skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
This is not using system proxy way. because some apps can choose not use system proxy. This is using TUN way. So all TCP can be captured to mitmproxy.

Requires:

[Desktop]: https://github.com/mitmproxy/mitmproxy

[Mobile iOS]: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/id1528537342

[Mobile Android]: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.txthinking...

- Intercept HTTP & HTTPS requests and responses and modify them on the fly

- Save complete HTTP conversations for later replay and analysis

- Replay the client-side of an HTTP conversations

- Replay HTTP responses of a previously recorded server

- Reverse proxy mode to forward traffic to a specified server

- Transparent proxy mode on macOS and Linux

- Make scripted changes to HTTP traffic using Python

- SSL/TLS certificates for interception are generated on the
fly

- And much, much more…
The lack of good mathematical education is showing.
> I'm also curious on another aspect, as I don't believe "right to free speech" is meant in any way to imply a lack of liability for damages caused by that speech.

It depends what you meant. The law doesn't give carte blanche to say whatever you want, however you want, either. Your example above is what libel and slander laws are about. People make (probably millions) of false claims about companies daily and none of them rise to the level of a credible accusation largely because they're done anonymously. Someone who could actually "convince millions of people" probably has at least SOMETHING damning, and if they don't, the backpressure from everyone else is going to be pretty intense. That's actually _normal_. Desirable.

_Some_ speech _does_ require freedom from damage because otherwise the direct effect is the chilling effect. Political speech is specifically one type of such speech. The internet really has forced us to look carefully at what kinds of speech warrant that protection and which don't and we clearly haven't figured it out yet.

But certainly giving that power to private companies - and removing it from the hands of the people, the government, the law, the courts, and posterity -- is _definitively not_ the right way to do it.
> Twitters official policy is to not allow publication of hacked material or information with Personally Identifying Information - and this material was hacked and had unredacted personal email addresses

I think the idea is that if this is the rule, a lot of Republicans think it has already been broken a number of times against them.
This is one of the most honest and cathartic emails I've read. I genuinely think he should keep it up.

Some people naively view investment as "just money". This is an honest warning showing the real consequences of that incorrect view.
We are told to be wary of who is speaking, what their qualifications are, if they are only casually opining on something, they may be wrong, we may not know any better.

We are told in the form of a long, wordy blogpost on a blog that is called "Applied Divinity Studies", there is no author named, there is no "about" for the page at all.

Although at the bottom of the page is a link to another article that seems to be about free market capitalism and a previous one that's about the politics of secession.

What was that it just said about blogs that have lots of wordy, generalist opining from non-specialists ?
MicroK8s is great. The only issue I have with it is I have to use snap - things get needlessly complicated and failure prone.
My prediction is that Seattle and Portland will be Detroit within 4 years. The city will be empty, most business will flee. I left Seattle years ago because I was sick of the bullshit that's going on there. I lived on what became the border of CHAZ. I even made a video about it:

https://battlepenguin.video/videos/watch/9f81cd38-3ee9-4f26-...

I'm in contact with people in Seattle frequently. I'm still really shocked at how bad things have gotten. I knew police officers and defense attorneys there too. This defunding thing is not going to end well.
I've always pondered the idea of an open source review site hosted on GitHub. All reviews are added as pull requests (the site could have a form that creates a PR in the background) so every change to the site is audited.

This way the site can't just delete bad reviews or change ratings at will.

For sites like glassdoor ID verification could be done with a group of people in which 2-3 of them check the ID and approve the PR.

This model makes sense for any site which could be improved with a public log of why changes were made, a category most review sites fall into.

The site also gets free hosting so can be run as a community project with donations without needing a profit model.
The code is going to get executed way more times than it is read.
Your dismissive of OP’s reasoning. That tends to reinforce people’s position.

My wife is a registered Democrat who’ll be voting for Trump in a swing state. As recently as six months ago she loathed Trump.

Her stated reason is that she doesn’t feel like she can be herself, have her own opinions, among Democrats anymore.
Who decides what is moderating "without political bias"? You? What if I don't like your decision?

Seems like a lot of the people decrying the behavior of the social media sites here are just asking for a censorship regime controlled by them instead of the site itself. Which we already have a mechanism for: go found your own.
> we have peer-reviewed study

Who exactly do you imagine when you say "we" have a peer reviewed study? Your woke sub reddit?
> 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.

In the case of Nikon, the proprietary app for doing this was quite terrible, across all of their cameras that I tried it with. They released a firmware that opened up things up in the past year, though; better late than never.
There have been brute-forced reverse-engineered alternative solutions but they have always been a pain to set up, use and maintain.

I suspect the other manufacturers' apps wouldn't be much better.
The Federal Police were trying to keep them from burning down a federal court house:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHb3xVqxcp8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EgMijMhS_U

I think you need a different perspective.
He's a publisher, not the original source, so he can't be a whistleblower (or leaker or whatever). And he seems to be a pompous ass, but let's be honest, people are mad at him because of the particular true things he published.

Collateral murder undermined the effort to sell war as a noble goal, and then Podesta's emails hurt the democrats, so now both political parties and their fans feel personally burned by him.

He's being railroaded right now, were you aware? Not a US citizen but somehow inexplicably being extradited and charged under the US espionage act.
That's news to me. Can you cite a credible source for the debunking? I'd love to read more.
This is a special case of a general class of vulnerabilities in AI models, where an adversary can cause undesired output from the model by constructing input data not represented in the training set. However, it is legit much more concerning than, e.g. the issue of image classification models mis-identifying well-constructed noise as "panda".

This is currently a research frontier for AI so us non-experts likely won't be able to say a ton about it.

I thought this was a good talk on the issue:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SS9DMr4VkbY
I've used Camo since beta and it is very solid. Image quality is great and it just works. Agree with you about a way to mount the phone, however.
believe me, I would really prefer not to rely on social media for this kind of thing. unfortunately a simple list of names and numbers tends to decay over time. plus, some people in my life just prefer to be contacted over facebook messenger.

a surprising number of people don't realize that a) carriers are obligated to port their number and b) it is possible to transfer contacts when they buy a new phone. instead of fixing the original problem, they post "hey new number (xxx)-xxx-xxxx, add me!" or "new phone, send your numbers!" to facebook or instagram. I can't explain how this is supposed to work to every single person I want to stay in contact with, and I don't check social media much so I tend to miss these posts.

if I lost my facebook account, it wouldn't be a huge issue. I'd be able to track everyone down on other platforms. if all social media were shut down, there are at least a couple people I'd never be able to contact again.
And yet you don't have to look far from here to see lots of people claiming that a social network is violating freedom of speech if it censors or in any way limits the distribution of false claims that are intended to and likely to cause people to take dangerous actions.
>> But they then have to choose...

Yes, that's correct. They have to choose what content to allow. That's called being a publisher.

>> Telephones are not public communication

I'm guessing that you are too young to have heard of party lines.

But yes, telephones were public communication.

Wishing the president would die of COVID would obviously be allowed under a platform scenario, what law do you think it breaks where a content provider wouldn't publish a wish that the president of the US dies of a disease?

Also, I don't think you know what the term agitprop means.
> Or it's a sign that Twitter and FB shouldn't be "major providers of information".

Yeah, it really does seem some times like what Section 230 abolitionists really want is better accomplished through antitrust law. Trying to use liability for unrelated torts as a lever to force sites not to moderate is a very indirect and messy way to get back at the major platforms while creating a lot of collateral damage for smaller sites.
So a forum like HN cannot even have rules that a discussion has to be on topic/within the scope of the site? Wikipedia cannot have notability and credibility policies (I guess that is an edge case since it is other editors actually doing the removing, but according to community consensus guidelines)? A forum for a marginalized group needs to allow hate speech against them, so long as its not illegal? All the while they are not only putting up with the unwanted content, but paying out of their own pocket to host it?

What you are saying about platforms should apply to utilities (ISPs, possible PaaS like AWS), which is where net neutrality comes in. ISPs shouldn't block stuff they or the government doesn't like, slow it down, or otherwise interfere with traffic.
Until every cloud provider on the planet removed your site and disallows you to even register a domain name:

https://battlepenguin.com/politics/the-new-era-of-corporate-...
The trick is to construct a real looking advertisement that “accidentally” triggers this effect, and order the ad placed on digital billboards in Silicon Valley through a fake company located somewhere far far away.
> By outing the guy, you are presuming him guilty and inflicting steep punishment when he could be innocent.

In general, yes, but in this case the most convincing candidate is a billionaire. He'll be fine.
The more reason to break up these corporations.
Better title: How to turn everyone secular and liberal to make achieve true diversity of thought
But I thought of it first :c Literally 2 days ago, even. Welp, scratch that one!
Webcull.com – A bookmark manager that works as you would expect one to
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-10-01/steele...
Challenge in classical pieces is that various melodies among the polyphony might get caught in my head. I wouldn't expect Google be picking bass lines out of pop songs, so I guess it's fair that I can't search by, e.g. the organ pedal line.
> Let’s say for the sake of argument that all those things came true — business models changed, financial interests separated, etc — but from the users’ point of view, everything works exactly as it does today. Success?

That is a logically inconsistent outcome so I would expect nasal demons. But yes, it's probably a success because it means the social networks have less of an interest to and a legal reason not to influence content (maximizing engagement, removing content that harms their brand, conforming to the advertisers overton window, etc.).

> This exists today — shared block lists, etc — and it’s insufficient.

I agree that it's insufficient, because it's not first-party tooling that's designed to scale as well as the rest of the network. You can't propagate them in realtime, delegate moderation to trusted peers and so on.

> The problem with carving out exceptions to your ban on moderation is that it moves your complaint from “all censorship is bad” to “censorship of speech I don’t like is bad”.

That smells like a bogus argument to me, akin to complaining that net neutrality will make DoS prevention impossible. Aspects of spam are things being unsolicited and in bulk. But how much you need to do about it in the first place also depends on communication platform is structured in the first place. Do you see any unsolicited content without prompting for it or do there have to be some network edges between you and the spammer? If the latter, sever them, if enough people do that then the tree will fall in the forest and make no sound.
Here's the compatibility list for the mac obs webcam plugin. I wonder if Sony's driver has the same issues.

https://github.com/johnboiles/obs-mac-virtualcam/wiki/Compat...
This paper was referenced in the article.
You still get those questions because you’re a shitty developer interviewing at shitty development shops. That’s it. Nobody gives one fuck that you’re a boomer, you just act like one.

Stick to your namesake, the “doesn’t talk” part. We don’t want or need your input, bud.
The fact that that example became well-known due to the awful decision in Schenck v. United States does not mean that it's not a good example of speech that ought not be protected. Speech that is false and intentionally causes a panic should not be protected.
Physical. Otherwise tech companies might selectively show you reviews: Your friend Alice's (quite sincere) glowing review, but not your friend Bob's also sincere scathing one.
Child porn is not protected speech.

Every country has limits to freedom of speech. In the US you can't lie to a Federal Officer, you can't distribute or possess images of child abuse and you cannot advocate for a direct an imminent threat of an individual.

Those are all pretty reasonable. You CAN have a fictional representation of child abuse (writing/drawing) which is illegal in the UK, Australia and pretty much any other country except Japan.

Speech is tricky. Every country has limitations. China has freedom of speech in their constitution, so a law by itself is not enough to ensure you actually have that freedom.
not really a fair comparison, windows 95 had the advantage of not having to be developed from the ground up to retain perfect binary compatibility with blindows 95
Wow... that is ... not up to standards at all.
How did you get that I got it from that?
I get that it is a bad article.

However, I'm worried about my tinnitus that I got some 20+ days after COVID and an episode of verigo I got 40+ days after, even though I have IgG antibodies.

Do I still have the virus in my brain where IgG antibodies cannot pass the blood-brain barrier? Was it just a loose otholith from the medication?
Is it just stress post covid?

The /r/Covid19Positive subreddit has A LOT of reports of long term issues and reinfections, and dealing with my own issues, I believe most of them. Right now the scientific focus is on prevention and cure, but I'm sure we'll hear more about the long term damage this virua inflicts.
https://github.com/reactos/reactos/blob/59b78b4756da02e275e3...
Is just one example.
The principle of free speech is enshrined in the constitution at a time when the only thing powerful enough to constrain speech to this degree was the government.

Times have changed. Twitter is more powerful.
Direct Message is 1-to-1 private message. DM is banned.
Yeah, I know, but I was talking about what it would take the get full use of what you're intended to use.

Unless it was really urgent I don't think I'd ever try to pass that limit, even if I had a connection capable of it.
FaceTime, Safari, and on Big Sur, apparently even QuickTime Player can no longer use 3rd party CoreMediaIO DAL plugins due to codesigning/sandboxing/SIP issuess.

The short of it is that generally within the SIP (system integrity protection) domain, no 3rd party code is allowed to be loaded.

3rd party apps can generally be made to work by removing codesigning, but Apple's stuff is generally very intertwined with services not contained in the app-bundle, making this kind of surgery a lot more difficult. I have personally not been able to get this to work for FaceTime on 10.14 despite best efforts.

An interesting thing Sony seems to do here that others haven't is that they bypass the PTPCamera agent that normally comes on, presumably to directly drive the camera through their own lower level PTP library Lja_PTP_USB.dylib.

Disclaimer: I'm the author of https://ptpwebcam.org, which works much the same for Sony/Nikon/Canon cameras
Consumer 3D printing results in bathtub toys.

An Apache helicopter is not made of bathtub toys.

Metal is awesome compared to filaments and composites:

Mike Busch - "Making Metal Behave"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1jl6IlywAk
If they didn't do these things, then when Biden wins the election, the Democrats will be calling for them to "get their act together" and calling them to Congress for "spreading foreign propaganda/disinformation" or whatever.
Why is the percentage important? The principle is the same - bad decision, preventable. If the 15% was everyone you cared about perhaps you would not see it that way.
I started a 6 month contract at A Large Enterprise about 7 weeks ago and it's been intensely wierd. My team is split over two sites (same timezone, different countries) and every single member of the team - including someone who started after me at the other site - is working at home. Except me.

I have not met any of my team face-to-face, but they have also not embraced what I would consider modern temote-working tools. We don't have Slack (see above, 'Large Enterprise') but we do have Teams - except nobody uses it. We have a team email alias - except nobody responds to it. The only communication appears to be Skype for Business (i.e. Lync) calls - notwithstanding that some cow-orkers are in noisy environments, one regularly has unreliable enough Internet that he can't connect, and one has mic problems which means we hear about half of what she says. It also took a week and a half after I started for me to get my corporate approval to use Skype for anything but text, which meant we had to abandon my arranged first-week 'meet the team' session because I couldn't hear or speak.

I'm working in (approximately) devops, and things are, let's say, not well automated here, so they're justifiably terrified that if one or two people get infected, and others get quarantined, it could have a significant material effect on the company - so not only are people working from home, they are banned from entering the office. Except me, for some reason I haven't managed to ascertain...
There have already been (audio) ads that trigger speech-recognising machines like Alexa, and in that case I would very much say it is free speech.
That's probably it. I'm not a great singer, and I wanted to see if it could recognize my attempt at a challenging melody. It got "Everybody Wants You" by Billy Squier, first try.
Twitter allowed the NY Times to post about Trump's tax returns after they were leaked by an IRS employee: https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1310474354967359489

The official policy appears to be flexible when the leaked supports Twitter's political opinions.
Just incorporate political messages into your spam.

(I kid, but I think it gets at the biggest flaw in reasoning of people who think there is an objective distinction between political speech and spam.)
> That said, I do wonder how Elon Musk, who's simultaneously trying to send humanity to Mars, convert the world to electric cars and solar panels, and create direct neural uplinks doesn't crack from the pressure though.

Not to mention what I would consider the most important commitment for any parent: how does he find enough time to be a good father to his 6 kids?
Having my data in your hard drive does not mean that it allows you to view my my data, unless I specifically I allowed you to do so.
Gutting Section 230 is exactly designed to make these companies less profitable.
> But forcing a private institution to adopt a specific editorial stance, THAT'S anti-freedom

Who is forcing a private organization to adopt any stance? "Leaving alone" is not the same as "actively promoting." Twitter leaving alone a story does not mean Twitter is promoting that story, that is exactly what section 230 is about.

> not to force the existing ones to promote what we believe is right.

I guess they don't need to pay taxes either, or take a stand against violence, or racism, or....? They still exist within the society in which they function and that means both social and legal rules bind them, same as you or me. Despite abundant evidence to the contrary, their status as a corporation doesn't somehow entitle them to a more special or louder voice than any one else's.
I don't know. In general I think you're going to need some balance between requiring certain outcomes and requiring certain specific implementation details. It might be possible to make an automobile out of sufficient thick and squishy parts that it could pass reasonable crash safety tests without having a seat belt, but it's still not ridiculous for regulations to require that automobiles have seat belts.

(I have no idea where lidar for self-driving cars falls within that balance, although I can't help but notice that human drivers do not utilize lidar.)
I think they can probably evaluate that. The general pattern is a loosening of rigid characteristics driven by belief. What that means is depends on what you believed. If you mostly just believed the world is a terrible place, that's quite a relief. Subjectively, we know that it often feels better, perhaps the way no longer straining or exerting a muscle does...I think it lifts compulsions made of psychological knots rather than from physical causes, but it doesn't distinguish between a compulsion that drove you to physical fitness or alcoholism. So if they find the probable external changes to get that better inner state abhorrent enough, then they should avoid that drug.

This works for the lobotomy example as well, if they have their memories in tact from before. You can assume there's a decent chance you'd feel better if others with similar problems felt better, and you have to weigh that against fairly objective external changes which you might find abhorrent, fairly obvious in the case of a lobotomy.

Perhaps medical ethics should make a point that the type of changes you could experience should be outlined, but there's a general pattern that I think can be defined and understood enough for informed consent to be given or withheld. Like most medical treatments, it would get defined in terms of risks and probabilities rather than certainties. You risk coming out with weakened religious beliefs, etc.
> Twitter and facebook aren't public utilities.

> You're still free to send a text, write a letter, call

Exactly. This is why free college and free medical care are not necessary.

You can learn from public libraries and go to the forest and apply herbs when you are sick.
One of my hopes is that "we" (i.e., the software development industry) STOP collecting telemetry data.
1) Ad hominem

2) Conspiracy theory

3) Lie by omission (it was sent to the FBI in December, he sent a copy to Giuliani)

Your debunking is objectively poor