skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Exactly. People seems to forget that the social landscape of people using Internet in 90/2000s was totally different. As far as I remember, internet was then populated by idealist early adopters, gamers / tech savvy hobbyists. Part of this pool translated to conservative boomers and now Internet is considered as a serious thing.
Garden (https://docs.garden.io/basics/how-garden-works and https://garden.io/) might actually be a good fit. Some of our current users (I'm affiliated) actually use Garden for just the use case you're describing.

But to your point, abstractions are hard, and we've tried to design Garden such that it takes care of the _what_ and _when_ but allows the users to decide the _how_.
Have they pulled it out of snap yet? Not being able to pin or control when upgrades happen is a nonstarter for us.
"Does this mean that when their social revolution is complete I will hang from the gallows pole because my named social media accounts do not account for me actively promoting their cause?" Yes, it does mean that. They're saying so explicitly.
And that applies to Ubuntu just as well. All I'm saying IBM is no better than Canonical in this regard.

Not complaining - If you want me to complain about IBM cluster technology that would be a whole different story.

And no I'm not gonna ask about disconnected clusters :).
Twitter already "censors" Nazi content in Germany. As a private company it has rules. You cant force it to carry your message of hate/disinformation/nazism/whatever.

When the gov decrees you cant say those things, the run crying. But its just a joke if you are "upset" now.
Legality under US free speech laws. See first amendment law literature.
Well it probably would stop working if you confuse it with a whole bunch of confetti of reflective material or similar. Although I suppose that would work against humans as well.

Still I wonder if it has failure modes that humans lack, which could result in situations where it does inexplicable things.
> Section 230 lets you filter out unrelated disturbing content like porn, it doesn't let you inject political bias.

It's important to remember that it's the first amendment that protects Twitter ability to filter anything it wants on its own platform, but it's the "material that the provider or user considers...otherwise objectionable" part of Section 230 that maintains the liability shield for other content that remains on their platform. That covers removal of essentially any content.
Often, the only way to spy on a server is to first attack it, and gain an "implant" on it. That's still an attack.
> even superficial observations are sufficient

That depends on what you consider to be superficial observations. The fact that there is plenty of evidence for ancient civilizations before the Greeks believing the Earth to be flat (for example, descriptions in their mythology) indicates to me that the observations needed to figure out that the Earth is round are not superficial. Sure, it seems like they are if you live in a society that already has the belief and can teach it to you. But that doesn't mean they actually are.

> this is really just a myth

The myth referred to in that Wikipedia article (which I fully agree is a myth) has nothing whatever to do with what I said, or with early Christians. You are attacking a straw man.

What I said, in fact, is stronger than the statements made in that Wikipedia article. The article only says that "scholars have supported" the view that the Earth is round since the 600s AD. I said that the Christian church had taught it since it accepted it as dogma, and that, AFAIK, was several centuries earlier than the 600s AD.
If Twitter weren't shielded from liability for content posted on their platform, wouldn't that make them more eager to remove potentially-liable content?
You can also blame the Supreme Court.

The following is an excerpt from [0].

Around the same time, the Court ruled, in O’Connor v. Donaldson, that a Florida man named Kenneth Donaldson had been kept against his will in a state psychiatric hospital for nearly fifteen years. The ruling added momentum to a nationwide campaign to “deinstitutionalize” the mentally ill. Activists decried the existence of mental hospitals that were filled, as one account put it, with “naked humans herded like cattle.” During the next two decades, states across the country shut down such facilities, both to save money and to appease advocates pushing for reform. But instead of funding more humane modes of treatment—such as community mental-health centers that could help patients live independently—many states left the mentally ill to their own devices. Often, highly unstable people ended up on the streets, abusing drugs and committing crimes, which led them into the prison system.

[0] http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/05/02/the-torturing-o...
What’s stranger to me is that people who spent their whole lives distrustful of the US intelligence apparatus suddenly found the CIA and FBI above reproach in 2016.

The entire Russian hacking the elections in 2016 narrative should be a black pill to every technical person in 2020. Did you ever even find out what that “back channel from Trump Towers to Alfa Bank” ever was?
And be ruined by bad actors destroying the signal-to-noise ratio because--hey, you have to let them stay, even if they're trashing every discussion with nonsense or spam or they're spewing racist sludge you have no interest in endorsing.

Nah. This is just mendacity on behalf of the right wing of American culture that has changed their mind and decided that, yes, facts have to care about their feelings.
At job before last, we were offered a large bar of Cadbury's chocolate (a 200g Dairy Milk if I remember correctly) as a sweetener (hoho) for writing a Glassdoor review. Which would be written and emailed to the person who came up with the wheeze and...

anyway, afaik all those chocolate bars are still in a cupboard somewhere at the offices
Yes, I started that account in early 2007, painfully added through the financial crisis, and just kept on adding. At some points I was adding over $1K/week, every week, year after year. I invested heavily in growth (VGT and MGK ETFs, specifically) which boosted my returns, especially over the past 5 years.

Of course, past returns are not indicative of future results. Of course, stock prices are expensive right now. But what is the alternative? CDs? Bonds? Look at any long term chart. I'll take the risk.
Your ISP is explicitly not a common carrier, thanks to (aptly) an FCC rulemaking conducted under the chairmanship of Ajit Pai.
> The incentive is to ramp up variance, make bold claims in a variety of areas, and hope you’re right some of the time.

Well said.

However, is a casual polymath any different than a blowhard with a bit of knowledge or a poser? It seems to me a true polymath, casual or otherwise, would value knowledge enough he would be careful not to make claims he was unsure of.
When i worked there i got my blocked payment acc unblocked with an apology pretty easily. I cant recommend using google payments (or anything other than gmail) anymore though
Yes, but if uncensorability is a feature you want, there's nothing stopping you (other than the enormous cost[1]) from using the messages themselves.

[1]: Not necessarily a deal-breaker. For perspective, consider that a 10-word transatlantic telegram in 1860 cost the equivalent of $2600 in 2013 USD.
You're not even trying to hide that policies don't matter. Apparently it's all about whether you agree with the author or not.

Social media sites are legally entitled to censure things they disagree with, but it's dishonest how they portray themselves as being non-partizan.
but it could be a home office with 0 minute commute.
+1

It would also be nice if HN could fix the formatting of code blocks.
> That hasn't happened, sadly.

Why do you say that? From the news I've read over the past 10-20 years, my understanding is that China has steadily increased its emphasis on environmental protection and regulation, for example regarding food safety, air quality, and even nuclear safety (nuclear plants are becoming more expensive to build there, though claims of the industry's death have been extremely premature). Most recently, for example, part of the reason for banning imports of recyclables is because they were piling up and contributing to pollution. It's just that in absolute terms, and relative to the standards of rich industrial countries, China has a lot more ground to still cover.

As with domestic news, the fact that you read and hear about these situations is often better understood as evidence that things are getting better, not worse, reflecting a positive shift in attention and emphasis. Especially in a country like China where authorities have far more control over both domestic and foreign reporting--compare the difficulty of substantive reporting on the Ugyhurs.
Right. The historical context for Section 230 is that some providers that were trying to offer a family-safe online service (e.g. Prodigy) by moderating the content available, and therefore became liable as publishers.

In fact, if you read Section 230 in its entirety, you can see that it is intended to encourage moderation of content based on what the provider considers to be objectionable.
That's a good point. If you follow a twitter account dedicated to political news and they start talking about meditation, thats different than following a person who likes to talk politics and dives into other subjects
See the links above.

> It frustrates me to no end that people will hear one boogeyman then start talking about the end of civilization.

It also frustrates me to no end that people will see one police brutality case, which was later challenged with tons of video evidence, then start talking about all cops are bad, there is this and that evil systemically, and then start rioting and looting with all righteousness.
Re: "Trump's taxes were repeatedly shared..."

That's kind of comparing apples to oranges. One is a public figure, the other not. And is tax info comparable to email addresses? I'm not saying whether or not it's fair, only that it's very different kinds of personal information being compared here. Equivalency is hard to establish.
Tuning Your Postgres Database for High Write Loads
Nothing. And algorithms.

I've had a card number ripped off via an online retailer and Visa figured it out on the first fraudulent charge.
> What do the words “in good faith” mean in that context?

Essentially nothing, which is why a few of the proposed bills to punish tech companies for removing content have tried to turn that into a clause with teeth.
Good read and I agree. She is so right and it’s sad she was chased out of the NYT.
It's not "your own app". It's Apple's Experience, and you are paid a commission on revenue generated by code you write for Apple to use. You are like a screenwriter or set deeigner, Apple is the director and producer.
I think the fundamental issue with what you're saying here is that it assumes that privately owned social networks are places where free speech matters.

These are curated spaces, and they are not run democratically, they are run capitalistically. Twitter isn't even in the business of providing a forum for speech. They're in the business of serving ads.

Your free speech cannot be infringed by a corporation, as the corporation does't gatekeep anything but access to their platform that they own. Your right to speech exists separate from their platform or their permission to use it.

And if you believe in the free market, you can't complain that the largest social networks gravitate towards political ideologies that are most friendly to their profits. You also have no obligation to participate in those networks if they don't offer you a space that you enjoy participating in.

Just because the social networks that cater to you are smaller doesn't mean your rights are being infringed upon. It just means your ideas are less successful in a free and open marketplace of ideas.
Why not just downgrade your lifestyle to be in a cheaper situation? Easier said than done obviously, as that initial downgrade feels like a big hit. And ofc you might have extenuating circumstances that prevent it. But otherwise, I've found that you simply acclimate over time. Then you can give yourself breathing room to take time between jobs, or perhaps move to a lower-paying job you actually enjoy.
"Religion only exists because we yearn the feeling of community "

No, community is only part of it, and frankly, that we lived in communities beforehand is not relevant.

Religion is the 'foundational philosophy concerning nature of who we are' that transcends most other subjects - i.e. it's metaphysics at it's core.

The 'community' part arises only in the same way secular civic and legal issues arise in our own communities.

The misunderstanding is partly evident in your comment about 'very religious people'.

You're conflating 'people who say they are hardcore believers in XYZ' with necessarily 'very religious' people.

Fred Rogers - a trained priest, started 'Mr Rogers Neighbourhood' and did that for 50 years to help communicate more intelligent ideals to children. He didn't mention the word 'God' a single time on air, you wouldn't know directly that he was 'deeply religious'.

Fred was not 'anti science' or someone we might normally conflate with 'hyper religious'.

As I indicated, Barack Obama is religious. He literally worked for the Church for a few years at the start of his career. One might argue his whole career was a bit missionary. Certainly Jimmy Cater's life - and Presidency - was that.

They're also not what we would consider 'super religious' bent on 'magical thinking' - but Fred Rogers, Jimmy Carter, Barack Obama are who I would think of for example when contemplating who are 'the most religious people'.

So in a way, the nature of the comment implies a kind of 'straw man' - plucking out those with the most specific and material orthodox 'beliefs' about a system, the kind for whom the parables are meant to be understood more literally because maybe they're not so capable of the more enlightened bits - and having them representative of 'the most religious' - which is a little unfair. The plebes are going to be prone to 'magical thinking' no matter what happens.

'Scientific materialism' as it applies to the nature of life etc. is a constant stream 'magical thinking' - the dissonance between 'physics' and 'morality' is a chasm completely too wide for anyone to seem to cross with sound thinking.

And finally - every modern politicized subject, even those adhered to by 'intelligent people' is chock full of 'magical thinking'.
I wonder if a secondary system which showed the trend line of reviews and any spikes in ratings would be valuable?
nvm found another https://twitter.com/robovape/status/1316868007201824770
Vietnam, South Korea, New Zealand and probably some others I am forgetting. By the obvious metrics - fewer deaths, fewer cases, smaller impact on economy.
How is failing to send private messages which contains ideas you disagree with not censorship? You've limited the definition to "taking down the originate reference" but that's too limited.
I'm not sure that "critical infrastructure" as regards to communications mediums and legislation should be understood in the terms of absolute necessity, rather by terms of popularity and wide usage. That wide usage brings with it a lot of power on the part of the platform owners and a certain immunity to being boycotted or replaced.

The critical question is if they ought to be allowed to wield that power unchecked, up to and including when that reach has progressed far enough to have real impacts on our political system, and so impacts on people's lives.

Remember, we're talking about what we'd like the law to be, not what the law is. These definitions are up for debate and redefinition.
That's only accepted (and understood) in finance.

Here: better to just spell out "3 million", I reckon.
I would second this and take it a step further and point out that the right to free speech is not the right to freely say whatever you want. This is particularly sticky when it comes to misinformation.

Currently we have systems which make misinformation more dangerous (primarily via amplification) and a bunch of people conflating free speech with the freedom to say whatever you want. I think what we still need to explore is whether or not there is a responsibility on individuals to be factually accurate when engaged in amplified speech. What does that even mean? Do you simply need to believe what you are saying at the time? Or is the standard higher? Is this responsibility shifted if you provide a citation (where the responsibility of the cited source shoulders some of the responsibility for your derivative thoughts)?

It's a particularly thorny issue. One that isn't necessarily new, but is particularly acute in contemporary times. I am against censorship, but I also recognize certain trends which seem to be deepening divides and strengthening conspiracy theories in our society.
"But you didn't have absolute fucking lunatics screaming about chemtrails and Bill Gate's 5G microchip mind-control scheme racking up literally millions of followers. That is a PROBLEM."

This article is about blocking a story by the NY Post. It may be true or may be false, but it already passed the traditional gatekeepers.
Well, those who live under a modern government have skin in the game in the sense of paying taxes and relying on infrastructure, services, and regulation that make day to day civilization a thing.
Censorship is a can of worms. If you do it for one side, you have to do it for the other side as well. Or don't do it at all.

It's not so much that I'm against censorship. It's more that I don't believe it can be implemented successfully.
I don't see how anything you said should contradict or even relate to the BBC statement you quoted--the statement seems perfectly fine, accurate, and objective.
The whole point of my comment is I am not important, and neither are you, so both of us should shut up if our speech materially hurt the society.

> Silicon Valley neo-barons and politicians, whose opinions are ACTUALLY dangerous and influential, and yet none of them will be cancelled.isnt it curious?

I see you failed on reading comprehension. They should be cancelled if they are proven to be dangerous to the society, such as anti-mask movement or anti-vaccine movement. I don't know why you are trying to trivialize "tin-foil brigade" when it literally killed many people this year.
Sure, the issue is that now it is technically possible To do much more.

With the phone company it’s impractical to listen to every conversation and “eliminate the threats”, it is practical with the internet.

EU wants upload filters(stop singing “happy birthday” to your friend, that needs lives), UK want porn and crypto control(no dirty talk on the phone, no secretive talks, must speak load and clear). Turkey wants to control the narrative(An operator jumps in your phone conversation to correct you or stop you talking).

I am sure That US, Canada, Norway , Iran, India etc all have their own agenda too and would loved to control your phone conversations.

As for the liability, it’s already here. A lot of people are serving time or paying damages for the things they did on the internet. The new stuff is to make it controllable at scale.
Ask HN: Separate personal vs. work GitHub account?
Does anyone keep separate Github user accounts for personal vs work?

Is there a reasonable risk a company can claim ownership of non-work projects when the same Github user account is used for contributing to both personal and work projects?
Two keys to an actual functional market place, as you allude to, involves both good faith engagement (you aren't going to convince somebody deliberately out to cause harm to stop with a well reasoned argument) and critical evaluation (something that is practically non existent on most of the internet)
If you read the email it states that the investor was a lead. Series A was led by USV and the email already ruled them out. This investor sold right during or after the series C. might be Brendan Dickinson from Canaan for the Series B.
How about a standard 2-monitor+HID setup at each station, that you connect to with your company issued laptop via a single usb-c cable?
I am not a mental health expert but I do not think of this type of persistent trolling as healthy behaviour. At the very least it is shitty and disrespectful behaviour towards someone trying to make a point using facts.
Destroying the concept of moderation does not make the world better. The liability shield is the whole reason Section 230 exists: to make it possible to have enjoyable communities online, without incurring so much liability that you have to shut them all down for fear of getting prosecuted.

If you want unmoderated communities, they exist. Go use them. Stop trying to destroy the concept of moderated communities. (Removing the liability shield would be tantamount to destroying such communities.)

Some people want the audience of moderated communities, but they don't want the standards of those communities. There's a reason unmoderated communities have fewer (and different) users.
He addresses both of those in the article:

Schizophyllum:

Some species have many hundreds of these ‘mating types’, and newspapers often report research into this phenomenon under headlines such as: ‘Scientists discover species with hundreds of sexes!’ But, formally, biologists refer to these as ‘mating types’, and reserve the term ‘sexes’ for gametes that are different in size and structure. Why distinguish between these two phenomena? One reason is that the evolution of anisogamy – gametes that differ in size and structure – explains the later evolution of sex chromosomes, sex-associated physical characteristics and much more. But the existence of mating types doesn’t have these dramatic knock-on evolutionary effects.

Intersex:

Many people assume that if there are only two sexes, that means everyone must fall into one of them. But the biological definition of sex doesn’t imply that at all. As well as simultaneous hermaphrodites, which are both male and female, sequential hermaphrodites are first one sex and then the other. There are also individual organisms that are neither male nor female. The biological definition of sex is not based on an essential quality that every organism is born with, but on two distinct strategies that organisms use to propagate their genes. They are not born with the ability to use these strategies – they acquire that ability as they grow up, a process which produces endless variation between individuals. The biology of sex tries to classify and explain these many systems for combining DNA to make new organisms. That can be done without assigning every individual to a sex, and we will see that trying to do so quickly leads to asking questions that have no biological meaning.
I work on a contract for the VA, which includes open-source repos [1] for VA.gov's frontend + backend systems. We work closely with USDS [2], who has been a huge ally in advocating for doing our work in the open, including our project management. It seems like GSA does a lot of similar advocacy work, though I haven't interfaced with them directly.

One interesting thing we've run across is that Public Domain source code is not considered "Open Source" in terms of OSI licensing [3]. This isn't usually relevant, but has blocked use cases like software services offering free use for OSI-licensed projects.

(To other readers: If you're interested in chatting about working on modern, open-source projects in the federal space, drop me a note! Email in profile).

[1] https://department-of-veterans-affairs.github.io/va.gov-team..., repository links at the bottom

[2] https://www.usds.gov/

[3] https://opensource.org/node/878
My favorite "extremely compact C" style:

if (*len * ("11124811248484"[*type < 14 ? *type:0]-'0') > 4) { ... }

because naming lookup tables is clearly too verbose. Among other interesting decisions.