skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I'm aware that you think that. What I'm struggling with is, in the face of all the evidence in this thread and others, why. This stuff is easy. It's well documented. There are YouTube videos literally (like, literally literally) walking through every step of the process. The fact that you specifically do not know how to do it right now doesn't mean it can't be done, or even that it's hard. The fact that your argument is "who knows about..." and not a specific example is a big clue that you might be baselessly worried about the sky falling. You claim that users are walled off, yet you haven't produced a single example of that being true.

The fact that the cost to exploit end user devices in an irreversible, hard to detect way has been raised is a real benefit to the user. The fact that mitm of banking apps is very difficult without protracted user interaction is a real benefit to the user. There are, conservatively, hundreds of millions of users having their lives made better by security people fighting for them every day to make their devices safer to use in a hostile world.

Do you also object to TLS? What about centrally generated electricity?
What value to the Oscars have or the Emmy? Peer-awards mean that your competitors think you've done a good job and recognize that.

But even if you toss out peer-awards, Buzzfeed News has also won the Sydney award, which is awarded by the The Sidney Hillman Foundation, and was founded by the founding president of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, hardly a "journalistic" venture.
It's worth taking a look at some of the simulation software supporting this field. Lots of potential.

"Bioelectric Tissue Simulation Engine (BETSE). Bio-realistic modelling of dynamic electrochemical phenomena in gap junction-networked cell collectives with a focus on spatio-temporal pattern formation."

https://gitlab.com/betse
Well, hypothetically, it could be that the CIA or NSA was spreading misinformation, then tracking its spread, to detect where leaks/spies were. That seems highly unlikely in this case.
A lot of us spent a fair bit of time on hardcore free speech platforms and "saw what that got us" with cesspools like the various internet chans. A society that doesn't police itself is anarchy, and that really isn't helpful for any civil discussion or learning. While there should be no rules in private between friends etc, public forums need restrictions in order to have some level of functionality without descending into flamewars.

The hill I'd really worry about with free speech is when punk hacker types turn on encryption, the current ultimate guard ensuring free speech.

Edit note: I'm not pro the twitter blocking of the article, especially not in DMs as some have noted is occurring. I'm just slightly disillusioned to unlimited speech on the internet superhighway thanks to trolls, flamebaiters, frauds, and more.
It's fascinating to see papers like Washington Post turn their noses up at the Post story because they haven't independently corroborated it, yet they were immediately citing the NYT Tax story as gospel with no indication that they had independently corroborated the legitimacy of that evidence (I tracked down their first articles on the topic via Google News and found nothing indicating that they were able to independently verify the validity of the documents).

This being the same newspaper that was forced to settle a lawsuit after defaming a minor in seven articles by lying about an interaction he had with a protestor--even though the encounter had been recorded and was freely available online.

These are the folks who are sticklers for independent corroboration.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/washington-po...
Discussed at the time:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18700328

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18736698
Let's see if the emails have DKIM validation again.

If there's a body hash (bh) parameter, then you can pull the DKIM key from DNS and prove one way or another whether it went through a mailserver with that DKIM private key.
Somehow I automatically expected to see some reference to Napoleon using a canon in this article or the comments here. Apparently that’s a legend, but not accurate: https://www.smithsonianjourneys.org/blog/photo-what-happened...
>So what if Twitter, Google, Facebook, YouTube, Microsoft/Bing, Apple and Amazon all refuse to carry the content (including advertisements next to this content).

I mean, do they also control the entirety of mainstream media, all of the news outlets, all book and newspaper publishers, email, television, radio and the entire rest of the internet?

Sorry... this is Hacker News, so I have to point out that they actually don't, and that was kind of a rhetorical question.

No, believe it or not, people would still know about Watergate or the Panama papers even in that case.

>Do not tell me that's not Big Tech putting their thumb on the scale in a dangerous way.

You mean the purely speculative case you just made up? Sure, it would be, but then the purely speculative case you just made up doesn't reflect reality, so who cares?

And even then, as I mentioned, there is still an entire universe of broadcasting and publishing outside of social media, and the internet itself. So even if all social media sites and Apple and Microsoft and Amazon suddenly decided they weren't competitors and collaborated to ban the same content, that content still isn't memory holed or erased from history.

>And before you say it, "muh private platform" is not an acceptable argument. This is dangerous to our society.

Yeah... you should take your brilliant intellectual riposte to 4chan where it would be best appreciated. Here we rather appreciate putting a modicum of effort into refuting someone's position. You're going to need something more compelling than that.
The average HNer doesn't think those things constitute proof. In fact, the mainstream thought here (always upvoted) is that Trump is unfairly hated by the Left due to their Agenda.

SV is full of .. something. idk what to call these people, but reading this forum makes it clear they are all around me in my career domain.
> So you believe K-8 teaching, the greatest amount of teaching by far globally in the modern era, is done by non-generalists?

I think you're smart enough to know what I meant (and I even made the "of import" qualification). You don't need to hold a PhD in mathematics to teach kids their multiplication tables.
I got curious as well.

One of the funds mentioned in the wikipedia article and that also matches the description from the email removed CircleUp from their portfolio website in 2019. You can look it up on the Internet Archive.
Perhaps make it easily quieted in the settings, and some kind of backoff between warnings? I definitely agree that it could be too much, on busy development systems especially!
It depends. The transmuted elements could be viewed as contaminants while it'd be hard to explain away excess heat. There are so many sources of potential contamination. Random heat signatures not so much.
Thanks to USA funding them through outsourcing low wage jobs and commerce. Take a Google.
I wonder how well they handle peoples tendency to sort of drift out of a key. I can see transposing but keeping correct intervals, but what if the intervals are drifting away from true?
That would be the most economical, but it might be bureaucratically easier for a general to tell a unit to figure this out all in-house than deal with the vendor which may need new contracts to ask for these details.
All roads lead to hell?
Most importantly, this can detect if you hum the song Chacarron Macarron.
Where Are All the Successful Rationalists?
My guess is that this might be a way to get spare parts for a helicopter in case they break. A family friend who worked on antique cars would often run into the problem where a specific piece broke and he needed to find it replaced. Finding the exact part for a 1970s Porsche is not only difficult, but also incredibly expensive. Having a 3D model of the specific part and just printing it would have been not only far faster but orders of magnitude cheaper. The exact material could just inferred from the broken part or a stronger material could be selected out of caution.

I hope their plan isn't to 3D print safety critical parts like the rotor blades, that would certainly end poorly in the way you mention.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24791127
We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines and ignoring our requests to stop. Personal attacks are particularly not ok here.

If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I think it's instructive to look at how Yelp does it. There is no pay-to-delete button. There are however ways to have non-factual, incorrect, offensive or a myriad of other types of posts removed. How a review is judged as violating policy is an internal decision. Which reviews are surfaced on the front page or how the "average" review is determined or slew of other details that affect how a restaurant or company looks are are also under the control of yelp/glassdoor.

There are enough ways to put the thumb on the scale that you can honestly say that you don't have a delete bad review button, yet money can still strongly influence how positive or negative an org looks on a review site.
Section 230 shields platform operators from liability for user-generated content. It does not set conditions for immunity such as not moderating. In fact, it was arguably created expressly to prevent this publisher/distributor dichotomy. Look at the cases against Prodigy and Compuserve for examples of the ambiguity Section 230 was introduced to resolve.
This exact same comment is found in literally every one of these types of threads. And the answer is fairly obvious: audience, and forceful conciseness thanks to the platform constraints. I really wonder when this cycle of typical HN cliches will go away.
What you are seeing is the "state explosion".

Once you get to the need for hierarchical state machines, finding the optimum decomposition into system/sub-systems and choice of this breakdown is by far the hardest part of and sizeable state machine implementation, in my experience.
FWIW, my experience is they used to have great support. Sendgrids support seems to have gotten considerably worse since they married Twilio. I loved Sendgrid several years ago but they seem to be having more issues now and drastically slower to respond to tickets. Some of their older APIs have suddenly stopped working (no code changes on our end, and supposedly no changes on theirs...) and it's taking weeks for support to reply. Years ago you'd be able to chat with someone online almost immediately, now you submit a ticket and hope they respond.
The USA experiment is the single greatest creator of prosperity in all of history. Our tides have all boats 1000x.
A couple of years ago minikube supported this with --vm-driver=none
Way i see it is there are 2 camps of people when it comes to desktop computing. There are most regular people who just see it as a tool and want it to let them do what they want without having to put much thought into it. They will have various levels of skill but don't care much past that.

Then there are the people who I think of as enthusiasts. Who have have different things they care about and cause all the arguments and pedantic nit picking. There are the fanboys who love tech created by a company and always like to have the newest thing from them. There are the people who really into making their desktop look pretty. Finally there is the group who likes to have total control of their workflow and hate having features taken away (group i belong to).

So looking at all of this it is no wonder most people are not interested in desktops and the group that is are only going to like it if its from their brand of choice.
I don't think it was a rule before, and I don't think it should be a rule now. This is missing an important opportunity to debug the process, since you have a separate way of finding out what's going on.

If you're not going to use that data when you get an opportunity like this to fix something, what's dogfooding and "trusted testers" all about?

It's sticking in your head in the sand out of a misguided attempt at being unbiased, instead of fixing things.
Not really. Lots of people get in with bad crowds when they're young. If you have a bright kid with a promising future who's about to ruin it by getting into political extremism, isn't it better that he seek therapy?
The odds that cold fusion has been discovered are 0.
That’s precisely the author’s point.
Using the table over the chart creates definitions of behaviour the are both exhaustive and unambiguous.

Often I find forcing people to use the state table creates all sorts of problems, but all of them are related to the specifier actually having to know what they want, and being confronted by having to define it to the final detail.
The article says that US intelligence believes that the GRU was planning on releasing something relating to Burisma and Hunter Biden. Something relating to Burisma and Hunter Biden with very sketchy provenance was just released by someone with known affiliations to people working for GRU. The inference is that this is the disinformation campaign that US intelligence agencies have been worried about.
Hey Yury and Steve,

Is the landing page aimed at the person setting up a "forum", or the average person looking for a community to join or both?

I am not seeing anything there that makes it stand out enough from the plethora of platforms.

You say above "Today, building a great community is super hard. Getting people in one place, explaining and enforcing the rules, collecting member info, and interacting in a scalable personalized way takes a huge amount of time."

If the landing page could make me feel that and show me how you solve those problems, and why discord or slack won't, I'd be more convinced.

Would be good to know who it's for. Do I get my existing community and move it over to you because I'm fed up of Slack. I come with a laundry list of pains. I have the people I just want to have an easier job moderating?

Or for a newbie to building a community that has no members yet who wants to find their audience. My problem is how to I get people to find me, what do I set up to make it entertaining and keep them coming back, etc.
We could look to our ancestors and turn it into ritual. A rite of passage. We need something to hold us together, our modern culture is cold and devoid of meaning.
https://ir.law.fsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1261&cont...

Here's an article I found on the topic and it suggests what I thought -- that judges are more likely to find people guilty than juries. Whether you think that means that judges are too close to prosecutors and police or juries are letting guilty people walk is a matter of interpretation, I guess. But to the concerns of the parent poster, juries have a higher, not lower, standard for "beyond a reasonable doubt."
Given that CPU perf on desktop has been rather stalled the last 5 - 7 years, it probably wouldn't be that bad.
For those who are curious, Virginia Tech has had a test road for 20 years: https://www.vtti.vt.edu/facilities/virginia-smart-roads.html
It's not like the sites would continue to exist exactly as they did before only with a different coat of paint. The platformization would likely impact business model - who pays the platform? who makes deals with advertises? do publisher vs. platform rules also apply to the influence that advertisers have on a site? - and changes in moderation tooling provided as part of the platform. It would also separate the financial interests of the platform provider from that of the moderators.

I think the actual escape hatch would be enabling users to filter content collaboratively in a way so that there is no entity in the system could be considered a commercial publisher. The platform providers only remove illegal content and the "not a publisher under the law" users do the community-interest moderation rather than corporate-interest moderation.

Of course some could still choose to play under publisher rules and allow user submissions, but that wold probably be much smaller scale if they want to be on the safe side and and pre-check things individually.

> like spam and porn.

I assume (without having checked) that filtering spam would still be allowed even under platform rules.
I don't deny any of that, and I don't think Hillary lost because of Russia. I don't even think that was their goal at all. The entire goal is to establish distrust in American institutions among the populace, which includes the 1A. That was my entire point.
but what about gamma rays?
> I'm saying that we should keep the identifying info private until the accusations are substantiated.

How do you substantiate an accusation like "you insisted on talking to me at 3AM local time after I just stepped off a plane after a 18 hour flight" (or whatever the deets are)?
I hummed and it found it on the first try. Same for "In the end". On the other hand, I haven't had any luck humming "Clint Eastwood" by Gorillaz.
> Incredibly disappointed. I had never seen such a concerted effort to hide information in the USA.

Go read some history. Lincoln shut down hundred of newspapers during the civil war. Or the Red Scare/McCarthyism. The jim crow south for 100 years.

> Is this how it feels to live under the CCP’s control?

If the "CCP" had any control how come they allow so many posts about "CCP" all over social media?

If russia or china had the level of control people are claiming, they aren't doing a good job exercising that control. Now israel and saudi arabia...
Usually in big companies that’s more about the garbage recycled paper that procurement idiots like to buy.
>> The world you propose gives more power to large site operators, not less, because they're the only ones that could possibly afford the requisite moderation resources

Not true, someone running a small blog can read every single comment that gets submitted. Twitter can't.

>> The world you propose does not have functional real-time public communication, because nobody could risk the liability of allowing the posting of content they haven't checked yet

Not true, even pre-internet the world had functional real-time public communication. We called them telephones. You didn't get cut off if your politics didn't match the phone company's. And if you act as a platform like that on the internet, you could allow the posting of content you haven't checked yet.

Platform or publisher, pick one.

>> The world you propose is one in which nobody could take the risk of running a community online

Not true, there are print communities that publish users' content - people take that risk.

>> "publish" is a distortion promoted by people trying to use the repeal of Section 230 as a weapon

Dictionary definitions of publish: "to make generally known", "to disseminate to the public". No, "publish" is not a distortion, it's a dictionary definition, you just don't like the consequences of that definition.

>> "Without that distinction, the Internet cannot exist as a medium for any kind of user-generated content"

Not true, user generated content exists in print and it should be cheaper on the internet than in print. False claim.

>> A functional Internet

An internet where 3 weeks out from an election, the major providers of information ban information that hurts their political candidate is not a functional internet, it's an Orwellian dystopia.

No. Just no.
Don’t get too attached to AzDO. Microsoft is trying their damndest to kill it, they’re doubling down on GitHub.
> 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.

I agree that this is a problem, and I think we need to break up Facebook and Twitter and Google and Amazon and all other large companies, because by their sheer size they distort the free market. But it's worth being precise about what the problem is, lest we make it worse. The problem is not that these particular companies did something unique, and if we let other companies grow in their place they'll do better. The problem is that any market that has companies of this size is distorted and does not function as we want it to function. Today it's this problem. Tomorrow it's something else. Are you going to subpoena Jack Dorsey every time the oligopoly makes an individual business decision that the ruling party doesn't like?

There's nothing functionally distinct between what Facebook and Twitter did and what two gas stations do all the time - the problem is scope. If we start looking for evidence of "collusion," and it turns out (which I hope you admit is at least possible) that there was none because they did the same thing at the same time because of standard market mechanisms, what do we do at that point?

One of the common proposals - making Twitter and Facebook obligated to carry certain content - not only is a practical mess because it cements their oligopoly role and puts the government in charge of determining each new abuse, it also really ought to be a philosophical mess, abandoning any pretense of valuing the free market and valuing liberty.

(Another way of putting this might be, a "free" market without aggressive regulation to prevent anyone from "winning" too strongly will quickly cease to be free, and the "free" market as a tool works well in cases where the barrier to entry is low and the barrier to becoming a giant is high, like gas stations, and less well in cases where the barrier to entry is high and gaining control of the market makes it easier to lock others out ... like Standard Oil. It would be far more liberty-minded to say, once you grow to a certain size, that you must split the companies into smaller independent companies than to say that the government tells you how to run yourself.)
But were you ever a member of a forum that didn’t moderate? Even bbs’s had moderation (although slightly less necessary).

The internet I remember had “host your own website” type freedom, not “you can say whatever yo want anywhere you want” freedom. But then, people back then didn’t equate using some company’s platform with publishing. No, publishing meant setting up your own thing.
I read blindsight in one sitting. Good stuff.
Maybe social media are just tapping into the human need to have “fools” on the stage. It’s a pretty universal archetype. Silly fools, wise fools, serendipitous fools. Only the Jester can speak truth to the King sort of thing. Been around so long in so many places that it has to be useful for human culture...
How long until someone claims one of these images designed to cause trouble for AIs is free speech? And are they right?
The idea of incarnation comes up a lot with these experiences from what I've read.

I had a similar experience with ketamine a month ago. At first I became detached from the situation I was in (severe accident) and was able to evaluate it analytically. Then I became even more detached (and I stopped getting meaningful signals from my senses) and I understood I was a being and my current self was one incarnation of that being. Then I saw all the choices I had made in my life and how they contributed to who this incarnation was and it gave me great insights and relief about my current life.

Sadly when I came to I lost a lot of the clarity. I think I'm still the same person I was mostly, the only striking difference is that I laugh a lot more and my laugh has changed. Also the idea of my own death has become comforting and soothing even though I don't really believe in reincarnation.
FYI your scripting on app.betafeedback.com hijacks and breaks the back button