skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Wow that sucks.

We had one emergency where someone figured out how to mass mail through our app (flawed "invite via email" feature), we were able to immediately reach support through the live chat feature and stop some 200k spam emails from being processed (they were in their queue by the time we noticed). Saved our butts.
If Google insiders had special access, wouldn't that be similar to exactly how the recent Twitter vulnerability was exploited?

Although, in this case, I guess the guy was just looking for any qualitative explanation for how to fix the situation, not specifically asking for exceptions to policies to be made.
All the criticism of Linux in your comment is a criticism of Ubuntu. Try a different distro as there is choice. I've tried Ubuntu a few times but it has been unstable and yeah, an update made it unbootable. I'd always returned to Manjaro, never had an issue with it.
Tax Burden Equal to 70% Rate Crushes Americans Unable to Pay
Yep, that and public routers blocking types of protocols. There was a phase where I switched to using mDNS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multicast_DNS) so you didn't need a QR code, which discovers other devices. Turns out most public wifis (coffee shops) flat out block it.
> I have no idea what happened during the early 2010s.

$TWTR $FB
My dad, rest his soul, would tell me when I was young:

"The land of the free, only if you are brave enough to live free."
Scale makes a difference. These social networks are no longer just a small private website serving a local community but a critical communications medium.

When they can influence billions and shape elections, it's time to seriously review their power. This is how we treat ISPs and phone providers today, and social networks of a certain size should be considered in the same class.
I believe this is an overly rosy-glasses view of the current heavily centralized internet.

Gmail spam filtering? Isn't particularly good. I run my own email infrastructure and I get way less spam through it than on my gmail address. And I don't do anything particularly special other than configure postfix correctly.

Recaptcha? Was there ever a more hated piece of user abusive technology? Plenty of rage against it here in many discussions. I won't do business anymore with any site that won't let me buy without identifying 27 traffic lights in slow motion (looking at you adorama). We're all better off if this dies.

Facebook verification? Don't know what value this brings to anyone other than FB.

Youtube? Granted.. Hopefully with bandwidth costs reducing over time, decentralization becomes more viable.

Paypal? Always pay with credit card directly. The regulatory consumer protection for that was well in place before internet commerce even took off.

The original potential of the internet was in its fully decentralized functionality. Usenet being a great example (owned by nobody, hosted peer to peer) which should be studied a bit more now that we have generations of developers coming up never having known it. Of course, it was (mostly) overrun by spam. But unlike email where spam is pretty much defeated, there was never a meaningful effort in addressing spam on Usenet (forums and mailing lists took over instead). Applying the same techniques to NNTP could well be equally successful.

If there is any desire to avoid the internet becoming fully a new cable-tv controlled by just a few major player we need to pursue research into decentralized services as a priority.

(If nothing else, consider at least running your own email infrastructure if you're technically capable. Keep the foot in the door so it doesn't close permanently.)
You're a right, it isn't completely thankless. And it was suggested to me as a great way to increase citations was to write my algorithm to work in LAMMPs. Nevertheless, I looked at the risk-reward (and also considered the algorithm I was working on worthless and decided to punt).
But what if some of those small communities engage in no-no think? How can we allow those with no-no think to co-exist with our world? Shouldn't they be stamped out of existence for the good of everyone else who doesn't have no-no think?

Sadly the above is a very common belief structure now. It's a product of utopian thinking where if just this one more enemy can be destroyed, peace will fall upon the Earth and all will be well. It seems to be that these utopian dreamers always end in the elimination of those who don't share their dream vision of the world.
The degree to which mass death and disability by car is tolerated and assumed into the background is astonishing when one really thinks about it. https://jakeseliger.com/2019/12/16/maybe-cars-are-just-reall...
I’m sorry but this just fetishizes environmental disaster. Some reporter is surprised that mining produces waste and writes about it like one small lake is poisoning the planet. Yes it could probably be done better with better environmental standards but waste is waste and setting aside small areas of the planet for it isn’t equivalent to some global catastrophe.

So many people seem to be living in this bubble where the only thing they experience is the clean interfaces to civilization and then they talk about the messy bits like the slightest blemish is doom.

A dispassionate analysis of the site might have painted a more convincing argument for something being wrong, but as it is, it reads like a melodramatic fainting after seeing some trash.

There are plenty of very real environmental issues, but if you sensationalize everything that isn’t pristine natural beauty, it doesn’t matter because your motivations have moved from reason to superstition.
Even pre-internet, one's social groups would cast them out if they were to say something everyone else in the group thought was wrong or didn't want to hear..
Exactly. I guess banning content on a private platform by its private owner is totally okay, at least legally. Banning content with double standards, though, makes the platform editorial, which means people should be able to sue the company left and right.

And hacked in what way? Didn't the repair shop owner take ownership of the computer after repeatedly asking for payment but not getting it? Didn't the owner give the hard drive first to FBI, then to a few media, and then to Giuliani?

As for fact checkers, Twitter didn't really fact check those media who give a report that says "anonymous source says", right? Twitter didn't really fact check that Jack Tapper contradicted himself now and in 2016 on exactly the same fine people hoax, right? Twitter didn't really fact check The Project 1619 that teaches us to hate America with a long list of inaccuracies (if not outright lies) or the critical race theory that claims that all white people are born racists or Asian people are complicit racists because they bought the values like working hard or being good at STEM, right? Or why isn't leaked tax records not "hacked"(FWIW, I'm only arguing the definition of "hacked", not whether it's good or bad to reveal tax record).

Oh wait, I guess I'm not exactly following the righteous narratives here, as all the morally superior mainstream media are doing. So this makes me a what? A bigot? A Nazi? A brown but really white supremacist? A racist?
It's for the same reason why people are negative about companies that require working from the office without any WFH. There are people who are established with their jobs and their teams who don't need to can just sit down at home and go. There are others who prefer the interaction and find themselves more efficient in a non-personal setting like an office.

The negativity is that many of these companies may start trending to a required work from home model as opposed to an optional/hybrid approach.

There is also a smaller worry that these companies will offload a lot of the cost to their employees (i.e. not paying for internet, space, food, etc) without compensating them for these perks that were otherwise promised/expected.
How is the story demonstrably false? We have yet to see any counter evidence.
People ignore what @Jack says because he has a record of saying dumb shit that doesn't pass the sniff test.
It was just some good old swamp gas.
We had AOL message boards and similar forums with free amplification before social media.
Or the one after that where I can do it from my Amazon smart speaker!
I don't disagree, but a lot of websites these days choose to offload their login systems to Google and Facebook to certify that a unique human is on the other end. It solves real problems for them like password management, bot detection, astroturfing, sockpuppetry, stolen accounts, and so on.

For these purposes, an actual Real Verified Name is overkill, and a unique identity number would be enough. But Facebook offers that service for Free(TM) so there's not much incentive to the site operator to aim for something more minimal. And with GPT-3 and other systems inching closer to passing the Turing test, this only makes alternatives more challenging for them.

Those are problems in the Wild West that would need solutions if we were to reclaim the net from Facebook and Google.
https://planet4589.org/space/stats/megacon/starbad.html
Wapo is owned by democratic landlord jeff bezos right? What a joke.
Up until a few months ago I agreed. I have since been convinced that the power of Twitter/FB etc in connecting people who have never been connected is something we need to think carefully about...
I think they tried to correct that by saying that the main motivation was that the article contained personal/doxing information.
My hometown tower (KLWM) sees very little traffic and I feel like I talk to the same controller all morning long. It's possible they've got two people working each shift, but that doesn't match my experience and when I asked for a tower tour a few years ago, I specifically had to wait for a day where they had multiple controllers in the tower. (They are a contract tower [NFCT] equipped with D-BRITE but primarily controlling traffic visually, if that makes a difference.)

14 CFR § 65.47 provides for a maximum of 10 consecutive hours.
Beware the Casual Polymath
exactly. bias evident
Without a doubt, even pascal's case statement is better syntactically. It also happens to be more terse.
Stripe Acquires Nigeria's Paystack
Oh neat! I was just posting here[0] about my kind of clunky setup to run a Sony mirrorless as a webcam.

I was teetering on the brink of buying a capture card, guess I'll delay that for awhile and kick the tires on the official app.

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24743842
They haven't denied it yet because they have to ask his son, who is not involved with the campaign, what happened. They probably want to get all their facts straight before denying anything.
Correct on the internal promotion - in addition to Companies compelling Glassdoor to confirm the Reviewer actually worked at the company. Often reviewers don’t respond, resulting in a removed review.

I researched this a lot because I noticed companies I had intimate knowledge of had any sub-4 star review disappear. I detailed the practices in another comment elsewhere;
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24793383
Wouldn't the obvious choice be to let everyone have the same access to free amplification? No one is being forced to listen, and I'd rather have the ability to ignore what I don't want to see/hear instead of a bunch of 20 somethings Engineers deciding for me.
Should a private platform allow misinformation on his platform?
k3s recently (v1.19) deprecated built-in dqlite support. (it was replaced with built-in etcd.)

though with kine (kine is not etcd) you can easily use mysql/sqlite/dqlite/postgresql.
I would much rather go back to a series of small private communities with known members, much like how the physical world still has neighborhoods and groups of friends.

It still has plenty of idea sharing but enough social friction to support proper filtering and decorum.
In that regard I still have some high hopes for Checked C, Cyclone has had it opportunity, what lives on are its ideas.

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/project/checked-c/
This was stated in one of the pages:

The resolution is 1,024 × 576 pixels.

Which is not that impressive to say the least.
I'm not sure I would say it has nothing to do with reality; that's up to SpaceX to decide. The premise suggested in the post, extremely briefly, is that, because Starlink would be a global ISP (which, to my knowledge, basically doesn't exist today), having much stronger encryption on the network would help them avoid needing to comply with a patchwork of differing legal frameworks across the world. Put simply, a truly global ISP exists in a fundamentally different regulatory and legal landscape than traditional ISPs, and the easiest route for them would be simply to sidestep them all by having provable anonymity.

I'm not sure how that premise fares in relation to the actual legal reality of operating a multi-jurisdictional ISP, but that's the premise, and I think it's plausible enough not to dismiss it out-of-hand.
I don't think volume of articles is a very good measure. The distribution of people who publish things has changed over time.
When guns were flint locks, the amount of damage one person could do was pretty limited. When machine guns became generally available (and i'm aware $200 is not "generally available" in 1920). That changed. These weapons were introduced to "force multiply" an individual.

Before the internet, the amount of damange a single guy with free speech could do was pretty limited. But with the internet, we're all force-multiplied. This message is probably going to be read by hundreds of people. Maybe thousands. In meat space, i'd have to be standing in a large concert hall for that kind of audince.

I still believe in free-speech, and frankly I also believe regular individuals should be able to buy machine guns. But I don't blame people for having some hesitation about that. Crazy people exist... and force-multiplying those individuals can cause a lot of harm to society. I'm very pro-speech, but I respect that we might need to have a conversation about it.
I mean they didn't break the story and it's based on something physical I'd be surprised with those conditions if they could "independently verify" anything in <24 hours.
> There is no header information, no metadata.

It has been a day that the article is online. We'll have these soon enough. Biden hasn't say this email is not real when asked. Which is a better proof than header information which can be faked as email sending can be done from any email to any email.
Yeah it's all good intentions and PR talk until you see how the lawyers respond after an incident. IMHO Uber incident shows that it is extremely unlikely for any human to face criminal charges after a deadly incident with self driving car.
I believe in the protection of civil rights, but I also believe in the devastating effects of misinformation. We need to find a way to protect against the latter while affecting very little the former, but we're just not there yet.
Am I missing something? My desktop computer doesn't have a "home screen" and I don't see anything like this option in Chrome or Firefox.
Sure, the benefits are very clear. But high-frequency inter-satellite links are very difficult. Facebook formed a group to test this early on, and eventually cancelled the project (and are now trying again). It's not just laser comms, it's the very high bandwidth needed in the last comms.
I totally take your point, especially the second paragraph, and agree.

Maybe it's the deep cynic in me that tends to read these articles as another "oh look Windows bad" write up, rather than analyse what can happen if a stealthy attacker gains access to your machine and covers their footprints. These write ups get passed around in a sensationalised manner with very little thought about or understanding that the OS was functioning correctly given their user privileges.
China invasion of US. Sad.
oh right because of the russian bots on twitter.
Regarding your response to point 5: No, the NY Post claims to have copies of these documents. But all they have are photos of these purported documents. Not the documents themselves, assuming they ever actually existed.

Also, there's a lot of stuff about the hard drive that doesn't add up. Hunter Biden lives in California but supposedly dropped off the laptop in Wilmington...on a weekend while he was seen attending parties in Los Angeles...with his (then) fiance. And the laptop was given to a legally blind tech shop owner who can't actually say who it was that dropped off the laptop. The tech shop owner then made a copy of the hard drive, and then gave it (the copy) to Guiliani rather than the FBI, and Guiliani kept it...rather than giving it to the Senate committee investigating the matter at the time. The FBI didn't purportedly get the hard drive until sometime earlier this year...after the Senate investigation had concluded without finding anything. If there actually had been something on the hard drive earlier this year, why didn't either of them turn it over to the FBI or the Senate committee earlier? None of this makes any sense, and a lot of it sounds made up.

If I were going to hold a covert meeting with foreign nationals that falls afoul of anti-corruption laws, I wouldn't be putting it on my official schedule either. This is not a defense to the accusation made.

And yet, that is precisely what two of the sitting President's children have actually done, as well as at least two of their spouses...

But on that note, at the time of the purported meetings (2014 and 2015), Hunter Biden was the son of the sitting vice president and would have been under Secret Service observation. And yet, the Secret Service doesn't have any records of such meetings, or even of Hunter Biden traveling to the cities where they meetings would have taken place.

I want evidence that any of the purported evidence is authentic. If this were any other administration, that wouldn't be an issue. But the Trump administration, and Giuliani especially, have such a long history of fraud that you simply can't trust anything they provide.
Then you are realistically fine

Even in a case similar to mine, visiting takeout.google.com before doing anything with billing is always a great idea :)
The difference in scale is so astronomically large that using 'amplification' for both of these cases is misleading at best.

How many AOL users were there, total, in the 90s? Now, how many Twitter users are there, today? It's not even a fair fight.

That's only one metric, another would be trust, and clout, and others. The president tweeting is different from a random AOL user posting to a message board. Totally different beasts.
Exact text of Section 230:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

EFF's view:
https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230
Not hard evidence, but I researched this a lot because I noticed companies I had intimate knowledge of had any sub-4 star review disappear. I detailed the practices in another comment;
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24793383
The internet is still in it's current form the same internet with the same philosophies.

You can always host your own website and say whatever the hell you want.
Totally agreed. My old NEX-5 doesn't work with this new Sony software, and I was thinking about getting a new interchangeable lens camera mostly for webcam use. I think the right prime lens with a huge aperture could go a long way to making me look more presentable in video calls. In this environment it's an investment in your appearance, similar to buying nice clothes, a gym membership, etc.

Unfortunately there's very little information out there about things that are relevant for this application like resolution of HDMI out, ability to disable onscreen displays, latency, autofocus performance during HDMI streaming, overheating during continuous use, speed/convenience of power-on sequence, etc.

Does anyone here have a setup with an interchangeable lens camera as webcam that they really like and recommend?
I think codified infrastructure has too much cognitive load/learning curve. It always gets messy, hard to maintain and understand, especially for new developers.

Building a multi cloud UI tool is the future.
I run my own mail servers on my own domains. I use my own private "cloud" server for storing photos, documents, file sync, contacts, emails, events and everything else. I have minimized my contact with anything Google as much as I can. I have a couple of different Google accounts because I _need_ to have those accounts for work, or a developer account, but I have reduced any connection with Google to just background noise at this point.
eos-movrec project worked perfectly on my old T3i on Linux, and I guess it still does.
Isn't this how recommendations in social networks work?
Who cares, the censoring ended up spreading the story. If you are all so unbiased, why can't you just read both sides of the story - it is not like the article has disappeared from the internet...
I'm with you, solutions that come to me are:

1. Creating a level playing field by setting clear standards of what is allowed vs what is now allowed for all social media. Gov bodies are the ones to do this as companies have proven they can't self police themselves.

2. Break up big tech - too much power in their hand that they are absuing. This would be painful though for the stakeholders and won't happen easily as there are lot of vested interests.
There have been some comments here about censorship and I think they are coming from a good place. However, I really think people are only looking at things from their perspective. I think a lot of people here are skeptical in a healthy way and can use inference to figure out if something written on the internet is truthful and correctly framed. A lot of people do not have those skills. I think these platforms need some form of censorship because clearly people are taking things they read randomly as fact and it's clearly having a damaging effect on society (see qanon). This specific instance definitely straddles the line between necessary/unnecessary removal (I think the content should be published) but let's please not act like this is the norm. It's an outlier. People are abusing these platforms to spread hateful and dangerous ideas and it's working because most people aren't internet literate.

It is scary to see this (my parents lived through communist Romania), but I think to act like a lot censorship/removal of content on these platforms is unjustified is clearly disingenuous.
Do you not know the answer to your question?
Free lie amplifiers cause more harm than responsibly “vetting” and filtering blatant lies.
Nvidia will power world’s fastest AI supercomputer, to be located in Europe
Almost every one of the possible explanations (for rising stupidity, and for rising perception of stupidity if it isn't real), looked plausible to me. But that probably just means that "stupid" isn't a word with a precise enough definition, and so for each of the possible ways to define it, one (or more) of the various answers applies.

But, in general, it seems not unrelated to the phenomenon in which weird things are much more commonly encountered (due to the ability to see/hear/read about things happening to anyone, anywhere, anytime). Weird (and perhaps also stupid) floats to the top of the list of things to be perceived, and there is now an industry (or several) to bring them to us all the time.
Maybe those ten accused people have the problem, or maybe their accusor has the problem. It's just as likely that somebody throwing around insults like 'bot' is the person with the problem. If I call somebody a jackass, maybe it's because they're a jackass or maybe it's because I am the jackass.