skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I personally use Rambox (https://rambox.pro/) instead of Franz these days, or just click the "install as app" button in my browser.

Really, I see little value over these browsers with vertically stacked tabs. There's already free solutions out there, what's the added value? Workspaces are easy to replicate using Firefox's containerised tabs and the vertical tab structure can be replicated with something like Tree Style Tabs. The remaining minor improvements are nice to have but certainly not worth $20 in my opinion.
Yeah but the issue isn't good ideas and bad ideas and a marketplace where they can be disseminated. We're talking about facts and truth vs. misinformation and actual lies. And in that context, Mark Twain's saying comes to mind: a lie can travel halfway around the world before truth can finish putting on its shoes. This is infinitely more true today since the lies in question are manufactured to be as inflammatory and scandalous as possible, so as to keep their consumers engaged, and they can be spread to entire audiences with the click of a button.
The real issue is that one made a bet on a future that didnt come true. The opposite could easily have happened too. Oil prices could have hit $1k a barrel and people in the suburbs would be crying about the $500 fill up.
I personally like being able to establish one identity across multiple services.
Moderation on the client side doesn't work and never has. The Usenet killfile model was awful and was a big part of why huge swaths of it were an unnavigable mess for most users--because unless you wanted to expend the effort to build one you didn't have one and got the whole sewer pipe spraying straight into your face. And, oh boy, client-side moderation happens on Twitter, it works so well? Then why do female friends whose posts get some attention have a bunch of dudes in their mentions saying how they want to have sex with (consensually or not) and/or kill them no matter how many they block? Could it be because it's an abject failure of a model due to the low stakes of spinning up a new account--so low that Twitter stopped using egg avatars because they destroyed interaction rates with new users because most of them were troglodytes?

I do wonder.

I'm trying to assume good faith in your reply so let me point something out to you: the people who are wringing their hands about this used to bleat about shared block lists being used to get some semblance of value out of "client-side moderation" (which is not to say that it is successful at dealing with shitty actors, just that it's less unsuccessful, when you use them), just as they're bleating about this. Because the real beef here is not with Twitter Deciding, it's with Anyone Deciding that they are not entitled to the attention of anyone they demand it from.

But they lost re: shared block lists, and this is a retrenchment to attempt to keep relevance when they can, and should, lose this one too and be shown the door. If they want "unmoderated", there are platforms like Parler and Gab where they can have that. Relatedly, those platforms are full of literal-not-figurative fascists. I wonder why.
You are assuming I am currently residing in the US. Buy yes, they have been and should be again.
Why can't you brainstorm in a virtual room? I've been part of that many times over the years, and it works, too.

The only thing I miss is taking walks with coworkers. That is where the real value was for me. Something about walking and talking that is so beneficial.
I'm not surprised at how your mom reacts to Trump. I'm surprised so many young people believe that covid is no big deal. I agree with you that the quality of our ideas has improved, but I also disagree in that the spread of our bad ideas has also improved. Concepts that were held by a fringe of society in the past, like the idea that the Earth is flat have grown their own communities who have interests in keeping those ideas alive. Ideas, bad and good, have gotten a lot stickier.

With stickier ideas, the marketplace becomes worse, because nothing ever gets pruned out of it. Too much energy is spent on limiting the growth of bad ideas than can be spent on refining the better ideas.
Survey of riders on U of M driverless shuttle shows vast majority trusted it
I'm fortunate to have a forest/river trail I can walk to. So long as the weather is halfway decent I do at least a mile or two (and can do up to about seven) every day. And there's basically never anyone on it.
Men who experience VR-based harassment from woman's POV exhibit less sadism
> Right when there is a clear and imminent danger has been the judicial limit on speech.

Are you thinking of “clear and present danger”? That used to be the test in the United States, but since the 1960s it is “imminent lawless action.”

> I think nearly everyone finds this reasonable.

I don’t know about that. From what I can tell, the US legal system is extremely accepting of speech that incites violence relative to many other democratic governments. I think the current test is unreasonably lenient and likely allows a lot of speech that directly advocates and incites violence.
Gravity Industries in the UK have a working jet pack, although flight time is extremely limited, I think in the order 5-10 minutes, and it isn’t designed to fly at altitude. The founder demonstrated using it for rapid casualty assistance in mountains recently, although I’m dubious about the actual usefulness given the difficulty in actually controlling the thing - it’s more like a paramedic would end up smeared across the mountain themselves than actually assist a casualty in anything but the calmest weather.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gtvCnZqZnxc
The complaint is the distribution of that savings particularly in a highly leveraged scenario like COVID. Employee power is at an all time low.
This is similar to how priests were quietly shuffled around parishes. Yes, the priest's activity were criminal so it's NOT 1:1 of a comparison. However, keeping shitty people protected by keeping the info private does nobody any good

EDIT: left out the keyword NOT in the 1:1 comparison
Maybe someday people will figure out the difference between "stupid", "ignorant", and "has a different worldview than me".
I’m currently working on a project for a local-first SaaS company

They have perpetual licensing (optionally you can subscribe monthly if you don’t want to pay everything upfront) and it really does put power in the user’s hands

It’s fast
"Free Speech doesn't mean that anyone has an obligation to listen"

Quite.

And those who have no obligation to listen include Facebook and Twitter. They are absolutely under no obligation to deliver any message you wish to send.
It's possible some people just disagree with you. Implying anyone who thinks you're wrong is "just posting excuses for prolonging the monopoly of centralized moderation" is neither civil nor persuasive.

Anyway, your examples are unconvincing. Twitter is primarily moderated by server-side spam and abuse prevention tools. The other two are both far smaller, and don't exactly do a great job at content moderation.
Not to mention, from TFA:

"They're also so fleeting that they're difficult for the human eye to detect, and leave behind very little evidence."

We've already got people who do things purely for the lulz (swatting, anybody) who could easily justify away these kinds of activities.
Except the powerful will simply use those tools to baselessly attack the weak especially those that pose problems to them. They, after all, have the money and influence to pay for much more professional attacks than the weak can scrounge together.
Army Dissects Black Hawk Helicopter, Scans Parts for 3D Printing
A friend in the freeer err I mean 3rd world might hook you up
This isn't an all-or-nothing type of deal. A company does not have to take responsibility for copyright infringement in order to have the right to moderate their own platform. I do not see what Twitter does as censorship and don't believe users should have the expectation that whatever they post will be amplified.
I really like the focus on dev ergonomics, but as someone who works on a crufty older application, the problem I have is not deploying, it's managing a build system that needs to work around existing application code. If I could just refactor the application to use buildpacks, I wouldn't have a problem in the first place!
P1: What's your company's business model?
P2: Oh, it's extortion based.
P1: Wow, sounds great!
The syntax is ugly.
Show HN: Djuno - monitoring, management, and migration of any IT infrastructure
Hi,
I'm a co-founder of Djuno. It's a convenient and easy to use tool for monitoring, management and migration of any IT infrastructure (cloud or on prem).

We've built it to solve our own problems with cloud infrastructure, mainly the lack of transparency, vendor lock-in and escalating costs of AWS, Azure, GCS and similar.

Adding Djuno to your toolkit creates an open and flexible "portable IT environment (because you can take it with you and run on any infrastructure)" for storage, processing, databases, compute, and HPC (some call it “Omni-cloud”) on top of the existing cloud and/or on-prem resources.

The monitoring part aggregates all the operational and cost data into a single pane of glass dashboard. The automated management takes care of orchestration and recovery (less Ops more time for Dev).

Here is a link to a short product demo video: https://youtu.be/tA6WJc7PVig

I'm happy to send you a docker image if you want to install and test it. We can also assist in the installation and onboarding process.

I'd love to hear what you think.

here's our website https://djuno.io/
The Cubli: a cube that can jump up, balance, and 'walk' (2013) [video]
Calling something extortion which is a legal term and punishable by federal law is different from accusing them undermining integrity of the service. And yeah, it's scummy.
I can answer this one -

1) Old school free speech advocate, changed positions since

2) Had to figure this out practically, so not just theory crafting.

Context: Part of a mod team for a forum, and we were torn between ideals of free speech and what was actually happening on the forum.

Important note, moderation may be the main service the internet/SM platforms sell - curation, removal of trolls, the cleaning and keeping viable an environment for exchange of ideas. Earlier ideas from 2000, web 2.0 etc assumed this would happen naturally. "The better ideas bubble to the top". The market place of ideas.

This metaphor doesn't work when someone is selling goods that destroy the market. If you have a vegetable market, and someone starts selling crack cocaine, then there really isn't something an egg plant vendor can do about getting people to buy the healthier vegetable/argument.

And thats what is happening. On our forum, people were introducing material that short circuits logic. Any long intelligent answer was displaced by an emotional outburst, or cat videos, or jokes, flame wars - on serious topics.

This makes the exchange of ideas moot, and replaces it with the exchange of emotions.

The market place of ideas does not work at the internet scale, even for web forums, unless someone is moderating.

---------------

Additional random thoughts:

First, things are much worse than you feel, because the act of speaking is almost entirely the act of being online. Censorship means you don't get to be heard (although you can speak), so it is, in internet terms, pretty serious.

1) This worked when the network didnt have centralized forces (as value collects in a network, activity increases, and the network will create some version of filters who become gatekeepers.)
An externality is a cost borne by an unrelated third party. That is not the case here. These are two party arrangements. You and Google have engaged in a contract; Google is providing you email in exchange for your eyeballs, and there are terms and agreements.

There should still be a solution though. Maybe this is a terrible idea, but one idea: Google could sell a service where you pay them $200 and they thoroughly review your case, tell you what happened and work with you to restore access to data, maybe even setup email forwarding for 90 days or something that comes reasonably close to making you whole even if they can't restore service.

If in the course of doing this work they figure out they screwed up closing the account in the first place, the money is refunded. Of course fraudsters would not generally want to sign-up and pay this money as - even if the information of how they were caught was worth $200 - that would create a paper-trail. And it could still be the case that Google is under a FISA letter or something and can't fulfill this service, and in that case they'd refund your money as well.
>yet they can barely make any money

That's true of most of the other "valuable" news platforms too. Probably because people want entertainment not news ;)
well the experts were saying in March, 2020 that masks do not work and are not recommended.

I was basically attacked at work as being xenophobic and insular for saying if we are going out we should wear a mask. so where were your experts on that one? sure f*#!ed up that one.
People choose which press to go to based on what they thought of the information provided there. People choose social networks based on which people are on them. Social networks controlling what you see is therefore much more dangerous than newspapers controlling what you see, since if you don't like what you see in a newspaper you can just switch but if you don't like twitter removing your posts most of your reasons to stay are still there.
Canada-US border will stay closed until USA gets Covid-19 under control
I had a business fail, an 8 year relationship break down (got cheated on) and in the middle of all of that they found a syrinx in my spine and a few months later I got diagnosed with Chrohns.

On my desk is a rock, just a hand sized piece of chalk off the foreshore near me but it has special meaning, I picked it up at 2am on the night I decided I wasn’t going to kill myself after flipping it from hand to hand for several hours while sat watching the moon on the water.

Now it sits under one of my monitors and when work starts to stress me out or life generally I pick it up and think back to 6 years ago.

These days my health is under control, the chrohns is stable, the medication works for quality of life, I have a good well paid job and I met the love of my life so between now and that beach is 6 years and a universe apart but man, you don’t see the signs until afterwards eh.

No one knows what the rock means to me, to everyone else it’s just a paperweight.
"Man Who Agrees With The Media, Universities, Corporations, And Hollywood Thinks He's Part Of The Resistance" - https://babylonbee.com/news/counter-cultural-rebel-believes-...

I was born in 89, I don't remember things being this way. It feels artificial and forced, like some foreign state is having their way with public influence in our country and by extension the world. Sickening. Free speech should be free, and I'm surprised people in the tech industry feel opposite.

I wonder, do they really feel this way? Or do they pretend, to go with the flow and not be labeled a racist?
As if I needed more reason to believe that C should absolutely not be the first language taught in CS programs (sadly my alma mater still disagrees). I think I'm gonna have nightmares.

Of course, C isn't taught like this over there, but the point is that C gives you way too much rope to hang yourself with, and that's if you're an experienced developer, let alone a college freshman. Sure, the argument can be made that screwing up as a freshman helps you learn in a way that doesn't compromise your career, but I believe that quite a few of my classmates wouldn't have given up on programming altogether had they not been thrown at C right away. I myself didn't learn to love programming until I tried less spartan languages.
230 is widely misunderstood on both the left and the right.

Clearly even here on HN people don’t recognize how important it was to the development of the free and public internet.
>Today we're seeing journalists talk about how other journalists should be banned from the public square by powerful corporations. They seemingly aren't bright enough to pause and wonder if this will ever be used against them.

One of the issues is calling media personalities who read from teleprompters, "journalists". Call them actors, call them media spokespeople, but they aren't engaging in anything that can be construed as, "journalism". Further, it isn't in the interest of corporate media outlets to hire people who are smart. They want people who sound articulate, look good on camera and repeat the talking points that they are told to repeat. What we see on cable outlets these days shouldn't be considered, "news" so much as infotainment. By now, most people, regardless of their political affiliation (if any) understand that society has largely gone off the rails, and in their desperation they are left with an appeal to authority to make things better and restore a patina of "normality". It is dangerously seductive to suggest to people who are desperate to end the chaos that if we just silenced the "bad" people things would be okay (leaving unsaid who determines who is bad and what we are allowed to think and say).
If I recall correctly, the last time Republicans won the popular vote was 2004. Last time before that was 1988. The Republican party is massively over-represented in American politics at nearly every level and has been for decades.
Sony’s digital camera webcam software is now available for Macs
Could you please post a source for SARS-Cov-19 genetic strain tracking? Are all of the testing facilities doing gene sequencing on their positive results?

The re-infection cases that I read about were shown to have been from different strains. Perhaps this is not the common case, but without more information, I am reluctant to accept your statement at face value.
Thanks for your input. I've never really thought programming was much of a rewarding career for those capable yet wholly nonplussed. I hope, predicated on the notion that this isn't for you, you don't give up on developing another career path
> In your own life if you think of the stupidest people you know they tend to be the most "intelligent" (software engineers, PHDs, doctors, lawyers, etc). That's modernity.

I have not found that to be the case at all. In fact, I've often found the stupidest people I know tend to be the people who think "the stupidest people tend to be the most "intelligent"".

It's means to discredit intelligence and expertise and replace them with shouting loudly.
Aren’t Google Docs unindexed unless published to the web not shared as viewable links?
If the companies actions aren't advancing the stated policies for which the law was enacted, then the law should be strengthened so that it promotes those policies.

Companies currently are acting in ways that are in direct opposition of those policies, so if you believe in those policies, you should want their actions to change.
Yes. Absolutely. Fueled up and invested in your belief, it becomes harder to surrender that.

I do believe our best bet is to let science speak louder and put more weight into that. Both in our algorithms and into our debates. If people see some dude on a talkshow with an opinion vs an expert in a field, some equate that with both having equally valid and valuable opinions. Same if that happens on social. The presentation makes it seem both opinions have equal and valid weight.

That said, it’s a valuable discussion and a good incentive to really work harder and to do our research as technologists so we can be better at curbing the trend.
I don't see this as a case where a weak party is unable to fairly attack the powerful.

Even without outing the investors, many founders are currently doing the necessary research to identify the investor and will blacklist him.

I think we should keep in mind that:

1) The accusations are currently unsubstantiated

2) The reputational damage to the investor is already significant and largely irreversable

3) Outing the investor here will significantly increase the reputational damage to the investor

Given the above, I really don't see how it's fair to out the investor before substantiating the accusations or giving the investor time to respond.
Chrome makes it available to websites providing a PWA manifest, I believe. Firefox doesn't really have it on desktop yet, though there's a button and support for it on Android. Shortcuts on the desktop get added to where your computer would normally place these icons, be it your desktop, start menu, dock or apps folder.

You can sort-of replicate the behaviour by creating a shortcut to "chrome --app=https://www.example.com" for websites that don't offer it.
> As soon as one company does it, though, that gives cover for any other company.

That was exactly my point! "The quick collective action tends to dilute the criticism against any single one of those companies."

The problem in this case is that Facebook and Twitter are not simply local gas stations. They are two of the biggest social networks in the world, with billions of users. They effectively control a gigantic chunk of the entire market, in a way that is nowhere even remotely analogous to local gas stations. Even if 2 gas stations explicitly colluded, they couldn't hope to control the market, because there are just too many gas stations. You can't drive a mile down the road and find another Facebook. There's only 1 Facebook in the world.

You haven't actually showed that there's a market for censorship, because it's not obvious that censorship is actually financially beneficial to those companies. This is a controversial decision at best, and not really analogous to the price of gas, where the financial implications are clear. I'm not saying it's false (after all, I'm the one who suggested the idea), but it requires more elaboration than "there's a market for everything".

EDIT: Reportedly the US Senate will subpoena Jack Dorsey, so there's already severe backlash.
If you choose to follow disinformation posted by a hostile nation state, is that a right to free speech or free amplification? What if those voices argue harmful or destructive effects on you and your society?

I guess the line is so blurred because often these aren't "people" but often institutions, governments and those intending to shape public opinion, even bots in some cases.

You're talking about it like Twitter is censoring someone specifically but it's so much more complicated and nuanced than that.
So you agree then that HN on its current form could not exist and we require some new model of client side moderation that doesn’t currently exist?

That’s seems bad.
> Don't want to drive, take the bus.

Self-driving “cars” include taxis (that's one of the prime motivating use cases), trucks (another big one), and busses (not as frequently talked about, but once the technology is there, it's going to get applied to them, as well.)

It's not just about individually-owned vehicles for people who want to own, but not drive, a personal vehicle.