skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
If someone steals your wallet, or just picks it up off the street after you drop it, what stops them burning through tens of thousands of dollars before anyone notices? I know you can claim it back due to consumer laws... but who's covering the actual goods and services that are consumed until they get to your credit limit?
> Nice job, holding franchisees responsible. Dickey's won't have to answer for the actual breach because the franchisees also had poor security.

I think this is blaming the wrong people. I mean, do we really think some small fry BBQ restaurant franchisee can do adequate IT security now?

The issue is that credit card numbers are fundamentally insecure. We must move financial systems to a signed transactions model where private keys only live on secure hardware modules. This idea that we can have credit card numbers floating between consumers and merchants and payment processors and banks is nonsense.
K8s does have a well-defined storage abstraction that wraps the operations it performs.

Surprisingly, Etcd is neither scalable or high performance in our small cluster with <10 nodes on GKE. It had been the single most frequent source of prod outages.

But it appears that k8s community do not section a list of compatible storage engine that can plug and play with k8s. Or I might have missed some recent development.
The platform operator can't. That's how common carriers work (telephone, your ISP etc.). But things running on that platform could. Basically look at reddit and perhaps take it up a notch. If the platform operator does not want to be associated with some of the stuff happening on their site then perhaps they should deemphasize their branding. It wouldn't be "reddit/watchpeopledie" just "watchpeopledie".

I not sure how this could work for a single-purpose community like HN. Maybe if YC ran a neutral HNaaS then the HN-prime could be operated and moderated by independent staff.

An alternative approach would be exemptions for non-profit sites.

I think it would be possible to operate within these broad rules if the details are crafted right, but even then it would require significant adjustments for many site operators.
> Keeping information in a quiet private forum makes it inaccessible to people at large. This means the next CEO who runs up against this investor is mostly completely unaware of their past actions.

I agree this is the downside of my proposed approach. But, the alternative is a world where someone's reputation can be irreparably damaged by unsubstantiated claims made by one person.

Do you want to live in a world where someone's reputation and livelihood can be destroyed by unsubstantiated claims? You may think I'm overstating the potential damage, but I think people generally underestimate the damage the internet mob can inflict on a person.
I'm sorry:

x = ["foo", "bar"][y]
If you believe in free speech then you must believe that Twitter has the free speech right to choose what they want to host on their privately owned servers, the same way a homeowner has the free speech right to choose what lawn signs they want to display on their yard, and a newspaper has the free speech right to decide what editorials they want to publish.

If you think free speech gives you the right to force your speech onto other people then you don't understand the concept of free speech.

You reminisce fondly of the old internet, but the old school forums were all heavily and completely arbitrarily moderated according to the whims and egos of the mods. Unrestricted free speech was never a thing there.
When is the last time you had to reinstall windows because the grub loader failed to install correctly upon the initial install?

Or a device didn't work out of the box because the company didn't make drivers for it? How about the amount of times you needed to run wine on windows to play a specific game.

Linux is awesome. But you gotta get out of your bubble and realize it's super niche and for techy people. Not average joes that just wanna watch youtube.
I appreciate the optimism. Usually I'd be optimistic too. I'm pessimistic in this case because I sense a culture shift. Few media, few intellectuals, and few politicians initially condemned the rioting or looting or violence. They did so only months later. Instead, CNN reporter could stand in front of a burning building, telling millions of people that it was a "mostly peaceful" protest. And where are the politicians when the business owners in Kenosha saw their life's work burnt away by mobs?
> It did not provide evidence that the meeting ever took place, and the Biden election campaign says it did not.

This conflicts w/ a report by Politico:

> Biden’s campaign would not rule out the possibility that the former VP had some kind of informal interaction with Pozharskyi, which wouldn’t appear on Biden’s official schedule. But they said any encounter would have been cursory.
Why? Watergate was largely built off journalistic work not hacked materials, obviously deep throat was inside the FBI but he was never quoted
Police and military was the same thing. Today we have decoupled them for many good reasons.
I reluctantly[0] concur. Absolutely agreed that the chat responder must be an actual person and also competent. I get the impression that many sites just use a chatbot for the initial interaction and then maybe escalate to a human (competent or not) if you are persistent enough.

[0] I don't know why exactly. Maybe it's because I abhor phone convos, so I get similarly nervous around chat... but I really shouldn't because you do get a tad more time to actually formulate responses.
>> By using a different information provider.

That doesn't work when network effects are involved. Just like there aren't going to be hundreds of cell phone networks, there aren't going to be hundreds of networks with the reach of Twitter or Facebook.

Any time Twitter or Facebook don't allow certain information to be sent, users have less control over the information they receive.

>> Believe me, no one of any political stripe should want to take away ability to moderate Internet forums. It will turn all forums, regardless of political, religious or other affiliation, into spam-filled, unusable messes

The question is where the moderation happens, at the corporate level or at the user level. If a user who creates a space on a discussion board gets to moderate it, and anyone can create a space on that discussion board, that's perfectly usable and it puts the control in the user's hands.
Definitely agree with the idea of a scheduled in office time. I work ~400 miles from my company's office and get there several times a year. I enjoy WFH, but would prefer being close enough to go to the office more often.
> You could probably count on one hand the "Indic" kings documented to have specifically targeted temples or religious iconography.

This is more of a statement about the quality of the historical record in India (which is abysmally low).
I fully agree with you regarding free speech. Where we probably differ is that I also uphold the rights of private companies, however large, to set their own standards of what can be posted to their platform. Now, if we want to have the debate about whether the platforms are too large, have too much power to shape the conversations we have, etc, we can have that debate. But it isn't censorship for a private company to remove information it believes violates it's standards (whether because it's false, misleading, or for other reasons).
"Forward to Marketing": https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/27d5xr/please_...

Originally on HN, six years ago. Still my most upvoted comment.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7491381
My favorite way to end an argument is usually prompting a bet...
I see your point but there is still usable space going up in many places. In NYC for example, many buildings have garages with open air space that could be used to provide more parking. The cost of the space doesn't change whether you are parking 1 car there or stacking up. Might as well utilize the space to give more cars access to parking as opposed to just using for a single vehicle.
I think you both have a different idea of what a platform is. Given your idea of a platform, I think web forums are neither platform nor publishers, so where does that leave them?

To be clear, it's not fair to classify them as publishers. Newspapers and magazines are not mediums of discussions like forums are, they're compilers of articles that people spend days to write and submit for approval.

To use an offline metaphor, forums are like clubs where people meetup in a room and have informal discussions about the topic of the club. Such clubs often have someone acting as a moderator, since if discussions derail from the club topic then the host of the club will become disinterested, as well as potential newcomers who have an interest in the club topic.

In my opinion, if a club must be classified as either a "platform" or a "publisher", I think the word "platform" fits better. However, you consider platforms as being limited to communication mediums like postal mail and phone networks. If that's the case, then I think clubs classify as neither.
Start sooner rather than later. It's extremely hard to get off of them once you're tied to their services.

I'm basically down to email and some old Google Drives I need to clean out. Found a project in this thread that should help me with the Drives, just working on email now..
I read all of the replies to you looking for a positive one to vote up and couldn't find one

I think your phrasing of this new problem for our society is very clear and objective.

By the power invested in me as a computer possessor with an internet connection, I declare this to be a good idea, worthy of amplification!
I've moved my entire workflow over to foss. I can't tell you how freeing it is to know I can always jump into any OS and not be hindered whatsoever with what I need to do.
You keep talking about social media in general but the question is whether Twitter and Facebook specifically--just those two companies--are critical infrastructure.

Obviously Twitter is not because it has been down for about an hour now and life is going on just fine.
In life everyone is pushed to have an opinion on everything. On the internet any casual comment about anything is up for the attack “oh so now you claim to be an expert on X do you, well let me put you in your place...”.

> “The Twitter account you followed to understand politics now seems more focused on their mindfulness practice.”

What a "hellscape" it is when you’re reminded that other people are people and not service-providing objects that exist for your one-sided extraction of value. Just because you pigeonhole someone as “the politics person” doesn’t mean they do that to themselves, and just because they tweet about mindfulness doesn’t mean any claim to being a polymath, and just because you want to "learn about politics" doesn't oblige someone to "know their place" in your life and stick to it.

I'm sure there's something more interesting and deeper to be brought up about how it fundamentally doesn't seem to matter if you know a lot or a little, outside the lense of maximising capitalist money acquisition, but it's too hard to get past the rest of it and get to it.
You can look at the source for each link included in the list sure, but how to I find the content they haven't included in the list? The unreliable part is verifying whether the sample provided is an accurate representation of the population
This appears to be the actual research: https://www.nassiben.com/phantoms
I have a Good Fences Make Good Neighbors trick I use, and some people call it a Canary Build.

When contributors to two different modules keep running into contract violations, you set up a CI build that triggers when either of the modules is built. If it fails it means that something got broken. It doesn't stop the build pipeline, but it warns you that garbage is about to come out the other end.

There's a general dynamic between people where peer pressure does not work when the delay between action and consequence grows too long. Nobody truly internalizes how upset other people are when they are found out for something bad they did a year ago, a month ago, or in some cases days ago (hence why roommates fight so often about chores). But getting called out for something you did two hours ago has sorted out an awful lot of bad behavior.

And the nice thing about the Canary Build is that in many CI tools you can set it up and not give him any permissions.
In many places utility companies have a monopoly. Twitter doesn't have a monopoly on the Internet, there are a billion other places you can post content.
I mean the first one is well established fact. No one could argue in good faith that the quality of report first, fact check later stories on Trump is like nothing we’ve ever seen before. But it’s all just flame-bait I guess.

As for the second point, the people making these decisions at Facebook and Twitter factually did or do currently work for the DNC; for the DNC, on the Biden transition team, or worked for Harris.
So if @Jack solely owned twitter it would be ok? I don't see how being on the NYSE makes the morals any different. If anything having a board of directors and shareholders makes TWTR more democratic not less.
This seems like the wrong part of the door to fix.
> Cloud providers won't allow you to host certain content and if you buy your own server your internet provided can and will restrict the kind of content you can host.

yeah because in practice free speech isn't black and white like these internet discussions like to pretend it is. Is not being allowed to host child porn a violation of my free speech?

there's nuance when defining free speech. Similar to the paradox of tolerance, you need to draw the line somewhere otherwise you'll be drowned out and taken over by speech that doesn't happen in good faith.
Change App Icons – App Icon sets to make home screen Aesthetic
I sincerely do not think so & I genuinely & I think appropriately fear that humankind is quickly approaching an era where they have no power to understand what their softwares are doing.

This is already the case on iphone, I think. You have only outlined the most bare-basic case on Android. if certs were embedded this would not work. Who knows about osx & windows. It's much much much much harder & in many cases already impossible. The security people seem only to want to guard the applications, continually at the expense of the user. Who will fight for the user?

I think I am on the bead here.
Several years ago Microsoft (rightly) saw the writing on the wall that the way they were going to compete was to be the open solution to everyone else's walled garden. It has been a strategy that has worked out fantastically well for them and honestly MS is one of the very few tech companies I still have any respect for.
Democrats invented obliterating separation of powers, and then bludgeoned the Supreme Court into accepting it through court packing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.L.A._Schechter_Poultry_Corp....

> This traditional reading of the Commerce Clause was later disavowed by the Court, which after threats from Roosevelt began to read congressional power more expansively in this area, in cases such as NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.[8] However, more recent cases such as United States v. Lopez[9] perhaps signal a growing inclination in the Court to once again affirm limits on its scope. In a unanimous 2011 decision, Bond v. United States, the Supreme Court cited Schechter as a precedent.[10]
Same and i miss our people.
Apple iPhone 12 Lineup Reactions
You keep saying that, but it it was true you’d be able to produce at least one example of me justifying their actions.

I clearly haven’t been defending Apple, but you can’t admit that now.
The only thing worse than writing unit tests is writing tests for destroying free speech.
> abolishing the police when a tiny fraction of people actually want to do that

A number of jurisdictions adopted steep police budget cuts in recent months (including e.g. Seattle and Portland - home to multi-month violent riots), and Minneapolis literally dismantled their police department. So I challenge this assertion.

I also don't get how cutting LE budgets is supposed to improve policing.
> If you say to me that the ideal solution is to simply have a more educated populace, I wouldn't disagree. However, that doesn't solve things now.

Even in the long term, how are you going to produce this more educated populace? Or rather, who are you going to entrust with the task? The same educational establishment that produced the current populace?

But even if you can produce your more educated populace, you still have the problem that the Russian trolls aren't going to stand still. They're going to be better, too, by then.
"Is Stupidity Expanding?" - yes, yes it is. And on an exponential scale. Something's in the water.
I mean in that case imagine these people being allowed to drive. There's no reason computers can't be better than people, and many reasons they could be better.
To be more numerical, generally non-airplanes are supposed to stay below 500' AGL, and outside airport areas down to the ground as charted on sectional maps.

So a jetpack flying around at 3000' sounds like an airspace violation, unless it's over a hilly area to 2500'.
> I don't know what people expect from their phones, but 5-6 years of updates and the phone still running well is incredible.

My phone is a computer that happens to occasionally make calls. I expect a flagship computer to easily last a decade and phones should too.

In fairness, this attitude of mine is fairly recent and probably attributable to the fact that phones are now the price of computers. So it only applies a little to the iPhone 6, but will apply in full power to the next iPhone.
w.r.t. your #4: Usenet also had epic flamewars as users failed to self-moderate and groups which suffered particularly from this were very hostile to new users.

w.r.t. your #5: how does 'participation in some groups is subject to moderation, but participation is optional' fit with the platform/publisher dichotomy?
It's very few and far between. I have a US-bank issues commercial card that requires a PIN. At least circa a year ago or so I hadn't found a personal one that did.
Apple iPhone 12 Reactions
Section 230 is outlining a way in which an internet service can be exempted from liability. What part of this is causing you to read it another way?
How does automatic bill pay work in this system?
The baker refused to make a custom made cake for the wedding and offered them an off the shelf cake instead. That is very different from a big corporation refusing to serve you off the shelf services that requires no manual actions at all on their part.
HN is a LOT more heavily moderated than Facebook, Twitter, and most subreddits. You must really not have been paying attention if you haven't noticed after 10 years.
Disagree. Newspapers and ISP follow under this regulation. Social media networks have been able to skirt the issue. If newspapers can get sued for their content and the phone company can't, it only makes sense that this applies to social media companies are held to the same liabilities or protections.
Bari Weiss wrote in Tablet yesterday (before this current hullaballoo had begun) about this[1]. I think "successor ideology" is an apt if awkward stand-in term, because it focuses on the project as an attempt to ideologically present "the next stage" or replacement for liberalism:

No one has yet decided on the name for the force that has come to unseat liberalism. Some say it’s “Social Justice.” The author Rod Dreher has called it “therapeutic totalitarianism.” The writer Wesley Yang refers to it as “the successor ideology” — as in, the successor to liberalism.

At some point, it will have a formal name, one that properly describes its mixture of postmodernism, postcolonialism, identity politics, neo-Marxism, critical race theory, intersectionality, and the therapeutic mentality. Until then, it is up to each of us to see it plainly. We need to look past the hashtags and slogans and the jargon to assess it honestly — and then to explain it to others.

The new creed’s premise goes something like this: We are in a war in which the forces of justice and progress are arrayed against the forces of backwardness and oppression. And in a war, the normal rules of the game — due process; political compromise; the presumption of innocence; free speech; even reason itself — must be suspended. Indeed, those rules themselves were corrupt to begin with — designed, as they were, by dead white males in order to uphold their own power.

[1] https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/stop-being-...
I'm with you. Rather than censor "disinfo", I'd really prefer to just break up the damn networks so it can't spread so easily.
Repealing the First Amendment is also "deregulation" by this standard.
One of the more important points about entanglement is that you can't make a "radio" using entanglement.

It's easier to explain with an example. Let's pick the easiest example. [1]

In the easiest example, imagine that you have two boxes, with an entangled particle inside. If you open one box, the entanglement is broken and you can see 50% of the time "yes" and 50% of the times "no". The particles are entangled in a way that if you open the other box, you will see the same result.

The box can be used only once. Once it it open, the result is fixed forever. Also, to produce the box, they must be together. [3]

Now you transport one box to the opposite side of the Earth or the galaxy, or whatever.

If you open one box, you have a 50% chance of seeing "yes" and a 50% chance of seeing "no". That's all. It's just a coin. You can't choose to see "yes" or "no". You don't know if the other box is still closed or is already opened.

The only interesting part is that is that if you ever get in contact with the persons that have the other box, and if they have opened the box (perhaps before you, perhaps after you) you can talk and you will notice that they got the same result.

But when they opened the box, they can't choose to see "yes" or "no". And they don't know if your box is still closed or is already opened.

So you can't encode a secret message, and choose wisely the results of lot of boxes that you have in storage to transmit the secret message like with a radio

But you can use it to generate a random shared number.

---

Back to the black hole scenario. Let's imagine that they were traveling to the other side of the galaxy and they made a navigation error and were swallow by a black hole [4]. But you didn't notice.

If you open one box, you have a 50% chance of seeing "yes" and a 50% chance of seeing "no". That's all. It's just a coin. You can't choose to see "yes" or "no". You don't know if the other box is still closed or already opened. You don't know that they entered the black hole. You don't know if they opened the box before entering the black hole. You don't know if they opened the box after entering the black hole. You have a 50% chance of seeing "yes" and a 50% chance of seeing "no". That's all.

They can't transmit information from inside the black hole, but they neither can transmit information using the box from the lab in the other floor of the building.

---

Now, if you later realize they went into the black hole, and you try a rescue mission [5]. You will be also swallow by the black hole, and if it is huuuuuuuuuuuge back hole that don't kill you and give enough time, then you can meet them and compare notes, and you will you will notice that they got the same result. [6]

[1] Note that there are more complicated examples, that are very important.

[2] In other examples they may have the opposite result, or something more weird, or more than two options.

[3] Yes, there are more complicated options.

[4] It is sad, but science must go on.

[5] This is really a bad idea.