skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> the limits of that liability shield are not well enough defined in the law

Can you give an example limit you're imagining that would pass muster? To me

> No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected

doesn't leave much to the imagination, and AFAIK courts have consistently backed that up.
The author's direct words: "The way we educate children went seriously sideways a while back, and so, yeah, stupid happened."
Arm one man with a stick and the other with a verified twitter account, and I know who I'd bet on.
> I also don't understand how the tide turned so swiftly against freedom of speech, and in favor of authorities deciding what people should be allowed to hear or read.

Freedom of speech meant freedom from /government/ control of speech. It has never meant freedom from the any impact. This article (facebook et al blocking/removing/deplatforming) is functionally no different than a newspaper choosing what to publish in their editorials page, a property owner having a bulletin board whose postings they control, or a shopping mall not allowing someone to stand up on a soap box and proselytize.
Indeed. If everybody ignores you then you're probably selling bullshit.

If they try to silence you, you're probably on to something.

There are far, far, far too many bullshit-peddlers to even attempt to silence them all.
The "press" has historically not been neutral; political sheets/tabloids heavily aligned with specific parties or individuals were very common in American history until the 20th century. There was little, if any, notion of "journalistic integrity" - they were simply a way to get out what specific persons wanted heard.
High Tech, High Risk: Tech Ethics Lessons for the Covid-19 Pandemic Response
until they move, get removed, or are run over...
Which would fail in the case of construction workers holding up stop signs or school buses deploying stop signs, to cite just two examples.
A counter argument is that if Google doesn’t care enough to manipulate its reviews because the stakes are too low, then they might also turn a blind eye to restaurants, businesses, and other listings manipulating the system themselves (again assuming it’s too small time for Google to care).

But I don’t have a better solution either, my wife and I have followed almost your exact same pattern of relying on Yelp until it became untrustworthy and then Google Reviews (which is what I still use now).
You're making this sound so much harder than it is.
That is exactly what section 230 already does.

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

Whats being talked about here is stripping the assumption that twitter is acting in good faith, and therefore removing the protection they get from this section.
A different paper specifically mentioning the railgun shows a more traditional alternator design:

https://web.archive.org/web/20151017100843/http://www.utexas...
It's a little strange to make a direct comparison between human cognition and computer vision given that the latter lacks the true ability to understand what it sees. You can train the computer for these edge cases, but humans largely do not have them in the first place because we're capable of formulating highly accurate understandings of what we see.

You can of course pick out discrete examples of humans failing tasks like these, but entire classes of computers routinely fail at things like this.
There are similarities with those past struggles, but the differences are significant.

We cannot simply hand-wave some of them away as "the struggles every new medium faces."

Printed materials were still pretty gate-kept. Sure, anybody could spend a modest sum and get a bunch of roughly-printed pamphlets printed up. You could walk around London and hand them out. People did, and I suppose some of these ideas got traction. And some of those ideas were even good.

That was still a lot of money and effort, and it was still a lot of work to establish some kind of credibility so that your ideas might actually gain acceptance. Otherwise you were just a crazy person handing out pamphlets along with all of the other crazy people.

Today, you can post insane and dangerous COVID-19 falsehoods to half of the freaking world via YouTube or Facebook and your message is indistinguishable from ideas presented by people who actually know what they're talking about.

The gatekeeping America used to have was... not great. Network television's self-censorship was often stodgy, at best. 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.

If you say to me that the ideal solution is to simply have a more educated populace, I wouldn't disagree. However, that doesn't solve things now. We need long-term solutions (education) as well as short-term ones (so we don't have the loonies electing other loonies who actually get to steer the most powerful militaries on the planet)
While I agree with you on mandating it, a LIDAR "only" gives you a 3D point cloud.

Great for detecting if an object is in your way - but it cannot read a stop sign, you still need a camera system for that - so they still have to harden it against this hack (and who knows how many to come).
It's because they use an antipattern for monetizing... Start with it free and then make it simultaneously crappier and not free. Improve quality and charge a humble amount for it. That's all this idea in this form is worth imo
Of course I could make this argument, and it would be a very valid argument too.

There are pros and cons to each system, do you really believe free societies has absolutely zero trade offs or drawbacks?
A family of CRDTs supporting both State and Op based replication in Rust
They used this system in Seattle a few days in a row to announce the daytime curfews instated during the rioting this summer.
The Biden campaign have hired a Twitter exec and a Facebook exec recently. There’s a reason for this. This gives the Biden campaign access to people inside those companies.
Feels awfully quiet on the twitter timeline right now.
Twitter has made themselves clear on this. They're going to censor content they don't like, even in direct communications.

Use another platform if you don't like it. If you can't do that because all of the content producers and your friends have decided that twitter's level of censorship is ok, then you're just out of step with the rest of society.

It's like complaining that Coca Cola is an evil company and you hate them. If everyone else but you still likes Coke then your view on their practices, however valid it may be, won't be relevant
> What you call “amplification” is just something that makes the marketplace more efficient

Most efficient in generating engagement for selling banners, not in lifting up the most correct or useful ideas. Was it is, it's pure marketplace manipulation.
Not to be snarky, but that's easy. Just disconnect your cluster from the internet. We have hundreds of customers that are running disconnected clusters.
How to to deal with trauma from Police Brutality
I think we have found the reason for all the credit card fraud in the US ;)
I had a similar situation. My negative review was removed about a month after I left it, which was after the period allowed to go back and edit it.
You're saying that the more outlandish a story is the less likely it is made up, because anyone making up a story would just make it boring so as to be believable. Have you never talked to someone who was making up a story?
The calendar entries for the professors who use the Canvas Zoom feature don't have Zoom links (I assume it should be in the location?) - the only classes in my schedule that have working Zoom links have them copy/pasted into the event description, where the password has been embedded in the link.

And this is what I see at the top of two of my next submissions:

Due Monday by 11pm / Points 30 / Submitting: a file upload / File Types: pdf, doc, and docx / Available until Oct 20 at 12pm

Due No due date / Points 1 / Questions 1 / Time Limit None

Neither says how many attempts I have. I believe the file upload has unlimited re-uploads and the latter only allows for one submission, but I really have no idea how to confirm that without risking it.
Having to invest is specialized infrastructure for self-driving cars defeats the whole point of them.

Any money spent on infrastructure for self-driving cars would be better spent on public transportation.
From much experience with startups, founding and co-founding is a mental mind-f*ck at all times. Even founders of good companies are under constant stress to keep the thing proposed up. The stress and drama of running a company completely f's your world up long into "success"
Eh this doesn't apply in tons of modern cases.
US only uses chip (and chip is optional in many places!!!! , if you scratch it out it'll fail a few times then let you swipe) (and signature).

There is generally no chip and pin. Some older terminals hard crash on PINs on credit. Some older terminals hard crash on PINs exceeding 4 chars
> Most prominent example is Youtube, where there is an option for an ad-free experience which is decently priced. And yet, the adoption is very low and you still see people complaining about ads on Youtube all the time.

For me, this is similar to why I won't pay for the New York Times subscription, either. I mainly only do stuff on both sites when I find a link to their site. I don't go to their site to do stuff on my own. Why would I subscribe to a site that I don't go to on my own? I do subscribe to ArsTechnica, for example, because I go there frequently.

Furthermore, I might not mind ads, but the ads on YouTube are very obnoxious. There's no intelligence, so you get weird situations like watching a 2 minute ad before being able to watch a 30 second video. Or ads cutting off the speaker mid word. Who thinks that's a good experience? If they can't get that stuff right, why would I pay them?

And on top of that, I find YouTube's "Hey did you know you can pay us money now?!?!?!" pop-ups all over the page to be obnoxious enough that I have decided I will never pay them any money.

Were I a regular visitor who wasn't so off-put by their ham-fisted advertising, I might have considered it, but now they've made going to their site so unpleasant I just avoid it if I can, or hold my nose for a few minutes when watching something with ads. Then I get away from their site as quickly as possible.
I don't want countless people to be pawns of the wealthy. I don't think very many people themselves want to be pawns of the wealthy.

Yet very many of these people will continue to use Facebook and Twitter for news, rather than changing to an alternative. So your solution to the problem fails.
Every story based on the word of unnamed sources, for a start.
>> You can't have platforms without moderation

The cell phone network is a platform and it has no moderation.

If you want to decide what is acceptable content, you're not a platform, you're a publisher. A stated rationale for protecting internet platform providers was to provide true diversity of political discourse. It wasn't to make it easy to run a forum for Ninja 400 motorcycle fans.

You want to moderate content, fine, you're a publisher and you should be liable for the content you publish. The same way you would be if you published that content as a newspaper or magazine instead of over the internet.
make this service. "tune your own algorithm" social network. not sure how broad the appeal of that will be, but you can do an MVP to find out
(1..100).each do |i|
puts case
when i % 15 == 0
'FizzBuzz'
when i % 3 == 0
'Fizz'
when i % 5 == 0
'Buzz'
else
i
end
end
Jeez, that's quite a list.

There are other, simpler ways of doing a lot of that stuff. If you want accented characters, enable the Compose key.

E.g.
https://www.setphaserstostun.org/posts/setting-the-compose-k...

If you want Mac-style keystrokes, try Kinto:
https://github.com/rbreaves/kinto

But there are other ways:
https://medium.com/@petrstepanov/a-macos-like-keyboard-remap...

Me, I use old Apple mechanical keyboards on my Macs, and IBM mechanical keyboards on my PCs. The different feel engages different muscle memory, and I use Cmd-C etc on macOS and Ctrl-C on Linux without thinking about it. For terminal emulators, use Ctrl+Shift+C etc. I personally find this a much simpler solution, but YMMV.

If you want an easier life, dump GNOME. I've tried every blasted desktop out there and XFCE makes my life easier and happier than any of them.
I have a monochrome home laser printer from about 5 years ago that I'm happy with.
Your vision is backed by a neural network with around 80 billion neurons implementing a general learning and intelligence model we don't have the first clue how to replicate. We're a bit further away from "Cameras working just as well as your vision" than I think you're anticipating.
I'm from India and during the summer holidays, I was sent to a 'Yoga Retreat' by my parents where we spent the whole day doing various Yoga and Meditation activities. This is where I learned Pranayama. Wim Hof's breathing techniques feel awfully simular to Pranayama (While Wim Hof has one technique, there are multiple techniques in pranayama).

Im a sceptical person and don't trust anything unless I see the benefits of any activity unless I see the change right before my eyes. For some reason I stuck to Pranayama and did it every day for a year or so. I observed a marked improvement in my lung capacity and my ability to hold breath underwater (I used to compete with my friends in the swimming pool and would always stay underwater for much longer than them). Also, whenever I'm in any stressful situation (like just before an exam or interview), I used to do the breathing exercise for a couple of seconds (breathe in through one nostril and exhale through the other and vice versa) and all my stress used to vanish and my mind would become very calm and sharp. Not sure why I stopped practicing it but I need to get back into it.
A number of dedicated test facilities for autonomous vehicles exist, some operated by universities, some by government agencies, and some of the autonomous vehicle vendors own their own (more common for those aligned with major automakers which generally already have large proving grounds, but Uber apparently has a small one).

I think the issue is that a dedicated test area will just never reflect the full set of problems you encounter in the real world, and for things like LED billboards it's going to be a lot cheaper to test in the real world than to buy and install your own. On the flip side, there's next to no money in developing "vehicle-dedicated infrastructure," so no one's that interested in testing on it exclusively.
But Twitter blocked direct messages, too.

Your argument somewhat makes sense for FB, depending on the details. But Twitter outright censored this content.
If by "hurt" you mean that people would stop believing that Apple is better and instead would be looked at with the same standard as every other company[0], then I don't see any problem with people no longer believing that impossibility. But I guess that's a different discussion.

[0]: Assuming that the idea that Apple is, right now, treated any differently by anyone other than its fans has any merit to it, of course.
People claim Biden didn’t pressure to fire the prosecutor (even Twitter lied about this yesterday).

When presented with the video of Biden admitting to it in his own words; he pressured to fire the prosecutor, but the prosecutor wasn’t investigating Burisma.

When shown that the prosecutor was actively investigating Burisma; well he pressured to get the prosecutor fired who was investigating Burisma, but it was in the national interest!

I’m not sure if there’s another round in the typical exchange. Best to just skip to the last phase to move the conversation forward.
Unfortunate title. I thought it was about 3M, the Minnesota materials science company. They're in all kinds of areas, so why not access cards or something similar. They're doing NFC tags, at least.
Humans have huge experiential neural networks behind their eyes that take context and knowledge of the real world into account. Teslas don't.
I WWOOFed in my youth, really enjoyed it. Don't know much about the USA org, though.
There are way too many CI tools out there, covering myriads of use cases and niches.

Jenkins doesn't do anything better than any other tool.
Right when there is a clear and imminent danger has been the judicial limit on speech. I think nearly everyone finds this reasonable.

To my point though there is the idea that “silence is violence” which implies if you don’t actively work towards a certain groups objective then you are in fact committing violence.

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? After all my silence on the matter was a hostile act. Maybe I’ll just get a struggle session and be re-educated. Lifelong ban from participating in society but alive at least. If I’m lucky.
your argument is also similar to saying: "don't like your water company? - Drill your own water well!",
"Don't like your power company? - Install your own power sources", etc.
The article is interesting, and probably right -- albeit maybe slightly unfair to da Vinci -- but I don't really buy this premise:

> We live in times of great disaggregation, and yet, seem to learn increasingly from generalists.

Most teaching is done by non-generalists -- be it in schools, on TV, in documentaries, in courtrooms, or basically anywhere of any import. There's quite a bit of irony in the author quoting Wikipedia though. On first reading, I thought that was some sort of punch-line.

> Having a variety of interests is no more a sign of generalized intelligence than being able to walk and chew gum.

This is a reductive oversimplification, and I really wish the author were more fair. There's something pretty incredible about someone contributing to multiple fields of study. It's rare, but it happens. The fact that some Twitter personality has surface knowledge about X and Y doesn't imply that there aren't people out there with actual deep knowledge about both X and Y.
How to Tell If Socializing Indoors Is Safe
I've said it for a long time but: Tesla implementing level 2 is dangerous and irresponsible. Calling it "autopilot" is even worse (and has been ruled as misleading in at least German courts).

If a human has to sit there and monitor the car without interacting with it, then we shouldn't allow it on the roads. That means skipping level 2 and probably level 3. Go the Waymo route and go straight to full self driving cars.
1 isn't a terrible idea in most circumstances but with investors you're more likely to get a C&D than a fair response given the line of work and the importance of reputation to the process.

2 - no, I disagree strongly for two reasons:

Keeping information in a quiet private forum makes it inaccessible to people at large. This means the next CEO who runs up against this investor is mostly completely unaware of their past actions.

And, honestly, hackernews is probably the single most relevant forum you could find to discuss this on - it has a general lean toward tech but it is run by ycombinator which is specifically interested in all things investment.
As an insider I see the distinct apathy of big tech towards this single issue which I see as their Achilles heel. Big tech has failed to lay out the foundational principles they will use to perform moderation and have deliberately kept everything pretty shaky. I suspect this is because the tech companies themselves face following problems.

1. Workplaces are increasingly progressive and does not respect the diversity of thought. Reasonable conservative and libertarian groups are on fringe in most large companies.

2. Leadership is increasingly immigrant driven who often do not understand full implication of their policies and decisions.

3. Company is trying to feed the same propaganda they feed to their employees to the rest of the world without realizing rest of the world is very very different.

4. Rest of the media, political parties etc. constantly crapping on big tech does not help either. (If you hate success in your country, that success eventually will move out or will be born outside your boundaries e.g. TikTok).

5. Big tech has failed miserably to highlight all the good they have been doing through their moderation policies. Toolbar malware is a thing of past, you don't have to install Adobe Flash anymore anywhere and email spam in my gmail is zero. Big tech and their walled gardens have saved millions of hours and resources wasted on other rent seekers and instead diverted it to themselves while improving use experience for my grandmother and her brother.

Big tech needs to play the same games that Big pharma and Big oil have been playing. They need to align themselves with various political groups, provide explicit platforms and assistance to everyone from far left to far right and make everyone feel included. This is not going to be simple but they have to do it.
We also have a pretty large part of our brain dedicated to image recognition, in particular we are excellent at reconstructing a 3D environment from 2D images.

Furthermore, everything about the road is designed to help us humans. The size, color, placement, etc... of road signs and markings is specially designed for human brains to process.

As for the hardware, our eyes have very good resolution, field of view and an unmatched dynamic range. Far better than the stuff in Teslas.

So I'm not saying that it is impossible for computer vision to get away with just using cameras, but it is competing with what our brain does best. So a little help in a form of a LIDAR isn't too much IMHO.
IMO, this is a problem in tech hiring and it seems the industry is doomed to repeat mistakes we've made before. During the dotcom boom we did similar brain teasers and algorithm questions, but at least then we first phone screened people and made sure there was an initial match. Even then, those interviews led to one thing consistently. We had really smart (mostly well-meaning) people who were many times incapable of putting the product together because they were too busy arguing about non-existent technical problems. That was the primary reason we moved away from those types of interviews and started interviewing people around design, architecture and decision making instead of algorithms. Although in some instances algorithms are important to a position in which they would still be a part of the interview (but that is a tiny minority of the positions generally).

I have done many thousands of interviews since the mid 90's and my process is very simple and I think fair to everyone. 1st, 20-30 minute phone screen for fit, both sides potential employee to us and us to the employee. ~2 hr Technical interview that focuses on decision making, design choices, architecture and pattern recognition. The technical interview focuses primarily on how you think and how you solve the problems, not if you write the most efficient loop or can create a tree from memory. Of course there will be questions to make sure you know what you say you do, but that easily comes out during these interviews. From there you talk to other team members, partial tech, partial culture and then a decision is made. No take home project, no wasting your time or ours, just a quick and fair process.

I get awesome hires 90%+ of the time, but every so often a bad apple makes their way through which sucks but is just a part of hiring. You fix it and move on.

I have open positions for web and mobile, happy to have smart, quality candidates. No need to study leetcode or algorithms for our open positions.