platforms? Would it be contradictory to legislate platforms this way while _not_ also applying the same logic to ISP's?

2. Emerging social media platforms that specifically don't moderate, or decide to moderate _differently_, are in a unique position to benefit from the many users who don't like the major platforms' moderation practices. If these competing platforms suddenly gain in popularity, would there still be a need for regulation if users have a real choice?
An assault? An assault is anything, and they slap charges such as Resisting Arrest on every one of their victims to help prosecutors stack charges.
"Stay inside

The WMO reiterated the dangers of lightning, and the many lives it claims every year.

Previous extreme examples have led to major loss of life: in 1975, for example, 21 people in Zimbabwe were killed when a single flash hit the hut in which they were sheltering"

So it didn't really help them to stay inside.
It's always easier to destroy than to create, and computers are great amplifiers of ideas; it makes sense then that as ideas become more common, more of them would be destructive.
The problem lies in states where they've been successfully lobbied at the state level to block municipal telecom.
Army officer here. I can speak a bit to this as somebody who has conducted a few 15-6 investigations.

https://usacac.army.mil/sites/default/files/documents/sja/15...

The loyalty of leadership all the way up and down to the fresh E5 is generally to the process first and to the favor of the soldier second. This ensures the proper steps are followed with the necessary supporting documents with keeping all parties informed and protected. The goal is benefit or improve them opposed to harming a soldier unless the facts dictate the soldier has violated a law or is at risk of harming themselves or others.

People are generally eager to do what they believe is the right thing, which means disclosing all manners of information. As an investigating officer my job is to gather the relevant facts of an incident, write a report, disclose any additionally discovered violations, and provide a recommendation to a commanding officer. The commander, in consultation with a lawyer, will impose a legal action, order a change, or recommend the case to a more appropriate venue.

Never would an investigator falsify a report because they will be prosecuted as a criminal. It’s simply not worth it to protect people who are typically strangers to the investigator. After all the system will generally look out for the soldier but not at the risk of other people. With as much support and aid as the military provides its hard to empathize with breaking the law.

Perhaps the biggest differences between the military and police that I have observed is that the military attempts to resolve problems at the lowest level the law/policy allows. Ignoring misconduct is generally a symptom of toxic leadership that will eventually grow out of control. There is also no risk of civil suits.

For police it appears misconduct is either a slap on the hand that means little or the community is throwing the books at those guys with life destroying prison time and police can also be sued. That imposes a lot of risks that don’t exist in the military. It’s not just the officer that’s at risk but a law suit on top of a criminal prosecution imposes financial harm on their family which adds to the risk pressures.

Also policing entails far greater ambiguity at great quantity of decisions than the military typically handles. It’s one thing to blame a person for something after the fact but it’s different when you are there in the moment and have to make hard decisions under time pressure.
Looks really interesting, thanks for sharing!

One silly question, the red door example image... why is the red so saturated in all the compressed versions vs the original?

edit: Ah seems to be some kind of display issue in Firefox. When saving the images and comparing the saturation level is roughly equal.
Worth mentioning PHPStan [1] and Psalm [2] for static analysis as well.

1. https://phpstan.org/
2. https://psalm.dev/