skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
>"In 2016, internal analysis at Facebook found 64% of all extremist group joins were due to their own recommendation tools. Yet repeated attempts to counteract this problem were ignored or shut down."

If thats accurate, it's freaking me out while thinking about Facebook's role in the Myanmar genocide https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebo...
Hootsuite signed contract with ICE then lied about it
I don't view this as laudable. The debate that's occurring is a principled one and remaining stoically indifferent isn't virtuous, it's contemptible.
> It might even contain some ideas you can use in C#.

I just implemented the Haxl paper in Java as a weekend project (for implementing GraphQL APIs), so it totally does ;)
> If users didn’t want these things, users wouldn’t buy them.

doesn't follow. people buying a thing despite flaw X just means don't consider X a dealbreaker, not that they actually want X
* cricket sounds
When anti-matter enters a black hole it shrinks the mass of the black hole. This is how blackholes emit Hawking radiation.
Marketing only works for the first generation of purchases. Apple has the highest consumer satisfaction ratings year after year so when a new product comes out, consumers know they will get a product they will be really happy with. That is not the case with many other companies.
There is nothing _but_ their platform- from the hardware, to OS, to app store, they're arguing that their platform encompasses an entire vertically-integrated business model. Microsoft got nailed for shipping their web browser with their OS (which users could easily replace), but it's fine for Apple to control all software a user can install? Take a monopoly and call it a platform, and it's fine? No. I have little love for Epic, but I'm glad somebody has the money to try to buy some law that will ultimately result in users having more control over the technology they depend on.
>Most users, however, would have a way worse experience using their phone if they were given this option, because a non-trivial percentage of them would follow the tutorials online provided to them by malware authors to install their malware.

I think Apple fans exagerrate when they say that most users are so "inexperienced" to get taken advantage off.

- this number of completly inexperienced user is not proven to be as large, if you look at Android or OSX you don't see 51% of users having malware on their machine

- with the amount of money Apple has they could afford to improve the security by adding more sand boxing and making unlocking of the phone by "tricked incompetent users almost impossible"

- I assume apps and websites can use your microphone and camera on your phone, it is under soem popup/permission prompt, why do you trust the "inexperienced users" with the camera permissions some bad person could trick them.

- "protecting" an unknown small number of users by limiting the rest makes no sense, what makes more sense is MONEY, Apple makes more money by locking things down and getting 30% from apps, subscrip[tions and the much hated lootboxes
Noob question probably, but wouldn't an Enum Map or something similar be more efficient?
> Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I think Epic Games, at least, is an all-around horrific company, and in this case has intentionally exploited the App Store to start a specious lawsuit.
It would certainly be useful, but I wouldn’t be very inclined to pay for it. It’s just not that useful.

You also need adoption across all the teams in your org to reap most of the benefits.
> If we're replacing nuclear with solar,

Replacing coal/ natural gas burning with solar is the priority by a big margin.

Unless there are safety issues, it makes sense to maintain nuclear plants at least until after any natural gas/ carbon emitting plants are shuttered.

At that point, it's cost/benefit & safety. At the current rate, it sounds like the cost of solar plus storage is likely to be less than nuclear by then regardless so this whole argument will be pointless.

The tiny nuke plants look pretty cool to me though!
I hate fb as much as the next guy, however it seems like these "mea culpa" admissions might be motivated by raising the profile of the person making them. It feels like these public acts of self-flagellation are meant to shield them from scrutiny for doing these things in the first place. What brought about this change of heart? Why did you work there in the first place?
I THINK WE'RE ALL WISHING FOR WFH SUPPLIES + HAND SANITIZERS =)
Design System is a term of art for UX Designers.

My wife is the UX Designer in the family, so I can't say more than that, though
What's your point, then? It seems you're supporting the idea that someone having knowledge and practicing once in a career can be better than someone practicing every day.
There are a few projects I absolutely could not live a professional life without: PostgreSQL is one, SQLite is another. All my appreciation and congratulations on a great release!
Not really sure what any of this would accomplish -- conspiracy-minded folk would actively distrust check-marked accounts and "I'm not operating under my real name because The Man" is a signal of trustworthiness.
Right. I'm honestly having a hard time thinking of situations where a seller like Cheerios would be able to say, "no, everyone is going to offer our products at $2.50 for the next week." I'd be tempted to call that anticompetitive in the opposite direction, of course a seller should be allowed to set their own prices and decide for themselves whether they want to participate in a promotion.

It's not like there aren't at least somewhat better analogies they could have used. Imagine if you bought an Apple Phone from Best Buy and then that compiled version of iOS wasn't allowed to mention anywhere that you could get support from Genius Bars instead of Best Buy. Or imagine if you bought a vacuum cleaner from Walmart, and the manufacturer wasn't allowed to include any inserts inside of the box that linked to their own store for replacement parts.

But even with a better analogy, why is this argument being brought up in this specific section? I expected their user freedom section to talk more about sideloading, or right to repair, or emulation, and they just can't stop fixating on the 30% fee.

From the same section:

> Here’s an example of how this problem manifests itself: Epic produces once of the most popular video games of all time, Fortnite. If a Fortnite player were to buy an upgrade in the App Store, that individual might be charged $9.99. However, that same upgrade costs only $7.99 when purchased directly through Epic.

Cool argument, but that has nothing to do with user freedom; users are still perfectly free to buy upgrades from Epic directly.

It feels like they came up with one objection and then poorly pasted it into 3 sections.
> Epic; in particular, is just handling this situation laughably at best. I can't imagine taking someone to court over my own intentionally sneaky violation of a company's set of rules.

There's nothing laughable about having a layered strategy of “try not to get caught, and, in case you are caught, have a backup argument that enforcement of the rules is illegal in any case.”
I see it as a practical yet fundamental result. Some people might dismiss it at first because it is around a "Mathematical Recreations" topic, but the problem of "learn the rules from the data" is a common one.

I've worked with autoencoder, convolutional and LSTM methods with text that appear to solve problems that they shouldn't be able to solve from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variety_(cybernetics)#Law_of_r...

that is, they don't contain a correct structural representation of the problem space or they violate the laws of computer science.

For instance, a neural network might do a finite number of calculations to guess at a good next move and play a mean game of chess. This is an O(1) algorithm that can't possibly do things that would take an O(log N), O(N), O(N^2), ... algorithm to do it. (e.g. explore the game tree exhaustively and prove this is a winning move.) Put it in the context of a variable-runtime algorithm such as MCTS which can iterate over the network multiple times and it will crush a grandmaster.

Thus you run into the space of the halting problem, something that pretends to sort a list in O(N) time and gets away with it, ...

People in the field work with poorly defined problems, pick metrics ungrounded in practice, etc. In particular there is no requirement that the results of a neural network be 'correct' they just have to be better than some alternative.

If you have one of these things either working or almost-working you might get curious and try to set up some little experiment based on an intuition at the microscale (e.g. it's obvious how to hand-build the network, tasks the network couldn't possibly learn) and do experiments like this one where you can synthesize unlimited amounts of data...

... frequently you get lost at sea, suspect that the emperor has no clothes, wonder if you got the math wrong somewhere, might find your system performs worse the more training data you throw at it...

... thus these results don't close in a clear story, they don't get published.
I’m not a huge fan of Apple’s arbitrary-feeling restrictions on developers and of their market power, but the following argument can be made to show they really are not monopolistic abusers who should be regulated against:

Costco charges a membership to use their store (“platform”), similar to buying an iPhone. Costco offers reduced-price store brand goods. Costco controls and decides which third-party goods are available in the store. This is all generally considered to be to the consumers advantage due to lower prices and good experience. If the consumer does not like Costco, they can go to a different store. If a consumer does not like the experience of purchasing their apps in the app store, they can use Safari to access the web site, purchase an Android or use a PC for their computing needs, and a console/portable for their gaming needs. The number of competitors to the iPhone platform is lower than the number of competitors to Costco, but it’s not an insignificant number of alternatives. If ALL mobile platforms did not allow sideloading and charged similar rates, AND it was impossible to create a new mobile platform (admittedly difficult, RIP Microsoft, Blackberry, Nokia, Firefox OS) AND it could be shown webapps are not viable (they are viable) then Apple plus the other platform might have an anti-trust problem.

As it is it’s a unfair to punish Apple for successfully curating a good experience where users are happy and comfortable spending money. All retailers set the conditions for sellers to sell with them.
Do you mean understanding intersectionality, or agreeing with its conclusions?

It effectively tells one set of people they are justified in organizing together and lobbying for their group self-interests, while denying that justification to another set.

It should not surprise you that the people whose group self-interests are proclaimed illegitimate by a social theory (more than just illegitimate - the cause of the suffering of all the other groups!), would not agree with that theory.
In ideal world, yes. OS vendor should not dictate what runs on the OS and under which conditions. Same for HW vendors.

This is a prerequirement for free market to work - the option for new competition to crop up in different fields and give you more options, more innovation and the ability to beat the platform owner at their own stagnation.

This does not exclude the platform owner from launching their own stack and competing on its merits. It's the forceful blocking that's anticompetitive and prevents innovation and improvement.
What do you disagree with on this page?

https://appfairness.org/our-vision/
Apple has more than enough money to both protect users and actually help developers - it doesn't need to squeeze them. For example, why isn't it a one-time fee for the initial scan? Why must they take a share of every purchase.

Without competition (like gasp competing app stores) Apple will continue to be negligent to devs and ban applications that compete with their services.

For example, the Apple watch without cellular cannot use Spotify in offline mode since that would compete with Apple music. My girlfriend and I had to find this out after the purchase and completely defeated the purpose of buying the product for her workouts.
I wouldnt worry about any mutations. 5g is just organised heat.
In this particular case there is no shortage of evidence that there is a massive international deep state conspiracy against Assange. Given that fact, the question is what measures this conspiracy is taking and not its existence.

If there was no such evidence, then concluding conspiracy based on what is happening with FB and Twitter would indeed be crazy.
I don't think it's fair to call this a mere distraction when you account for the sheer impact of methane on climate change. Quibbling about energy efficiency is besides the point. Play around with this - https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?p1=45&...
Oh fuck Tinder:

In addition to being riddled with scammers and "escort" services in some regions and choosing to do nothing about it, older men are charged more for using Tinder's premium service: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24129986

I do not respect Tinder at all. They have scummy practices and I actually got upset with Apple for giving them featured spots on the App Store so often. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you!

On the other hand, Apple unconditionally refunded my Tinder in-app purchase when I fell to one of their scams.

Seeing Tinder in any group will just make me automatically align with that group's antipode.
You can't subscribe without an IOS Device , Mac or Windows PC.

If your in some strange edge case where your subscribing to services and then discarding your IOS devices before canceling , that's on you. In a worst case scenario you could borrow a friend's Windows PC. As much as I love Linux I can't imagine most Linux users don't have at least one windows PC or Mac.

If we really want to get technical, spin up an AWS instance, RDP into it, install iCloud for windows and then cancel your subscription.
Anything you disagree with here? https://appfairness.org/our-vision/
I think it’s worth noting how hostile Epic’s app store is to its customers.

They force you to use it to launch games you’ve already purchased from them, which just means you have to waste processor cycles to wade through a grip of their blaring ads (and can only imagine the data they’re collecting/monetizing from this)

Pure enter through the gift shop.

The dark patterns are egregious as well; a tech-savvy friend bought a game from them so we could multiplayer. I got a call from him 20 minutes later because he was unable to find the game he just purchased, even the transaction went through and it was downloaded.

Turns out they had a “feature” hidden in the preferences that was enabled by default to hide the library of your purchased games from the navigation menu.
This framing makes a second read-through absolutely chilling.
Their AML systems will flag this activity as suspicious, and someone in the back office file a SAR. Think of the financial circuit as closed and traceable. Any untraceable entries and exits into this circuit needs CTRs and SARs.

Untraceable entries/exits: cash, money orders, cashier checks, wire transfers, etc.
Apple’s market share isn’t large enough for this argument to work.

If people are pushing for a change in framework where no hardware manufacturer is allowed to control what software is installed on their platform, I actually think that might be a good change across the board.

The groups targeting Apple don’t care about any such freedom. They simply want more money for themselves without having to invest.
It's not my cereal analogy, it's theirs. I brought it up specifically to showcase that a lot of the arguments I'm reading on their site don't map the current situation.
No... many people actually appreciate the walled garden as consumers.
Isn't this what's the Jailbreak is about?

You can jailbreak device, Apple still will have to respect the guarantee but they don't have to support you whatsoever.

Sure, Apple patch it, but then those are true vulnerabilities that are used to jailbreak it. Maybe they should just have a switch somewhere that would go "enable unsupported mode" that'd show a lot of angry texts at you before allowing you to do that.

That'd solve most of the coalition claims probably. Epic can always put their software on Cydia...
It isn't a lie. Steam takes a cut too yes, but Apple takes a cut after that 30% you mention. You don't pay 30% to Steam from in-app purchases. No one except Apple force you to use its payment system and take an additional 30% cut after the first 30% cut of the app price. Unless you are a small indie developer you end up paying way more to Apple than any other platform.
Showing how App Store is consumer centric - I think that's important to put in the context where Apple has to keep a tight grip or else these savage businesses would devour the customer's privacy in instant and exploit their psyche with tricks to milk as much money as they can.

I am glad Apple is gatekeeping.
Happy to see GraphViz used for these things! We tried to use it at one of my jobs but it wasn't as good as what was being rolled by hand with a tree of thousands of nodes, so we created something bespoke. But it has been in my toolkit since then, and I used it at one point to draw a flow chart for a choose-your-own-adventure style book.

The word “many” is clutter in an ERM, every arrow by default is a one to many arrow. It's presence probably suggests that your arrows are backwards from what I would do, they should point in the direction of data access which you can do, they are always many to one. The word “one” is nice, but because in practice it is created by a unique index on a column on the referring table, I have always denoted it with a small black line perpendicular to the arrow on that root side. Also missing seems to be nullable foreign keys, which should be denoted with an open circle at the root of the arrow, for the same reason. The fact that you have to put so much stuff on this side is the only reason I don't like Crow's Foot notation.

And, like, one of course wants bi-directional arrows representing a many-to-many relationship but one would like to zoom in on that and see the actual table maybe.

Growing this thing outward, you want to teach people how to think with it. Two diagrams two paths on a diagram which start from the same place and follow arrows until they get to the same place, suggests a consistency danger. Probably you intend one row in the source table to only map to one row in the destination table, what happens if the two paths give me a different answer? Is there a way to rephrase this so that this is no longer a problem? Furthermore, there always is because arrows come in different strengths. I can always downgrade a one-to-one into a many-to-one arrow. I can always downgrade that into a nullable many-to-one arrow. I can always downgrade that into a many-to-many double arrow. and this is enough to open that sort of double pointing relationship, deciding one of these relations to be many to many instead of many to one.

I would love to teach a virtual class on this, but the one thing I struggle with is standardizing some idea of type so that the BS is kind of cleared away. Like a lot of tables could be written as “string ComponentAssemblyCategory,” okay, it has a creation date and version tracking and whatever else, but fundamentally there is just a unique varchar in there which is the point of the table to hold. This is also necessary for those many-to-many tables to be auto-collapsible, you would find after all of the other fields are removed it would just be a `null ClientProjects` table allowing every project to have many clients or each client to have many projects.
IMHO you are spot on. I'd put money on your third scenario.
> this illustrates WHY the app store is so popular

No it doesn't. The app store is "popular" because Apple users don't have a choice. It's "popular" because they're forced to use it.

I'm neither defending it or criticizing it... but let's not pretend like consumers are choosing the app store.

Users in general are choosing Apple vs Android primarily for reasons that have nothing to do with an app store (i.e. hardware, support, iMessage, branding, etc.) and then simply use whatever app store they're forced to.
Would be cool to create an open standard and perhaps even open source the development. If nothing else, I would imagine that there are quite a few hearing impaired engineers and scientists out there that would gladly work on something like this if it meant that they themselves could benefit from the improvements.
This illustrates why the app store is popular, despite all of these companies rolling in money?

TRAIN WRECK, really?
The approach that I am taking is to narrow the ERD to a specific context, such as a single HTTP server request route. When the specific tables and relationships are rendered for just that route, a manageable amount of data is presented.

This approach also provides metadata that can be used to figure out which tables are being used where in the code, and vice versa.

Context is king!
That doesn’t really let you know how many components are custom and how many come from the design system.
FinCEN: Why gold in your phone could be funding drug gangs
Okay, so what’s wrong with Basecamp, Tile, or Protonmail? What’s nefarious about Prepear?
That doesn't negate the point that deforestation is not necessary, and may not be typical.

100% of deforestation could be for beef production, but 99% of beef production could be without deforestation.
Sure, but that's not new. Here in our EU country, governmennt dictates the railroad owner to allow other railroad companies to drive freight on it (although it fought tooth and nails to continue fleecing everyone by noncompetitive prices).

Competition is the basis of functional free market - and forces which prevent it are driving it to be abusive and not force of progress anymore.
Livestream for Hearing on “Mainstreaming Extremism: Social Media’s Role in Radicalizing America" is still going on: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mstNE5KIM-g
Show HN: Run a Self-Hosted Docker Registry on Azure App Service
Officially, as in I can't point you to this in writing off the top of my head but I've heard Guido say it numerous times, part of the design goal of CPython is to be as understandable and approachable as possible. That code you linked doesn't include stuff like compiling opcodes directly to assembly and then executing them natively, but it is very straightforward. I mean, I'm not a C guru by any stretch but I can look at that and tell immediately how I could go about adding my own opcodes to the VM.
How Big Tobacco made cigarettes more addictive (2018)
The standards are already a train wreck, that's the entire issue, along with consumers not having any other choice in how they install apps so popularity can't be measured in the first place.

Also Apple has plenty of supply chain problems and anti-consumer practices that equal and exceed those other issues you named.
There are a few in Robert Caildini's book influence.
Well, based on the original quote, it's not that they passively did nothing about it.

The consciously and proactively blocked attempts to fix it.
I am sorry but this is nonsense. App store is "popular" because it's the only option. We can try to imagine if it would still be popular with cheaper competition but right now there is one reason for its popularity: there is nothing else.

If trust is indeed lost than people will just use Apple app store knowing full well other ones are unsafe/offer worse experience.