skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Yes, this exactly: social media platforms blur the boundary between communication and broadcasting, and are causing new debates over free speech.
Avoiding overload in dist. systems by putting the smaller service in control
Can you name a few of the billion places? Of course with similar potential impact as Twitter, and without the censorship.
'overpriced, elitest community colleges and tech schools siting in their Ivory Tower' seems like sarcasm but the rest of the post doesn't. Can I get a /s in this house?
Thank you for taking the time to respond :-)

Hmmm... I cannot disagree with your reasoning... so I must change my mind. I unflagged and upvoted the OP. I also upvoted your other post. Hopefully this thread won't get too uncivilized!
People worshiped idols.
Chritians came and treied to convert them.

Heathen; “ don’t tread on me, I’m not giving up my idol!”
Christin “okay fine, pray to this figurine of a saint”

Heathen: “so I can worship this idol of Saint Bernard?”

Christian: “ummm, itSs not a, ummm, okay close enough”

Proving once again that min/maxing arbitrary metrics leads to weird results.
In that case, you wouldn't sign a single transaction, you would sign a subscription plan, e.g. "I authorize merchant X to debit my account Y dollars every month."
Wait - are you claiming that integrations are an advantage Openland has over Slack? Care to elaborate on that?
I'm not that strict when it comes to things. I sell a few things here and there on eBay, even a 4 star review would easily pull me below 99.6%.
Understanding Urbit, a clean-slate OS and network for the 21st century
>Maybe a movie clip is a copyright violation and maybe it is fair use. Does Twitter take down that content as soon as there is a complaint? Does it have to wait for some legal action to start or finish? What is the recourse if something is taken down and later found to be legal content?

We have the DMCA to cover this... however it's currently an extremely broken process. While there is a penalty codified for making claim to something you don't own, it is never enforced. That part of it needs to change and the regulation should then act in the manner it was designed to.
What could go wrong from empowering biased corporations with the ability to control a national narrative of what constitutes misinformation and hyperbole? I'm noticing a wide spread lack of the ability to weigh the pros and cons of policy in order to arrive at a rational decision based on due consideration of legitimate data analysis. I guess we should've been concerned when today's young adults couldn't discern real from fake news sources. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK284782/
Makes me wonder how well equipped the next generation of underprivileged and minority children will be, among whom illiteracy will be a serious issue because they and their parents were never able to catch-up socially after being thrown to the wolves of self preservation and unchecked puritanical shaming. Sure a website like hacker news is well-moderated and I am appreciative, but it's a matter of scale. A for-profit corporation granted with the ability to control the political narrative of an entire country is neither, "moderated content", nor, "news". If time has anything to tell it works fine, until the narrative is wrong.
In most places in America you can be fired for no reason at all.
I have a vision of computing that I call "personal application omnipresence" (PAO) [1] where applications are singular instances that you interact with concurrently from any device. Notionally, it's similar to having multiple "views" in a MVC architecture, and allowing each of those views to adapt to the capabilities of the device displaying the view.

The article linked here talks at length about concurrent edits and the data structures necessary to handle work by multiple application instances. I feel this is (potentially) unnecessary effort. Rather than build applications to support concurrent edits by fat clients, use thin clients that all speak to the same instance of the application with its singular state. Concurrent work would therefore be resolved in real-time by a single application instance in a first-come-first-served basis, without any complex data structures or clever coding.

The root of so much complexity in modern computing is that all of us have multiple application instances when virtually nobody actually wants this. I don't want a separate email client on every device. I want a single email client that I can attach views to and interact with from anywhere.

[1] https://tiamat.tsotech.com/pao
Whether it covers it or not is up to the courts to decide.
I'm not sure cross-universe communicating is necessary in the multiverse model. The splitting just resembles communication from our perspective in that it makes the probabilities look "rigged".
Depends on the actual situation, but just from looking at it I would guess that named functions instead of nebulous unrelated nested branches would be a start.

Edit: it’s also just kind of a code smell that suggests the overall structure is not well thought out, with that particular collection of tests. Could be fine in that respect in context tho
Yeah, it's kinda weird how large institutional actors have more power than a motley crew of disorganized workers.

If only there were some other way.
Easy, reproducible, and shareable development environments
I'd be curious about the inverse though: does the rate at which a random sample of the population is willing to tell you something incorrect if you paid them change significantly?
This is a very interesting technology, and can be used with other gases too: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01407...
France, Spain, UK, and Italy from Feb 15 to Oct 13

https://i.imgur.com/7EKmXgA.png
There are multiple levels. While I like the idea of separating seeing only what my followers post and seeing other posts, it gets really blurry when the people I follow are clicking the "like" and "retweet" buttons. I would guestimate around 30% or more of my twitter feed are posts people I follow have liked or retweeted rather than posted on their own.

And the network can make that happen on its own, without an algorithm reordering content - if someone I follow is retweeting something that someone they follow retweeted.
If anything, the first amendment explicitly protects a private organization's right to curate their own platforms the way they see fit.

Twitter could declare support of Donald Trump a bannable offense today, and those people can promptly sign up for a site like Parler.

And Parler has even more censorship. Adult work is completely legal in the US, and pornography is a form of constitutionally protected free speech, yet Parler strictly prohibits it on "Decency" grounds.

I see no problem with social netoworks drawing a line in the sand. The big ones can draw a line at violence, hatred, and fascism. The little ones can draw the same line and stand shamefully on the other side.

And nobody loses their right to speak.
My 20 something person startup managed their glassdoor ratings like a hawk. Any low star ratings were immediately challenged (through official channels at glassdoor to remove them) and current employees were asked to write glowing reviews to counterbalance. Glassdoor ratings are a joke. Please don't get fooled.
I've been saying that too, especially for the crypto space.

Everyone just has an incoherent mix of gaslighting regarding everything that went wrong, and inadequate regulation.

Governments can be helping contribute to industry standards, the protocols, the smart contracts that would help some industries function more seamlessly. A state-contributed escrow smart contract would basically fix the escrow industry. A backdoor in it would be laughed at hilariously within a day.

This would be a more collaborative role of the state and propel things forward much faster.
Gmail is great as long as this doesn't happen to you.
Stupidity is about lacking intellectual capacity (not necessary the same as IQ, also things like not being interested in thinking, or lacking necessary facts about a subject can give you a lack of capacity.)

Both stating wrong facts and having ridiculous values is correlated with being stupid. So I do not really see how the Fact-value distinction can be used here, stupid people fail at both.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact-value_distinction)
>And be ruined by shitty actors destroying the signal-to-noise ratio

Moderation on the client side is a thing. It already is practiced on networks like Twitter and Mastodon. It was the historical model on Usenet too.

At this point you're just posting excuses for prolonging the monopoly of centralized moderation. The bogeyman of "the right wing of American culture" doesn't help, given how international the discourse of the subject is.
Right... but someone somewhere must be paying the bill? If I buy a sandwich with a card I found on the ground and get away with it who's paying for that sandwich? The card owner? The store owner? The card provider?

In the UK it's the store... unless they made you use chip and a PIN. Which is why they all use the chip and a PIN. Then it's the card provider, but it's not because the chip and PIN prevents fraud before that point. I think the card provider eats contactless payments because they encourage more of them so it adds up in the end.
True, but property owners pay property tax, which is a big part of where city revenue comes from. Allowing renters to vote on how the money is spent creates the same issue described in the grandparent post.
So now you're demanding companies build specific features (user moderated boards) to accommodate what you think the law should be, regardless of how those companies' products already work?
Does Apple censor email going through Mail app? Why not?

Apple is acting like Communist China or East Germany here. This is unconscionable.
> .... and they came to believe that these very popular websites are somehow inherent to the Internet and to society in general. They're not.

Amen. And my feeling is that we would be better off without them. This is why i'm in favor of slow computing, slower network speeds, and slower lifestyles. (I should state that this is not sarcasm)
Indeed, compressed air seems ideal for hot humid climates (cool/dry air being a byproduct of discharge), which are are often quite low-tech.
Ironically WFH, whilst being forced to a local actually makes it more expensive. You could live in a tiny studio when your office was available. So now you must rent a sufficient space to include your home office -- In a locale where the price per sq ft is higher.

someone invent a murphy bed that converts to a desk that converts to a toilet so our workforce can live in a space smaller than solitary confinement.
'I never saw stars': Gene therapy brings back 8-year-old Canadian boy's sight
> "Is not being allowed to host child porn a violation of my free speech?"
- No, in that specific case it would clearly violate the rights of individuals depicted in the content you are hosting and therefore must be taken down.
And they don't have any shape or form of public API which sucks.
Working people up into a frenzy and giving them targets to assault is a time honored way to rise to power.

Statues don’t fight back.
Real trouble is when you run out of statues.
Giving big tech companies even more power than they already have isn't the right move though.
Well that's not the full story is it? They actively blocked, with human knowledge a post. They definitely editorialized that. No algorithm involved.
Not being sarcastic but how would LIDAR help here ?

Maybe .... before acting on a Stop sign sensed by the cameras the control system would confirm, via LIDAR, there is a post with a plate mounted on it in a position which corresponds to where the camera thought it saw a Stop sign ?

Can LIDAR do that level of sensing, ie unambiguously find a metal post/plate out of all the other stuff which might be in front of the car ?

And assuming my guess about how LIDAR would help is correct what happens when an obstruction between the car and the Stop sign means that LIDAR can't 'see' the post but the cameras can see the sign ?
Why are all the statues of a 4000 year old conquered civilization vanadalized? Oh gee I don't know. What a mystery.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWxszYK6IPU
There is a lot here. So much that the point below can only get lost in the deluge, but I think it’s important to consider. Grit ain’t everything.

> I made many mistakes during this time, thinking I could just grit it out alone.
Voting is a small part of a functioning democracy. Voting, then letting that be that, is very undemocratic.
This is slowly changing, at least with some of the high-end consumer/prosumer Sony cameras. I'd like to see some of the other features in your list added, but Sony's past slowness to add features doesn't inspire much hope that they will be added any time soon.

All of the recent (4+ years) cameras have a "share to mobile" feature, where the camera acts as an AP, and your phone connects to pull photos from it. You can either pick the photos to transfer on the camera or on the phone, and it works pretty well for posting to social media, or instantly sharing.

I've run the RX100M3/M5 and a7iii off of USB power forever (a full day's worth of being a webcam via HDMI capture). You can get a battery eliminator for the older a7 models -- while it does require additional hardware and hassle, they do work, and can run off of USB.

The a7iii _finally_ supports some level of geotagging by using the GPS in your phone, and using a BLE connection to get location. It's not as good as a built in GPS, but it's better than recording a track log and syncing later.
This could/should be measurable by Sat scores or other measures of intelligence if the writer agrees that rationality is related to the definition of IQ. Maybe it's not and it encompasses more than solving problems but also jugdjing probabilities without emotion.
The Wikipedia page on unit types is completely accurate with regards to what a unit type is, and a unit type is the correct model for the type that a void function returns in C. Sure, void can be interpreted in a few different ways, but void in function return or argument position definitely cannot be interpreted as the bottom type. As far as I know, C does not really have bottom as a first-class concept, however useful it might be. So while I agree with you that it would be theoretically possible for C's statement about void not having any inhabitants to coincide with the type theoretic defintion of void, in practice it does not (for all the reasons I mentioned earlier).

You will note that all the differences mentioned between void and unit in the Wikipedia article are syntactic, not semantic; this is because semantically there is no real distinction between them.

What is bizarre to me, though, is that you didn't read the Wikipedia article you just carelessly edited, which already mentions Common Lisp and explicitly tells you not to confuse the NULL type (which has single inhabitant NIL--i.e. you agree with me that it is the same as void, and they are both unit types) with the NIL type (bottom). Firstly, the existence of a subtyping relationship that lets you upcast values of type unit to values of type symbol (or indeed, any other type) does not somehow make it not a unit type (only subtyping in the other direction would accomplish such a thing), and certainly does not invalidate any of the article's claims as you assert. Secondly, no implementation detail of Common Lisp will affect the definition of a unit type, regardless of how many edits one makes to a Wikipedia page, any more than the C standard claiming void functions don't have a return type changes how they are modeled mathematically. Notions as fundamental as unit types are defined semantically and aren't really tied to specific language syntax.
> Should private companies have any regulation at all?

I can actually get behind no regulation for private companies, twitter can censor who they like as I can drive my favorite tank registered as my company vehicle and don't bother with taxes anymore.
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence.

If I sell you a bar of lead painted gold, and tell you that it's solid gold, I can still be held responsible for fraud. My words would constitute a crime.

Now, if I told you explicitly that it was lead, but you decided to pay the gold price of your own free will, then I would be okay.

It would literally be the words I used to that constituted the crime. Lying isn't free speech in plenty on contexts. Go file a false police report and find out what happens.
> table games...should be more-or-less sensibly layed out and easy to find

It depends a lot on what you’re after and where you are. I can pretty quickly find eg a craps table in any Vegas casino, but I once wandered around Wynn Macau for literally 20 minutes to find the one table in that entire building. Coulda really used a map.
Cryptocurrency seems like a natural fit.

I’m half joking.

It should be fairly easy to come up with a cryptographic scheme that allows centralized billing, though metered billing may be more challenging.
Mutual hatred is a powerful unifying force, it is not beyond dictators to use this as a tool to enhance their power. You shouldn’t take autocrats at face value, their public interaction is much more staged for effect than people seem to believe. In that way, genocide is just another political trick.
What about the transition from parchment writing to the printing press?
How does that work when flat earthers actually weave elaborate "theories" about the physics and mechanics leading everyone else to conclude that it is round? It's not like they say it's flat and stick their fingers in their ears. They respond with plausible-sounding retorts that, while obviously untrue, often make sense in isolation. For everyone else, the explanation of "the earth is round and gravity goes brr" is far less cognitively intensive than all the mental gymnastics flat earthers engage in.
For me, it's simple. Facebook is doing bad things. I don't like bad things. I think we should stop Facebook from doing bad things.

Is up to me to stop it? No. Of course not. Obviously not. In fact, even if I had the power to single-handedly, unilaterally, stop Facebook from doing these things, I wouldn't. Because I don't believe that might makes right (that's my wider point, after all).

What I want is a popular, democratic movement to regulate the websites that people use, in the way that the informed population think they should be regulated.

Allowing countless to be made pawns of in the name of liberty seems foolish.
Yes. But make sure you don't use Google Domains to host your domain. Otherwise your domain will be locked too.
> There's no reason computers can't be better than people

It is entirely possible, however, that the computers and software systems available today can't be better than humans.
There is no solution to this problem that doesn't involve unaccountable third parties setting the ground rules for what is okay to say. I'd take a thousand racist uncles writing about chemtrails before taking a single official censor. The abuse factor for the latter is simply too high to ever permit.

Freedom of speech, as a concept, includes by extension the freedom to be wrong.
Duress? LOL. What duress? If they pay, the situation gets better. If they don't pay the situation remains the same. Your claim is ridiculous. In any case the situation never gets worse so there is no duress.
Twitter: "The policy, established in 2018, prohibits the use of our service to distribute content obtained without authorization"

https://twitter.com/TwitterSafety/status/1316525307441147907...

And yet, there is information all over twitter about the presidents tax returns, which were illegally obtained.

Twitter did not censor the Ayatollah's tweets about genocide of Israeli people.

Twitter did not censor illegally leaked classified information in many instances.

The Steele Dossier was a collection of unvetted opposition research, which has since been shown to have no basis in reality. When will twitter block this misinformation?

So now, just before an election, we're supposed to believe that they're not acting in a partisan way?
Self-driving cars is not just about not wanting to drive.

It's also about enabling Uber-style intelligent carpooling so that you can save energy while still maintaining similar times to driving, especially in places with poor or non-existent public transportation.

It's also about reducing the number of cars in the world. You probably use your car for less than 5% of your life. Most of the time it just sits there taking up space. Why do you need to own it? Imagine a world where you didn't need to own, maintain, or park. We can reclaim parking lots and plant trees, build housing, or other things. We can also reclaim a lot of our time spent in traffic jams or looking for parking and do something more useful with it.

It's also about enabling people who are unfit to drive to have a better quality of life. What if you've had a little to drink? What if you're down with a fever and a headache and can't concentrate on the road? What if you're sleepy? What if you are prone to seizures? What if you're blind, deaf, have poor motor skills? What if you're a visitor to an area without a public transportation system and not confident renting a car and driving?
My editorialization aside, Twitters stated reason is that the images contained in the articles include personal and private information (email addresses and phone numbers) which violate our rules.

That (to me) is valid in itself. I do wonder, had they redacted things properly then this would all be a non-issue.

To your example; my understanding is that Trump's taxes did not in the same way (by this I mean things like Trump org address etc isn't a private address). I have not dug deep into those articles to say that with 100% certainty.
Hum to Search Song
Yup my experience isn't too far off.
The most interesting thing about this comment is that this is precisely how things have been for a very very long time.

If you would like to know "what could go wrong" you need simply take a look and see what is going wrong now.
You can just say "no, I don't have enough information to form an opinion on the matter" and leave it at that. Or maybe "I'm not convinced…" There's people who might attack you as ignoring a major issue, or being a lame duck, but you can remind them that it's certainly better than rushing into an opinion and choosing something you don't believe in.
What do you do for a living? I am purely a hobbyist, I have a bit of CAD experience and think I would be interested to do CAD professionally but have no idea where to start.
A private company stopping people spewing misinformation to huge numbers of people using their private platform isn't "censorship".

The problem with "some people only use facebook for news and so this means they are effectively censored" is "some people only use facebook for news". Fix that, don't try to force services to broadcast obvious harmful nonsense to people.

The idea of truly unfiltered free speech on a global scale is impossible, because you have to be heard and we can't let everyone broadcast to everyone: there is too much noise. Free speech does not—and has never meant—the right to every platform.
I’d like to see a solution like the Smart Card-based Sun Ray become standard in offices. Pull up to any client terminal, swipe a card and get access to your desktop as you left it. Get a cheap laptop for remote access.
I'd also argue that a failure to teach (i.e. "telling people the knowledge they supposedly lack") is also not in and of itself a failure of intelligence.

The failure of intelligence is not necessarily thinking that the earth is flat, it's why one thinks that; and, in the modern context, and some historical contexts, this specific conclusion is explicitly an illogical one (i.e. an unintelligent one).
No, but I can think of a few examples where most of the fraud is stopped while not significantly harming users.
Not just for show; doing it this way likely spares that person's SEO.