skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> These should absolutely be two independent commits.
> I think this opportunity was missed.

Uh, they were two independent commits. The test in Chromium was fixed in 2017. The change to googletest landed a few weeks ago in 2020. Separated by three years and in two different repositories - that sounds independent to me.

> This is a false dichotomy. You can fix both!

Yep, did that.

FWIW the failure was originally reported on an x64 test, so the i386 FPU with its 80-bit registers was not used.
If holocaust denial, flat earthers, plandemic, and qanon is the kind of stuff we get when FB does nothing, then I'll take my chances on them removing some content, thanks.

Besides, with a disinterested moderator you don't automatically get pure free speech. Others step in to influence the system, to push their "truth" to their benefit.
There is such a thing as factual truth. That we, as a society, have reached a point where we lost the basic concensus of that is very troubling. Denying the Holocaust is like denying gravity. Both things, the Holocaust and gravity, are factually true. We have to be able to call people out for denying that. And while denying gravity is just stupid, denying the holocaust is outright dangerous.

Taking steps against that are thus justified.
That's one example, and it wasn't Unity retroactively revoking a license. It was Unity clarifying that the use case (of a purchased asset by a contractor) was never part of the rights granted in the first place.

Unity's licensing model has always been that developers or users must pay for their own license (for an asset or non-free subscription) unless they are part of an entity's license. Unity clarified that only employees of an entity, or subsidiaries of an entity and the subsidiary's employees, are covered by the license.

This is generally always how it works with software licensing: independent contractors, by virtue of being separate businesses, must pay for their own tools and licenses (and indeed, that is one of the factors in the independent contractor test under federal US law).
Not the op, the gp, or even the parent, but I'd like to say that while I'm certainly not condoning flashbangs in cribs or saying that "grenade" is technically inaccurate in the original sentence, there is a very different mental picture when someone says "grenade" vs "stun grenade". I feel like in an era where it's easier and more prolific to crucify a person because of their words than in the known history of mankind, the distinction between "grenade" and "stun grenade" should be made.

Does that make this okay? No. Not even a little. But let's err on the side of clearer communication.
In a Honda Accord, yes. In a Ferrari, though?
Site inaccessible from Europe. I had to go through a US proxy to read the article.
There are roughly 20 class 8s worth of special addresses, which reduces that by $10 billion or so.
Even if the information got to Chicago in 3ms, you would still need time to process the information and generate a response. So trading on the information, from Chicago, 2-3ms after its release in DC seems implausible, if not impossible
A flash-bang is a grenade. It's not a fragmentation grenade (which you're referring to); or an incendiary grenade; or any number of other 'less than lethal' (which can be lethal) grenade types.

A 'hand' grenade is one thrown by hand as opposed to projected from a grenade launcher. So, yes, a flashbang is a hand grenade.

And it's a good thing those policemen used a concussive grenade to pacify that dangerous child. I'm sure that child was a threat that needed to be neutralized./s
Valve's Steam Machines: Was the Idea of Linux-Based Gaming Devices in Vain?
> Science assumes it's possible

Aren't we proof that it's possible?
I'd like to point out a grammatical mistake and a typo on the landing page.

"People always underestimates the value of a good portfolio. A portfolio gives evidence to your skills and experinces."

"People always underestimate..." and "experiences".
Some comments are calling this move intolerant censorship, when it is not.

Tolerance is accepting that another person has a different view. But the people who are pushing lies about the Holocaust or a flat earth don’t have a different opinion, they are lying about well-known, verifiable facts. Now, some may say that censors often hide behind “facts” to suppress ideas they don’t like. The difference is that the Holocaust was a global tragedy and the earth is round and other “points of view” are both harmful and nonsense.

Censorship is a dangerous tool but not a tool which ought never be used.

The essential problem is _how_ these curation decisions get made. At present, Facebook is making free speech decisions much like a government, despite not having representation from “the people.” While Zuck may be a benevolent ruler, his successor may not be. We need government-like separation of powers and popular representation in order to maintain social platforms for many generations. Otherwise, we risk digital despotism.
There's a difference between "free speech" as a set of ideals and "free speech" as a legal right in the American constitution. When people criticize social network censorship, they're usually talking about the former, and they're usually not concerned about holocaust deniers in particular, but the slippery-slope precedent that these kinds of behaviors set.
Hasn't stopped them from outlawing a plant that will happily grow on the roadside.
EU targets Big Tech with “hit list” facing tougher rules
No Facebook, you don't get to use this as a PR win.

This is a bare minimum which should've been done a long time ago.

This isn't a free speech issue. Anybody can deny the holocaust, but Facebook should not be profiting from the propagation of fringe and deeply offensive views. There is no justification for doing so.

Facebook is not a library and it is not a repository of well-written, peer-reviewed ideas and thoughts. It's a machine designed to profit from outrage and polarisation.
You are assuming that a simple free market of ideas actually works. As it turns out it really doesn't because people are stupid and when you let people self select whom to attend to stupid people choose other stupid people to attend to and soon mistake constant repetition of falsehoods for truth.

These spreading piles of human bile attract people who are peripherally socially connected on the social graph some of which grow the pile o poison until you reach a critical mass of poison and your society derails.

You advance the fallacy that if we censor anything we must censor everything that powerful parties desire. This isn't so. Facebook has actually been very reluctant to censor anything at all and even now and is only now choosing to censor things that are harmful uncontroversial falsehoods.

In the case of the holocaust denial they are hateful lies that have festered for decades. Nothing in particular forces us to slide down the slope and start covering for the powerful.
> The bricking shows that all these “smart” cars with remote software control are liable to hacking

No, it does not.

The way I read the article, the photo is taken at the installation facility where (presumably aftermarket) seats were being installed. The car disabled itself during installation. It was not driving. It was also not "hacked" remotely. I assume the installer also had the key at hand.

A certified dealership will have the computer interface and software to reset the anti-theft mode. For those that do not have this software, Ferrari can remote into the car and reset it for you. This requires connectivity though.
Do you mean that you had a catadioptric objective, or I’m missing something? That is not a lens, it’s an objective with a lens in the front (to correct the geometry) and a system of mirrors to obtain a focal length greater than what would be possible only by using refraction being constrained by the objective body length.
I think the main thing is safety.

On the face of it I'm with you, but then when it came down to it I'd be thinking well hang on this actually doesn't seem as safe (or at least not as thoroughly tested to determine if it is) as these other mass-produced things, and wouldn't end up buying it.

If it was easy to make something as safe as a $modern_run_of_the_mill_family_car and that looked 'normal' (i.e. curvy, I suppose, not weird slabs of barely bent sheet metal) I think there'd be loads of Kickstarter campaigns 'basic'/'maintainable'/.. cars.
Your example doesn’t even make sense. This isn’t challenging the officially story, it’s making up a story and selling it to propagate racism.

But also rights and freedoms have limits. Unless you think private citizens should be allowed to own tanks and icbms, etc, then you agree.

Social media is, if not a nuclear weapon, certainly a machine gun of speech with its magnitude and velocity and certainly something unthinkable by the founding fathers and being weaponized by state actors against our institutions and ideals. Complaining about these restrictions without a viable other way to combat this ignorance and psyops -at the same scale and velocity- is just complaining.
Yawn. Facebook is not the public square, nor should it be. Imo it’s also the wrong platform for political engagement (because it structurally amplifies the wrong kinds of engagement), and I couldn’t care less what editorial power they exert. There are other, real public forums (where speech is constitutionally protected) where fringe groups can peddle their ideas.
Facebook removing Holocaust Denial content isn't a step towards dystopia lmao. Video game forums in the '00s did this.
Read a Paper: Learning Programming via Livestreaming
> Or departments with more military gear are in more risky areas where the use of force is more likely.

Maybe. I know anecdotally where I live has very little violent crime, and the police department is fully militarized with mraps and the like.
Makes no practical or business sense? How many engineers does Microsoft have working on the Windows kernel? A kernel that, from a business standpoint, is adding little value to Microsoft?

Obviously Windows isn't going away - but how many of Microsoft's customers would know that their kernel has been swapped out when the UI and all the applets look identical? As far as they're concerned the switch could have already happened! All they care is the look-and-feel is the same and their applications still run. They don't care about the kernel.

It's not a matter of better, it's a matter of good enough and saving on expenses. Presumably those engineers could be better utilized somewhere that's generating more revenue.

That's the bottom line.
PayMe+ App: Send/Receive Crypto and Fiat Just Like an Email
Download the app and create your universal ID for all Crypto & Fiat receivable.
I'm not using abstraction, I'm using the literal meaning of the word. Intolerance is not allowing something, usually that you disagree with. Censorship = Intolerance.

Further, I don't think not believing in something, nor expressing that disbelief thereof qualifies as "intolerance" by any definition.

What specifically is not being tolerated?
The issues that get generalised into oblivion aren't the sort of issues that will end up on howtoxwithy though. You can't really abstract "concat two strings" any more, and both howtoxwithy and stack overflow both have the same answers for python: x + y

> SO is not going anywhere anytime soon. I just don’t see why it has to be the end all resource.

I don't think SO has to be the end-all resource, but to me it seems that this site is just a subset of SO's functionality, and doesn't provide anything different.
You think there's some kind of debate or question around the existence of the Holocaust?
Rust "doesn't" have function overloading, but it effectively does:

fn main() {
foo((42));
foo((12.0, 13.0));
}

pub fn foo(args: impl FooArgs) { args.exec() }
pub trait FooArgs { fn exec(self); }
impl FooArgs for u32 { fn exec(self) { println!("A number: {}", self) } }
impl FooArgs for (f32, f32) { fn exec(self) { println!("{} x {} = {}", self.0, self.1, self.0 * self.1) } }

https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&editio...

A number: 42
12 x 13 = 156

Usually you won't abuse tuples quite like this, but it's an option. The same pattern of using traits - without the tuples - is more common [1]. Or if you need variadic functions, typically you'd resort to a macro instead.

[1]: https://medium.com/@jreem/advanced-rust-using-traits-for-arg...
>Cause and effect is important to distinguish.

Alternatively we should probably abandon the notion that anything at the society level has a simple cause and a simple effect.

When dealing with society, we're dealing with a chaotic system. I don't see much in society that can be clearly defined in terms of "if this then that."

It seems like we would be much better off by being honest about the complexities of what we're dealing with.
That's a nice soundbite you've got there, but what does it actually mean?

Facebook can imprison people? Fine them? Revoke their permission to travel? Fire them from their jobs? Decide their contractual disputes? Determine the taxes they should pay?

None of the above?
The study controls for that variable:

> The newspaper’s analysis used the military’s database and paired it with a database of fatal police shootings from across the state, controlling for statistical variables like community income, rural-urban differences, racial makeup, and violent crime rates.

The article explicitly cautions against drawing conclusions about causality. My intuition is that there’s truth to both explanations: cosplaying as a military makes police more violent, and intrinsically violent departments are more likely to seek out military equipment.

And frankly, the second conclusion scares me more. If the causal relationship is “equipment —> violence”, we can solve it by simply banning the use of military equipment by police. If the relationship goes the other way, though, we still have to deal with violent cops who want to hurt civilians.
But that is not what is happening instead they feaster inside their bubbles and grow even more convinced and dangerous. It should simply not be tolerated.

"You cannot reason someone out of something he or she was not reasoned into."
It's not a fragmentation grenade, but it's still a type of hand grenade. Not as deadly, but not exactly harmless either. And very irresponsible to use it in a situation that does not warrant it.
We put reasonable restrictions on all sorts of rights when the non-restriction of those rights starts to impact other people and other rights. The common example would be libel laws on speech or punishment for causing panic in a crowded theater by yelling "fire."

Vehicles can be a deadly weapon but are highly available. We put reasonable regulation in place so that getting a driver's license for a small car is not very onerous while obtaining a commercial driver's license to pilot an 18 wheel tractor trailer requires more training. Similar rules around firearms with differing capabilities to harm others seems reasonable. We also require insurance for vehicle owners at various amounts based on risk.
Yeah, I wouldn't bet on it being causal though I could make a plausible story that police departments that put dangerous looking military equipment in their recruitment videos tend to attract the wrong sort of people.
Snapdocs Lands $60M Round
> The situation in here is more like "haha, ok, we just need to tow this thing out of the garage and try again" - no big deal.

No big deal when the reason you can't get a signal is that you're in a parking garage. Rather more of a life-threatening defect when the reason you can't get a signal is that you're driving through an unpopulated desert where there are no cell towers or other people.
> controlling for statistical variables like community income, rural-urban differences, racial makeup, and violent crime rates.

So, they must have have data on low crime areas that also have similar military gear.

On a related note, do surplus statisticians cause lying journalists?
Define intolerant. If group A says group B is lying about some historical fact, is that in and of itself intolerance?
Not always. As soon as hate becomes widespread enough walking away besomes impossible. That's why things like Holocaust denial are so dangerous is being left unchecked.
> dealing with all the configuration idiosyncrasies and driver issues on a day-to-day basis

You mean on Windows? The only driver issues I've had on linux were NVIDIA (fuck you NVIDIA) and (for a short time) AMD during their transition from driver in a package to driver in the kernel. That's it in a whole decade.
Hunting down drivers for windows was way more annoying.
There is so many ways to write this comparison that after a couple of times you really wish there were something in the standard library to help you so that you could write e.g.

bool operator<=(version lhs, version rhs) {
return std::tie(lhs.Major, lhs.Minor, lhs.Patch) <= std::tie(rhs.Major, rhs.Minor, rhs.Patch);
}

Wait, there is! And Python has something like this too, even more laconic: you don't need to write "std::tie", naked parentheses are enough.
Agreed. This sudden flurry of long-called for action is surely in their own self-interest. They're expecting a blue wave and regulations.
I don't think your second claim is correct. As far as I understand he believed the Soviet numbers are the most accurate, not that they were overstated.
Interesting stuff I am generally skeptical of new webdev frameworks but I will check this out
That's a fair point, and I was generally aware of Amazon's behavior in matters like this, and some general overall effect on consumer surplus. Does it bother me enough to make me cancel my subscribe and save to drive to the store and lug the box of diapers to my car? No. I'm fine with letting the government make the rules on what is economically destructive behavior.
> This is a bare minimum which should've been done a long time ago.

Agreed. Video games forums in the '00s could do this - why did it take FB so long?

To be fair, Holocaust denial & related ideology was more universally hated back then. It's managed to rebrand as of late into mere contrarianism.
>People are entitled to their own opinions, but Facebook is not required to provide a platform for them...

Agreed. Is this not the purpose of a walled garden? Many people confuse the Internet with FB or other walled gardens. If a free and open Internet was a threat to media gatekeepers, walled gardens have nearly neutralized that threat.
What % of a religion would need to be, say, anti-gay, before we deem the whole thing problematic and ban it from facebook?

The more I investigate "where to draw the line", the more I'm convinced we aren't capable of doing so in a just fashion.
No, just that they need to be willing to accept the consequences of their mistakes rather than blame third parties. If software development is inherently risky then that's still the responsibility of software developers. If that makes some businesses unviable then the system is working as intended because they were unviable anyway, just profiting by passing costs to other people.

There's a separate sentiment floating around (and that _was_ the tone I caught from the parent comment, though I could be mistaken) that portions of Microsoft produce software with major design flaws that create a horde of other security and performance problems and that they should do better, but actually making better software isn't a necessary step in holding software creators accountable.
“Locking down” is not the problem - the problem is that you are told you’re buying goods when you are actually buying goods which require access to rented software in order to function at all.

It’s like buying a blender and then finding out that you’re not allowed to blend anything unless someone in the manufacturers’ operation approves of it.
Looking good. Some feedback as someone who has screened many tech resumes.

- Design is one thing to think about but I think you'd be giving your readers more value with some custom advice / structure - like how to talk about the value you've created at a position rather than simply listing responsibilities.

- As others mentioned, grammar is pretty important for CVs, so tidying up the copy you use in examples and the rest of your site would be good.

- The pricing is confusing. What is 'an application'. Don't I get the PDF and then I can use it to apply to as many places as I need? I know it's almost an unspoken rule to have 3 pricing options, but I would just go for one in this case and have a link to the subscription/hosting service with its own page and pricing rather than confusing people there.
You can build nuclear reactors in your home (and people do[1-6]) pretty much without regulation and if you fuck up and vent a bunch of radioactive gas to atmosphere, your community will suffer for it.

As for chemical weapons, people accidentally create chlorine gas all of the time. Aside from that, the reason you don't see more of this is because the really potent nerve agents and useful explosives (smokeless powders and beyond) have complex reactions that require trained chemists to produce.

It's a good thing most people aren't motivated to do that, but Aum Shinrikyo happened in our lifetimes.

I personally have the know how to create several things that are genuinely dangerous (like an EPFCG...I even have a copy of the 70s-era paper from LANL), but absolutely zero motivation to do so. It's not regulation that's stopping me.

You can build lasers that can blind people with the laser diode from your blu-ray player and people do it for fun. Nothing illegal about it here either and I've built a few.

[1]:https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/how-to-build-a...
[2]:https://www.businessinsider.com/12-year-old-builds-nuclear-r...
[3]:https://www.instructables.com/Build-A-Fusion-Reactor/
[4]:https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a30917842/homemade-...
[5]:https://www.foxnews.com/science/teen-builds-working-nuclear-...
[6]:https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/07/150726-nucle...

Regulation really hasn't stopped any government from manufacturing nuclear weapons. Proliferation treaties have largely been a failure as you can see evidence of in recent years. The actual _use_ of nuclear weapons is something else and has nothing to do with regulation. The use of nuclear and chemical weapons doesn't support any governments war objectives. It turns out you don't actually win if everyone in the world simultaneously hates you, won't trade with you and will sanction you into oblivion. It turns out that the ability to import and export goods is worth more than the dead bodies of your enemies.
I think it is arguable[0] whether the (preexisting in many countries) letter of immigration law with blanket “do you work or not” actually aligns with the spirit of the law, which may have well been intended to be “do you work in our country” but was not written the former way because of remote work not being so widespread at the time.

I believe the smoke test for tourist status, as applied to digital nomads, is whether one’s customers/employer are companies with official representation in chosen country of residence. If not, they are (1) not stealing jobs from locals, and (2) actually boosting local economy, infusing it with cash earned overseas.

Possibly hinting at this are also recent programs in some countries[1] that in a way encourage “digital nomadism”, offering terms that are actually more beneficial compared to tourist status (e.g., longer stay times).

[0] Of course, this argument most likely won’t fly if the immigration officer is out to get you. IANAL.

[1] Georgia comes to mind
"The Daily" with narrative over fact has turned the NYTimes into a gossip magazine. Access journalism scars the truth.
> Never let speech get censored no matter how good it makes you feel in the moment.

The problem is that you can censor speech by adding more speech (i.e. noise).
Rolling Stone's Article on First Spacewar Olympics by Stewart Brand (1972)