skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
If the large crowd is told to disperse by government agents, you are no longer a peaceful protester. You are free to protest, but you are not free to protest at any location at any time. If once told to move, you do not, you can, and were always able to be removed by use of physical force.

The reason these peaceful crowds are told to disperse, is they are often not peaceful, they leave much damage to regular citizen's and business property behind, and it's not your call whether the crowd poses a danger to my car parked on the street, or my place of work. It's up to the law enforcement assessing risk of the crowd causing damage, and if they think it will, even if they have not, they have to disperse. Like when the crowd starts ignoring the fact that cars drive on the streets trying to get home from work, and starts walking through and blocking traffic. Or even leaving a pile of trash and destroying the lawn of public or private property, which I have to pay to restore with taxes.

Does your peaceful protest stay on the sidewalk? Does it carry its trash to the nearest garbage can instead of dropping it on the street? Does it destroy zero property and wait for the walk sign at intersections? Because if not, the issue is not with the protest. It's with the things you are doing which are not peaceful, to people not part of your peaceful protest.

I was moving apartments during one of these "peaceful" protests in Chicago. At that point, they weren't burning buildings and destroying stores yet. It took me 12 hours to move 2 minivan-loads of stuff. My brother was helping me. When the police tried to get people to clear the roads, the people did not. Instead, they threw a bunch of flamable shit in the parking lot where regular people's cars were, and destroyed those cars. Because the cops tried to clear the road so people, on the last of the month, could move their shit into the new apartment. after working a full day. and having to work the next day. after having 2 hours of sleep.

by the way, when my brother got home, his girlfriend's shitty old car was broken into and needed to be repaired. good thing she was unemployed and couldn't pay for it, otherwise it might have cost $200 instead of the free ducktape + plastic bag combo.

peaceful for you does not mean peaceful for everyone. and the cops, and the feds, are there to make it peaceful for everyone - not just you. when told to disperse, so people like me can simply live our already stressful lives, you refuse to, you are no longer peaceful, and should be thrown into a van and removed. and if that takes tear gas, I'm cool with that, just like you're cool with completely fucking up my life.

let me ask you this: forget protests. regular workday, mid-afternoon. a group of people decide to just start walking in the middle of the road dropping garbage everywhere and won't leave. what do you think should happen to them? nothing? does the group being large make it ok?
>How did we slip away so far from this being fairly obvious?

People got rich enough that the noise from the bar on the other side of the block or the mechanic shop across the street made their list of "big problems" and they complained to local government until government restricted everyone's property rights.
So I guess I should disclose this now. I work as an implementation consultant (not my official title but it’s more descriptive - I actually do hands on keyboard coding) at AWS. But I’m just as far removed from the going ons between AWS and Amazon retail as anyone on the outside. So I’m definitely not trying to do the “appeal to authority”.

The mandate was in 2001. AWS first launched in 2006. From reading the letter, it wasn’t about being able to make services productizable. It was more so teams could work independently and choose whichever underlying technology they wanted. It also prevents the issue the original poster was having. It’s much easier to make changes to a small API than a monolith.

It takes a lot to go from internal API to product even on a small scale. Werner Vogels said at the last Reinvent that S3 is made you of hundred or more separate internal services exposed internally via an API. My last company we also had a mandate to be “API first”. Not because we were trying to be like Amazon with less than 75 people, but we actually sold access to our APIs to our customers - large business that used them as the backend for their websites and mobile apps. We also used the APIs internally for our websites and large ETL jobs where sour clients would send us files for bulk changes.
Sorry about the tone.

I actually tried to explain what you can measure beyond simply "pain" (noxiception) about suffering. Because like you said, noxiception is present in many organisms and in many cases it can be (IMO very reasonably) argued they are simple stimulus-response mechanisms (without moral value), while in other cases (say, a dog suffering) it can be (also reasonably) argued that there are more complex things going on and morality comes into play.

The question is where to draw the line, which is hard. But you can estimate bounds of what constitutes suffering. I agree that merely having a specific response to a noxic stimulus isn't suffering. But I do believe that the fact that you can (long-term) damage the learning ability of a snail by applying otherwise non-harmful (but painful) stimuli, is something that at least to me comes awfully close to what I'd consider psychological trauma in a human. So it's not really a matter that it responds to some stimulus (like plants), but that the way in which it does shows a higher level function that to me seems somewhat analogous to how we suffer.

Doesn't tell me where exactly to draw the line, but does give me a clearer picture somewhat, at least leads me somewhere further than simply "does it have a pain-response?".
Migration for the Benefit of All: Towards a New Paradigm for Migrant Labor [pdf]
right on.

I use ProtonMail but most of my email is with people who are on gmail. Oh well.

I know it would be very niche but it would be interesting to see an online store built around Signal, or something similar (assuming a proper privacy policy on not monetizing your data).
Until the next hack links their real name with their handle? No thanks.
Thanks for that. It was the first thing I thought when reading this.

Kind of a given that people with less sense of purpose would be more prone to anxiety/depression.

It’s why my anxiety always rematerializes when it turns out that the current company is a hellhole too. Can’t have a sense of purpose when everything is pointless.
> So far, we've had dozens of implementations of communism all over the world and 100% of them ended up being authoritarian (i.e. if you disagree with the ruling party, you go to jail) or straight up murderous.

sigh You read a post saying that "but look at these skulls!"-type arguments are naive and arrogant, and your response is a "but look at these skulls!"-type argument? Really?

Which of these[1] pacifist[2] communes[3] do you think fit into your 100% number that you made up without researching?

I'm not defending communism or Christianity here, I'm saying find out what people actually believe and why they believe it before you criticize, instead of criticizing high-profile failures of their movement which they probably recognize and disagree with.

> Jordan Peterson explores reasons for why that might be so.

The fact that Jordan Peterson is exploring reasons for why something might be so which isn't so, tells me all I need to know about Jordan Peterson's opinions on the subject: they're uninformed opinions.

[1] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/photography/proof/2017/07...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Farm_(Tennessee)

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maoz_Haim
After having spent some time at a company that banned them, I am not even sure that log levels are an acceptable differentiator, anymore.

The rationale was that knowing that every single log statement absolutely would be written to the log would encourage developers to think more carefully about their logging. From what I saw, it worked.
Combined with consistency.
How would a Twitter account start a war?
You were the one who tried to compare them as equally authoritarian, and they are not -- as much as you want to convict them of the same crimes. If anyone is being arrested off the street for free speech then I will stand shoulder to shoulder with you and oppose it. If they are being arrested for violence or property damage, then I will let the courts deal with it.

Being shrill and exaggerating what is going on is not helping, it is part of the problem.
Of course, having a high paid, high level role in a company or a decent amount of money makes it much easier/more practical to say no.

It might not work out too well if an office worker/retail employee/normal employee spoke to others like Steve Jobs did, or flat out told their boss that they won't be going to any meetings because they've got better uses for their time.
Investors inside generally have different incentives. They are close enough to drive by and see how things are doing. Wreck the building and they will notice. Investors from outside can be fooled.

Also if the investor is just looking for a place to save money outside of their unstable country they may be better off losing money on the deal!
Agree with the unique log. While filename/line number seems good at first, its more mental overhead to find the file and then go to the line number.

I tend to add a unique id based which is usually just the first 7 characters from any hash function. Something like

date | md5sum | cut 1-7

which gives you something unique for each log message making it really easy to identify where it happened in any codebase using your search tool of choice. You have to embed the value into the code itself for the benefit, but its really useful in the short/long term.

I was debugging a lot of lambda functions and this really ended up saving a lot of time as at runtime that was about the only information you could get.

One other thing I found useful was to use JSON format for logs. I know there are many against this, but I found being able to add additional params without breaking existing tooling was a massive win, plus it formatted nicely in cloud-trail. Later on I realised most of our logs were processed by humans second and computers first, so having a machine readable format was really a benefit. Additional we were using Scalyr at the the time, so each new value in the JSON became an additional filter which was a very nice outcome.
Imagine writing cgo like this:

#pragma C {
#include <stdio.h>

int foo(var * bar) {
...
}

Or having documentation look like this:

// FIXME: This is kind of a hack, and we should
// get rid of it before v1.0
#pragma docs {
The FooBar function will Foo all the Bars passed to it.
}
func FooBar(...) {

You could even imagine modifying your editor to do proper syntax highlighting on the C code.

Ah, well -- water under the bridge at this point. I like Go as a language overall. Most of their experiments have worked out pretty well, I think; it's inevitable that some of your experiments don't work out the way you expect, and then you're stuck with them.
The Romans at one point had a setup where a year was 38 8-day weeks plus a bunch of days over winter when nobody is up to much so there's no point having weeks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nundinae
He doesn’t run YC anymore. He lives in the Uk at this point
Does Wikipedia not have rules against using sources that were published later than the 'fact' on Wikipedia was asserted?
Such an interesting machine.
1. I know, I also don’t think its meaningfully “centrist”.

2. Not sure what your point is here - you originally pointed out why either right or left solutions would be good, but the compromise is bad.

3. I don’t think that’s true - believe it or not it is still possible to discuss actual issues. I certainly do, with people who disagree with me.

So... there are a few positions on which you might be a “moderate”, but I don’t see any argument actually presented for why centrist solutions are preferable to those backed up by an actual ideological goal.
Rents are $$ per sq/ft per year. But that includes hallways, bathrooms, etc. So the per-person space is probably higher.
MaxMind sells their databases as files as well as APIs. GeoLite is free to use but not as accurate as their paid products.
>If you love driving you can do so without a reason.

At least for the time being.
Those watches work perfectly fine offline, and that's how most people use them. Mine isn't even set up to connect to my phone.

You don't have a need for a 750 dollar watch with dedicated onboard maps and gps unless your use case is specifically being outside of coverage areas to start with.
> In the "suspicious coin" example, there is an opening assumption

I understood it differently: there are no assumptions per se, just a request to make an assumption. The request is made by a third party and all this is part of the thought experiment.

> It isn't a fallacy to continue to treat this as a game

True. The article states that “The ludic fallacy here is to assume that in real life the rules from the purely hypothetical model (where Dr. John is correct) apply.”.

> treat it as a game where you are unsure about whether the coin is fair

This significantly modifies the scope of the original game.

I understood this as an example of how simplified models might easily stop being useful because of real life conditions.
> it's education, it should be uniform, everyone should get the same opportunities and education and their diplomas should be "worth" the same

But that’s delusional, right? Of course diplomas won’t be the same because colleges cluster kids of similar intelligence and motivation. As has been pointed out on this page repeatedly, the kids at Duke are smarter and more motivated than at a typical school, so as a result, the diploma is worth more. And to pretend that Duke is only accessible to rich whites and Asians is a fallacy. I had lots of friends from poor families who had lots of aid and minority friends - the Duke campus is far more diverse than the country in general.
Why choose sqlite over MySQL on a single server (e.g. small vm instance)?
In many US metro areas, these are the first types of tenants who move into small strip shopping centers along secondary roads running through smaller suburban towns and cities.

I'm in NE Atlanta metro; it seems that you can't pass a traffic light without seeing a nail salon, a gas station, a cell phone store, and Subway. And these have been there for years right from the building of the building.
Thanks for the correction!

It might be nice to hear something about his experience in the UK then.
Perhaps we need to view 'news' through the lens of 'is this information' before reading and therefore allowing it to impact how we feel about our lives. News being an event that may or may not impact your life, vs. information that can be assimilated to improve your life. Or perhaps, did you seek out the information because you need to learn something, or, are you reading what is being presented to you unprompted by a service that profits from you viewing it?

There is some news that matters, in terms of how you or those that matter to you can be impacted. For example, the state of the economy as pertains to your employment can help you forecast interruptions in work. Or in other economic cases, enable you to forecast where good investments will be. Or someone you admire passing away.

In political terms, changes in direction of leadership can forecast changes in lifestyle. Many nations could be given as an example, Iran, Syria, Turkey.

What does not matter, ever, as far as I can tell, is the type of 'rare incident' such as a shark attack killing a surfer, or a wildfire in another country that killed some unfortunate people, or locust swarms in Asia when you've never left South America. It matters to people directly affected, of course, but if you're half a world away, every day some bad event is going to transpire somewhere that could literally never affect your life. Does it benefit you to be aware of this?
I stopped reading news, including tech news, in 2012, while working at a large news site.
Seeing how the sausage is made, helped a lot realizing of just how little value reading news to a normal person is. (Note that that this is very different from saying journalism has no value or nobody should be reporting on current events)

I resolved, my news addiction, by redirecting the time I would have scanned ~12 different news sites multiple times a day, into reading more substantial content. Be that more long form (investigative) journalism, books written on a topic, studies, etc. Content, that let you actually understand the why of things, not just the what that is happening.

How to filter on which things to focus on, or tame the fear of missing out came naturally with the realization, that if something is important enough for me to care about (be that politcal or a new javascript framework), it will reach me eventually one way or another.

Also for big sudden events, like for example a terrorist attack, no matter how reputable and connected the news paper, in the beginning nobody has any solid information, which doesn't stop anyone from reporting and wildly speculating. It might be tough to just ignore that, especially since people will think you don't care, but beyond some basic facts, you won't be able to get any useful information for at least a couple of weeks.
not sure if this resonates with anyone else, but from my own experience (especially back when I had really bad anxiety) I think a major draw of news is the perceived feeling of safety from being "in the know". I believed that the more I knew about what was going on in the world, the safer I would be without necessarily taking action based on the information. I think it was as if not reading the news was like being in a dark room where my mind was free to conjure up a multitude of awful things/situation lurking in the dark, but by reading what was gong on and grounding those fears in something "real", it gave me the sense that the world was not so scary or I could at least better react/protect myself by "knowing"/"illuminating" the darkness.

Of course all this mostly just fed into my fears and just exacerbated my anxiety-induced hyper vigilance and paranoia, but I really think that there was a part of me that saw benefit in being aware of the state of the world through news (both mainstream and alternative).
> In phishing, the scammer knows that most people will ignore their mails. But, they are trying to get to the vulnerable people, the ones that will bite the bait. "significant numbers" is difficult to evaluate. Maybe it is a very low percentage of the people that is targeted, but when the targeted are in the millions the victims are going to add up.

Probably a stupid question, but is there any first hand evidence (like a testimony from a scammer) that this is the case?

Feels like a completely unfalsifiable argument, since knowing whether the mistakes are deliberate because they make it easier to trick people, accidental but kept because of the same (the scammer doesn't know why it works) or actually accidental cause of the scammer doesn't know better seems like something that's almost impossible to prove.
I though the power to say no proved free will.
How Is Recruiting Changing?
I feel the same way. I am happy to do little things to push back on surveillance capitalism.

Of topic, but the ProtonMail service just keeps getting better and better. I just tried Hey email for about 5 days, really liked the pretty UI, but it felt good to switch back to ProtonMail.
I haven’t worked in the space in a while but I’d doubt it’s via anything like HTTP headers. From a total guess I’d look at packet inter frame gaps & jitter to imply client csmacd or l2 behavior. Maaaaybe MTU and TTLs to infer intermediate routed networks or devices like the tunnel. And of course various TCP options and behavior, like say timestamps and dsack, to fingerprint the client or intervening ip proxies.
On a non-subjective basis, there are many bad things going on in the world, with implications for both ourselves and our families.

A genuine question: is it access to news or content of the news that messes with our sense of wellbeing? Does “the media” upset me, or knowledge, for example that climate models appear to be more conservative than reality, upset me?

In not reading the news, are we simply happy in the way ostriches are happy when they place their heads in the sand?
Another good point. Just because a social media megacorp is useful to you doesn’t mean it needs you, or your followers, even if you’re verified. Maybe especially not if you’re verified. They can always verify someone else, and people will follow them instead. Especially if you’re banned from the service. Wait, is deplatformed the PC way to say it now? I’m trying here, folks.

Anyone have a coat? I’m catching a cold from all these http://chillingeffects.com
Sharing remote sensing technologies with Indigenous communities
FWIW, I appreciate the problem of 4chan (and I have seen in person the pain of moot's face as he tries to grapple with what he accidentally managed to build)... but you can't exactly stop the existence of opt-in full-on 4chan: we don't have, and I will argue really wouldn't want, the technology required to do that, and it isn't like "with Section 230, 4chan became illegal". However, to the extent to which 4chan still works at all without Section 230, it doesn't pop up everywhere any more than it did before the Internet existed: the "dark corners" of the Internet are just as corner-y without Section 230 because most people avoid darkness when it is opt-in.

I frankly think the core problem in a lot of these discussions is "a lack of vision" with respect to what all the changes would be to get a website compatible with a complete lack of moderation. Like, look at comments on videos: I think in practice almost no videos would have comments (and I think this is great, as YouTube comments are well known to be extremely low quality, despite supposedly having moderation: we finally got to the point on the Internet where we realized that even comments on news sites are generally harmful, and have given people a weird expectation of a "right to be heard" as opposed to merely "a right to free speech").

The assumption--which makes no sense to me--is always "without moderation everything you see would be a cesspool", when I will argue that it should be obvious that that won't happen, because you will have to rethink how comments work entirely if they are unmoderated, and I think the result of this is that comments will just get turned off. When you follow some random channel, you will see videos from that channel and videos shared by that channel (the content of both of which the people who make that channel will be liable for, but not YouTube, as they exercised editorial control but YouTube did not) and that's it: you won't see videos from other channels (as YouTube won't take that liability unless they carefully hand-curate their selections, which maybe some website would but Google would never bother with ;P) and you won't see comments on any videos unless someone agreed to pre-moderate them (and accept liability for them).

Again: you won't see YouTube showing you random videos unmoderated, as that isn't a useful platform (ignore "horrible" for a moment: this would be 99% spam... even 4chan doesn't work once you truly reject Section 230; and again: maybe that isn't a bad thing ;P), and you won't see unmoderated horrible comments for the same reason: the feature set of the Internet changes once you change this law; and maybe you really really like those features and refuse to give them up... but trying to make arguments about what the content on the Internet would look like without first contemplating how the feature set changes is a nonsensical prediction and I think does a disservice to these discussions and forms a kind of strawman for the position against Section 230.