skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It's pretty simple, although it may not be obvious. There are 2 different views about "what freedom/democracy is" that are presently doing battle in america, at least among inteligentsia

One, the worldview embedded into your comment, is that freedom is about the limits of discourse. Under this system, limiting discourse is inherently undemocratic, so if facebook "censor(s) things they disagree with" this is bad and we don't need any analysis of what specifically the discourse was to make our determination, which is why your comment abstracts over any value it could be. Full disclosure, I don't fully understand this worldview because it seems to enforce a particular discourse on Mark Zuckerberg, which seems a bit contradictory to me although I assume there must be some way philosophically to resolve this objection.

The other worldview is that certain kinds of discourse are inherently against freedom. For example, misinformation that might persuade voters into voting based on a false premise undermines a democratic system. Under this worldview, the question of what the discourse is, is the whole analysis, and we don't need any analysis of what Zuckerberg "disagrees with" to decide if it's right to limit. Obviously the people who will advocate for removing a discourse are people who don't like it, but that's separate from analysis of whether the discourse itself is a force against democracy.

These ideas are at cross purposes, and success of the one is often at the expense of the other. For this reason we seem reluctant to just lay out the underlying value systems the way I did here, which is unfortunate, because I think the fundamental disagreement is really important to discuss.
I think the point of the article was to empower changing processes and ACTUALLY listen to the suggestions coming from your team.

It's odd that you're bashing that
Sure but they go a long way to discredit the sincerity of sudden changes in people’s positions when the only thing different is the chief executive.
It's bad if you accept that people deserve agency: the ability to freely choose how they act.

The primary purpose of making an addictive product is to remove peoples' agency by hijacking known deficiencies in our minds/bodies. It's a form of coercion, because your goal is to prevent people from being able to choose whether they use your product or not.
> It matters because convincing people to eat soy in the western world does absolutely nothing for the Amazon forest. It's a false narrative.

First, I think the reason to stop eating as much beef is because of the GHG impact of doing so. That occurs regardless of whether the beef is raised in Brazil or otherwise.

There is a global meat market, so convincing people in the Western world shifts the demand.

> That won't do much either, but at least we'll get that off the table.

Are you kidding? Removing the subsidies would have an absolutely massive impact on the affordability of meat and dairy, at least in the US. For every 30 cents of milk sold, the US govt pays dairy farmer the equivalent of 70 cents - ie. 70% of the earnings dairy farmers make are from subsidy.

If animal feed were not subsidized to the extent it was, meat would be significantly more expensive.

I strongly favor removing agricultural subsidies. Renewables are actually competitive enough now that they cost essentially the same, the problem is the switching cost requires up front capital.
>I think it's pretty clear that "making your product as addictive as you can" is absolutely terrible

Why? Honest question. For instance, you mentioned obesity. Should a restaurant that makes the most delicious and sugar loaded food be forbidden to do so because its customers can't stop eating it and are getting obese?

IMO obesity is an individual problem. I'm all for helping obese people that want to change, don't get me wrong. I'm just saying that they got themselves in that situation. The restaurant should not be punished for their clients lack of control. They should, however, be forced to let clients know exactly what they're eating, but after that, it's not their fault.
How to Minimize Project Ramp-In Time
I vaguely recall research about process changes reliably boosting productivity temporarily but eventually reverting to the mean. Does anyone recall if that effect has a name or a canonical study?
Yes, microbes break methane down for energy.

The process is slow; a quick search says that methane persists in the atmosphere for approximately 9 years, at which time it becomes CO2. I'm not sure how many half-lives that is intended to represent.

Averaged over 100 years, it is 28 times more effective at retaining heat than CO2.

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/education/info_activities/pdfs...
> Sia records the data on chain (this is a little reductionist) where as filecoin opens up a market for storage and retrieval. Sia requires you to run a full node to interact with the chain and data, filecoin does not. Sia is gearing their product towards a different use case, the most compelling being personal backups imo.

Everything you wrote is no longer true of Sia and Skynet. Your information is extremely out of date.
Show HN: See you community an interactive map
Finding Your Threat Model
I never understand this retort--how is a long gone administration any excuse for continuing reprehensible behavior?

I mean, if you think this is a bad practice, shouldn't we end it now? And if you don't think it is a bad practice, why feign anger at the previous administration?
Rust Roadmap 2021: Allowing for arbitrary size integer primitives
Ask HN: Why Is Trump Orange?
im not a us citizen but every time i see a photo of donald trump he looks, well... orange. does anybody know why? is it the media manipulating images? has he ever commented on it?
My threat models for my clients use a state sponsored APT, and generic SIGINT and HUMINT agencies all the time. The idea being that SIG agency does passive interception and traffic analysis, where the HUM agency does targeted collection, and the APT is opportunistic zero day.

It's not just the NSA, it's literally everyone else as a class of threat they might need to consider. Also, I use opposition researchers as threats for politically exposed people, and who cross over into foreign spy level stuff.

The controls it prescribes are straightforward, and realistically, it's a risk you just understand, do your best to mitigate it, and accept.If you are going to not do business because you are afraid of state level consequences, you've got a legal/regulatory problem, and not a technical one.
2020 Underwater Photo Contest Winners
That actually sounds like a lot (R52.5k/month).

What type of teacher is this? College lecturer? Private tuition teacher? Government teacher?

The average seems to be R20k
> from a position that is fundamentally wrong

I’m baffled how asking for data is revealing my position?

I had the hope that your position is well founded and it would be easy to point to actual data.

I hardly believe that the compliance laws are not accompanied by studies that collect the data that i asked for. So it should be out there.
The entire party's leadership has publiclly stated this. Their chief leader, Trump, is the most obviously outspoken racist. From calling Back athletes exercising their 1st amendment thugs, accepting endorsements from the KKK, to pardoning a white solider who committed war crimes murdering brown people, Trump and the Republican party's unconditional support make their views clear as day.
Let me doubt that assessment. That would be true if (1) the 50-to-1 was true (doubt it); (2) what we feed the cattle is human-grade food and (3) 1 calorie of a plant was as nutritious as 1 calorie of meat.
>so control over dangerous ideas makes sense to them

This is another concept that confuses me 'dangerous ideas'. How is that different than what the church did with things like witchcraft and paganism, those were 'dangerous ideas'.

What makes an idea dangerous?

If there's dangerous ideas are there safe ideas?

What makes an idea safe?

Can you give me and example of a safe idea vs a dangerous idea?

Who decides which ideas are safe and which ones are dangerous?

Is this a static thing? Like once an idea is declared either safe or dangerous, do they stay that way or can a safe idea become a dangerous idea or vice versa?

That's not even beginning to get into the definition of 'dangerous'.

It seems like a pretty vague and arbitrary term to me. Say for example, if I decided to go free climbing, I'd be in a lot of danger. I have no experience, for me that would be a dangerous thing to do. But, for my Buddy who's been climbing most of their life, it's not so dangerous.

So can one build up skills that let them deal with these dangerous ideas effectively, such as with other dangerous things or is the danger of ideas just beyond anyone to deal with?

Is there some kind of elite group of people who can handle these dangerous ideas that us normal folks can't?

I hope you see where i'm going with all this.
This actually looks pretty nice. idk why bulk emails are so hard to do lol

Nice work!
...so just let tourists and foreigners in your country fend for themselves and hope the internet warns them before they eat too much unlabeled poison?
I could almost see it being like Grisham's The Firm

Or Devils Advocate, with Al Pacino and Keanu Reeves.
I don't get it either. I think Zuckerberg is doing the right thing by refusing to cave. I also agree with you that he already gave up far too much by agreeing to "fact check" content in the first place.

> Actually, just people in general these days seem to believe it's their right to enforce their views on others...

Only a small number of people, who we used to call liberals, ever believed this.

Isiah Berlin:

> It may be that the ideal of freedom to choose ends without claiming eternal validity for them, and the pluralism of values connected with this, is only the late fruit of our declining capitalist civilisation: an ideal which remote ages and primitive societies have not recognised, and one which posterity will regard with curiosity, even sympathy, but little comprehension. This may be so; but no sceptical conclusions seem to me to follow. Principles are not less sacred because their duration cannot be guaranteed. Indeed, the very desire for guarantees that our values are eternal and secure in some objective heaven is perhaps only a craving for the certainties of childhood or the absolute values of our primitive past. ‘To realise the relative validity of one’s convictions’, said an admirable writer of our time, ‘and yet stand for them unflinchingly is what distinguishes a civilised man from a barbarian.’ To demand more than this is perhaps a deep and incurable metaphysical need; but to allow such a need to determine one’s practice is a symptom of an equally deep, and more dangerous, moral and political immaturity.

I hope we swing back the other way but it's worrying that so many people no longer see the value in pluralism of thought.
It's a very small amount of seaweed in the feed.
I had some of those problems. I'd have no issue with my appraisal for that time period saying "met expectations" instead of "exceeded them". Even if it dinged my bonus.

The company being flexible and understanding with my time was enough for me.
Makes me think of salvage operations, and then raises the question of how do people get paid? They're providing a valuable service. I think in shipping there are both conventions and an ability to quickly negotiate that allows contracting for a salvage ship to rush to the aid of a grounded or sinking container vessel.
Didn't they already try this in North Korea?
Windows XP Source Code Leak 09/24/20 (42.93 GB)
That's also fallacious thinking because you're knowingly murdering a being, i.e. it is a requirement that the animal is killed to eat it. But when practicing veganism, there is no requirement for murder. That is, while crop deaths may happen, it is not a requirement that it does. We could in fact engineer machines that don't kill animals while harvesting crops, and in fact "crop deaths" is wildly overblown by meat eaters as an argument. Statistically it is not significant.

What's further, you're wildly under estimating how much food the death of one cow would give you.

These are all super common arguments against veganism and easily disproven
Trying to redefine the political landscape according to your niche views is really pointless. Obviously the conversation is being conducted with the understanding that the US left/right/center are the reference points. There's no more point to this comment than there would be to a libertarian saying that Facebook shares are all from "statist" news sources.
I bought an iPhone, and I'm not getting that 30% cut. Where's my money?

Apple wants to get paid twice for the same thing. Apple sells me a device, and then they sell me (a device user) as their product to app developers.
This reason is why it can be pitched to conservatives as well as progressives. It should be noted though, that basic income cannot 100% replace the welfare state. You cannot just give basic income to a person with sufficiently problematic mental health issues, for example, and call it a day. But yes, as a general rule, this is a point in the + column for UBI.
We definitely need to decouple discovery from hosting.

I'm not even sure you would need to do any crawling. Maybe you could just let people submit links to videos hosted elsewhere. Kind of like you can submit any URL to the Internet Archive. But in this case you would use the frequency of duplicate submissions (along with in-house upvotes) to build out a recommendation platform.
That phrasing so annoyingly waffley. "Could" might mean "if you're already predisposed to arrhythmia" or "if you're somewhat allergic to the ingredients".

As it stands, I feel that sentence could apply to any atypical food, like pickled herring or durian fruit.
It'll stay "open" until they gain a strong enough position to get away with closing it again, just like they did with bootloaders: https://www.androidauthority.com/huawei-bootloader-unlocking...

Don't mistake a purely strategic move for anything resembling benevolence or openness for its own sake.
The US Is Using the Guardian to Justify Jailing Assange for Life
I mean, deciding whether or not an arbitrary starting configuration loops back on itself is undecidable. So some problems are out of the reach of a finite sized network.
I don't see how that's relevant. Epic isn't suing Apple so that they can have exclusive rights to open a second app store, they're suing to allow third-party app stores in general. If Epic wins, they aren't going to be part of a small group of store owners; anyone would be able to open their own competing store.
I find it inspiring for my side projects. I find it a little depressing from a professional standpoint if the person is talking about a job that is more interesting than mine.
Segregation was one of those specific "fake concessions" you pointed out. It was meant to change slavery very little in any way other than name.
Prof. Alan Edelman gave a nice lecture about this a couple of days ago https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuOXXQR7dAo
There are literally people on this board indicating that 'Nations are not real'.

There are large numbers of individuals who don't believe in borders, or in any form of real border enforcement.

There are large numbers of individuals who don't think that there is any such thing as an 'illegal status' and that nobody should be deported or sanctioned on any terms.

That's what makes the 'ICE ban' more controversial than it may seem, and probably hard to understand for 'pro ban supporters' why some might not support it.

You seem to be saying 'hey, this is just about arbitrary detention, because that's what I feel is wrong' - but I would say it's a much broader issue.

It's inherently more political than 'detention' which is what makes it difficult, and why there needs to be more objectivity on this.

For the life of me I can't understand why the US government doesn't at least make sure there is fairy consistent law-fullness within ICE.
the media is indeed manipulating images. liberals have nothing based on reality to really complain about, so they resort to things like making him look orange.

sad.
not just warranted, the (2019) is very misleading.
Ask HN: Where do you find new startups / projects?
I used to go to Angel.co and search for companies by geography and date listed but it looks like they did away with that feature. Product Hunt is a little too hype-y. Crunchbase is paid and/or for more advanced startups. Is there a good spot for finding searchable new startup/project listings?

Edit: I will point out, Startup School has a really good search interface for other participants. I just wish that something like this existed for all startups and/or those that want to submit.
Azure Static Web Apps with .NET and Blazor
I think you're missing my point. I'm not saying that Facebook should give up. Everyone there should make every effort to improve. My point in bringing up complexity is that it's going to take a lot more than Mark waving his hand and magically making everything better. This isn't some video game where one player hits a button and thousands of minions instantly rearrange themselves and all of their actions are resolved in milliseconds. Anyone who knows anything about complex systems - especially those involving people - knows that's not how they are.

In reality, no matter what leadership says or does, actual change will still require continuous effort from literally thousands of engineers, data scientists, and others. It will take time, as all such things do. Petulantly demanding that things happen faster than they can happen isn't going to make it so.
But I don't care about Epic, nor am I talking about them. I'm talking about the hypothetical scenario where Apple allows alternative app stores to exist. I'm not framing this under Epic's terms.
Ask HN: How can I guarantee e2e encryption when an app writes in Google sheets?
Android also have a lot of malware issues. I’ve had to help factory reset Android phones quite a few times because friends and family ended up getting spammed with sex notifications and had their search engine hijacked. Windows and OSX suffers from the same problems. The reason these platforms suffer from malware, while iOS does not, is because they allow third-party installations.
I have always wondered whether liquorice is an acquired taste. I find it vile, and I'm glad for that.
Developers can safely ignore the F-Droid store because it represents no significant market share.

This will not be true of the stores that Epic, Facebook, and Google, and Amazon et al would start up on iOS.
The Carotenoid section of this [0] wiki article should explain it.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunless_tanning#Carotenoids
> Should television shows been punished for cliffhangers because they hook people into seeing the next episode? Breaking Bad had an interesting plot and character progression that made me want to keep watching - are they addicting me?

Honestly, this is a super interesting question. I would say anything designed to succeed by hijacking human brain chemistry instead of providing superior or novel quality is probably worth regulating at some level.

From that standpoint, Breaking Bad would not have an issue - it's superior and novel. Shows that succeed in making a viewer binge with a combination of (effectively) mid-episode endings and autoplay, are somewhat hacky. You can't regulate cliffhanger endings, so autoplay should probably not be legal - Netflix already asks you if you want to continue watching, they should simply do so after every episode. Shows with good content like Breaking Bad would still be easy to binge (just press yes once an hour), and poor quality shows would have a harder time taking advantage of brain chemistry by requiring an affirmative act.
It doesn't in the US?

The strongest liquorice in Germany has to be labelled (translated word-by-word) as "Strong liquorice, extra strong, liquorice for adults - not children's liquorice" [0]

[0] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakritz#Zusammensetzung_von_La...
Oh goody! Nothing like the financialization of life-necessities to warm the cockles of the heart of big capital.
I think the issue of political polarization is multifaceted, and social media and decentralized technological mediums are part of the cause.

Another one that may be worth mentioning is the elimination of the FCC fairness doctrine in 1987. This doctrine used to hold news companies with a broadcast license to a certain standard which is now gone - effectively allowing them to report on things with whatever amount of slant and bias they choose.

> The fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The demise of this FCC rule has been considered by some to be a contributing factor for the rising level of party polarization in the United States.

The main agenda for the doctrine was to ensure that viewers were exposed to a diversity of viewpoints. In 1969 the United States Supreme Court, in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, upheld the FCC's general right to enforce the fairness doctrine where channels were limited. However, the Court did not rule that the FCC was obliged to do so. The courts reasoned that the scarcity of the broadcast spectrum, which limited the opportunity for access to the airwaves, created a need for the doctrine.

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

So effectively, we have echo chambers on TV and social media fed by algorithms and analytics, wherein people can participate to confirm their biases and preconceptions without having them challenged.
I agree. Analogies are never perfect, and people always pick apart the bits of the analogy that aren't actually relevant.
> What gives any of these people the right to police the opinions of others?

This seems to be a question of the times. "What right do I have to police you?" - goes for masks as well as ideas, innit?

> believe it's their right to enforce their views

IMO this is deeply ironic, since a lot of "social justice" is "stop telling me who I am", either directly or as the irritant at the center of the "pearl".

Like, Manifest Destiny was literally this backed up with guns. Jim Crow was this backed up by laws. McCarthyism was this by congressional committee.

What's novel here isn't enforcing views on others.
For sure. But I mentioned the "too addictive" argument specifically. I understand and agree that facebook does more harm than good, and that is wrong and must be addressed. I just don't understand this addiction angle. Making your product as addictive as you can, without breaking laws, is not wrong IMO.

But I think I see where you coming from. They're getting people addicted to something wrong, did I understand you?
A lot of people want to complain about censorship, then totally ignore the consequences of malevolent propaganda.
favorite prince nugget I discovered by the interwebs is the piano and mic album

it's not mainstream but it's very high grade musical emotion

and in a more mainstream manner, consider that alicia keys hit was a prince b-side :)

it's bitter sweet to have had this dude in a lifetime (amongts others)
Pro-human, Pro-democracy, Pro-equality. Not anti-Trump but I can see how it might appear like that. :)
It would have been 1 bit if all measuring devices in the universe were oriented along the same axis. If you prepare electron in a device with one orientation, then measure it again with a different device you need the vector.
The context of this is the employees at Facebook, I don't think there are many NFL executives employed at Facebook.