skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Brick Jobs and Mortar Jobs in an Organization (A Metaphor)
> If on your distro something isn't configured correctly for 4k screens the fanboy says its workable because there is a readily available resource that will tell you how to achieve the result you desire.

> The anti fanboy will throw up their hands and say Linux sucks.

This is a strange false dichotomy
Well, apart from that guy who shot so many civilians that his colleagues kept bending his sights, who eventually got prosecuted for war crimes .. then pardoned by the President.
Alternative answer: because the market for what you want is too small relative to the cost of producing the thing you want.
This is a South African newspaper right? Sometimes I wonder if HN headlines are just suggestions for discussion for bored or easily distracted tech workers.
I absolutely believe that such attacks are possible - no doubt about that.

But most corporate networks likely have much more likely vulnerabilities that are worth much more thought than this, in my opinion. If your phone has been taken over to the extent that an audio/video stream can be recorded without your permission, I would bet also that much more valuable information than that audio/video stream can usually be obtained as well, for most people who are not used to high security.
Barrett hearings, Trump returns to blitz campaign trail
https://hello-safe.co.uk/golf-insurance
Wow, that’s a complicated way to get a reasonable price for forex. 1 to 2 cents per $100 is not actually a particularly great deal — what actually seems to be happening is that your banks are ripping you off for currency conversions but not for stock transactions.
I tend to go with the idea that if they're asking for it, they already have it.
That's where the first project free comes into picture.
I'm fine with censoring holocaust denial content, but I dislike this "Paradox of Tolerance" reasoning. It's too easy for someone to convince themselves that another group is "intolerant" and therefore give themselves moral license to deplatform, harass, or even assault their "intolerant" target. This isn't just a theoretical concern; in practice this is virtually the only context in which I've seen the Paradox applied. Views that are pretty commonplace and understandable are flimsily branded "intolerant" by authoritarians as an excuse to commit their own intolerance. I could get on board with this Paradox of Tolerance reasoning if we had any sort of reasonable if not objective standard for what constitutes 'intolerance', but it seems like >90% of the time it's "someone who disagrees with me".

Not only is it too easily abused, but by resorting too quickly to censorship the compelling, valid arguments against abhorrent points of view are suppressed. If someone is wondering why racial profiling is bad, we should talk about how American society aspires to treat people as individuals and not fungible tokens of their race--any given individual doesn't deserve heightened scrutiny simply because people with similar skin tone are more likely to commit crimes. By not addressing these questions rationally first, a lot of people miss the opportunity to be persuaded--especially when we are outright hateful toward people who ask these kinds of questions--we risk sending them into the welcoming arms of people with unsavory, pseudo-scientific explanations that vindicate profiling (censoring isn't going to stop these people from finding each other). Of course, not everyone is going to be persuaded by rational explanations, but most will be and we shouldn't deprive society of the opportunity to have fewer racists.

Lastly, this quick-to-censor precedent is only good for as long as the "right" people are in charge of determining who is intolerant, and already the people who are the quickest to cite the Paradox of Tolerance are often the people who espouse racist points of view--ideas that society should be segregated (each race should stay in its own lane, no cultural mixing ["appropriation"], no interracial marriage, no-$race-allowed spaces, etc), that some entire races are guilty of crimes against other races, that race tells us all we need to know about a person ("ugh, the teacher is a $race man. What am I going to learn from another $race male?"), etc.

So yeah, I don't have any sympathy for holocaust deniers, but I worry we're gifting these kinds of unsavory groups a weapon to be used against us in these Paradox of Tolerance precedents.
The concept, no; however, freedom of speech also covers Facebook's freedom to not provide a platform if they choose to do so.

You cannot make me say, write, or publish something I don't agree with; freedom of speech is also the freedom to NOT speak. This extends to individuals and platforms both.

In WW2, newspapers were controlled by the invaders; they were told what to publish, even if the people behind it disagreed.
The problem with using Mick West's possible explanation for these videos is that it doesn't address the other tools that were used to track these UAPs.

Let's say we believe with confidence that this debunking is correct and that these videos show a bird or balloon or some explainable phenomena.

The next step is to look at the eyewitness testimony and reports from the people involved in this case - several Navy fighter pilots including a commanding officer of a squadron of aircraft onboard the Nimitz - and decide if we think the likely outcome is that they 1) did see radio signatures of these 'birds or balloons' moving at speeds beyond what is possible according to our understanding of physics, 2) were they collectively deluded or mistaken or misled by software bug across multiple technologies (radar including the AEGIS radar of an American aircraft carrier fleet), or 3) were they all lying.

I don't think any of the debunking address the possibilities of these witness testimonies, only the video that we do have. Which sort of makes sense in that we only _can_ address the physical evidence that is in front of us as members of the public, but shouldn't we at least acknowledge it seems somewhat unlikely that several members of the Navy with thousands of hours of training onboard both fighter jets and also in the radar rooms of Destroyers all collectively believed they were seeing physically impossible maneuvers by multiple targets, or that these tracking systems are that unreliable, or that they all collectively decided to lie about these videos and make up a story? Dismissing a video as showing a bird or balloon subject to parallax is great, but those explanations fall down if we choose to believe the report that they had radar tracking these objects at impossible velocities.

Perhaps the lying is the most logical possibility if this is a planned piece of government disinformation / muddying of the waters around technology or UFO/UAPs for some strategic reason, but let's at least discuss the topic before saying 'it was a bird or balloon, slam dunk, case-closed'.
I also notice that if you search on that community there are lots of references to it on Twitter, Wikipedia, and other places.
> I don't know anything about propaganda, I just know that my insurance got way way way worse after ACA.

I suspect you know it got more expensive for the benefits from the perspective of someone not first starting to need it for something in the high tail of cost. The likelihood that you would get thrown off of your insurance in that case without effective remedy is something you probably haven't directly experienced, but it's a pretty significant factor in the quality of insurance, and is a very major cost drivers in the change from pre-ACA policy to the ACA.
Wikipedia redirects "flashbang" to "stun grenade" and describes it as a "less lethal explosive device", so I'd say they're using the vernacular correctly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flashbang
> "<Link to a page for 'Linux For Dummies'>"

Personal attacks are against the HN guidelines. You've been around here long enough that you should know that.
To cover their ass while they absolutely wreck Trickbots network.
Facebook is hedging hard these past couple weeks. Looks like they have decided that Trump is going to lose and so suddenly decided licking his boots is not worth it, just like Theil did. I don't trust FB is trying to do the right thing, I will only believe that they are doing this to make it seem like they are not targeting trump when they blocked qanon.
I love linux, but I would actually rather see MS open source the Windows kernel than replace it with the Linux kernel.

I'd also love to see a "Linux Subsystem for Windows", to make it better to run windows applications on Linux. Wine sort of fills this role, but I'd really love to see a MS-backed fully compatible system. And maybe it could work similar to WSL2, where it is an actual windows kernel running inside KVM.
I've heard the same arguments from hundreds of people. The same misquoted, manipulated statistics, the same concern trolling, the same dog whistles. There isn't any point in listening. Some people hate me for what I am. They want to take my rights away from me, they want to restrict my ability to access medicine, they want to stop me from being in the military (not that I wish to join). Why should I listen to one more person lie and spread hate?
Or government officials from Cuba and Venezuela have a good old laugh when they see everyone in Atlanta dying from oxies. And a lot of people here in America join up. Rich spoiled fools far removed from the brutality they cause.

Police do very little even with gun shots. Don't let the violence spread. Come back tomorrow morning and collect the casings.

Smart, because if you brought what really happens to the public, it would get out of control. The American public beats to death every foreign agent in the street. China invades Taiwan, Venezuela invades Columbia, Russia invades Belarus or Poland and we have a full on nuclear exchange.

Join up and stop it, or be quiet. You are in something way over your head. The people pushing this, like Soros, don't care. They care about the money and leave town first sign of trouble.
I would love to use Unreal, but just having a blank scene in the editor open makes my fully loaded 2019 16" MBP's fans go full hog.
There was a DARPA project called F6 for validating a similar concept. Spent a few million USD and ended with nothing much to show. Turns out formation flying is hard. Especially with satellites with limited orbital alignment capabilities, as the small uneven effects on the orbit from various sources (other planets, atmospheric drag, etc) eventually add up and you have to be able to correct the orbit from time to time to keep the formation. Apart from that, communications tech reliable enough for the kind of distributed in-orbit computation was still not there last I checked.

I wonder if anything has changed in the meanwhile.
Surely, you can see how objectionable things can be different?

I find most religious content to be objectionable. But for the most part, it is benign. In general, someone's religious beliefs don't affect me. Once it starts to call for the ill treatment of others, though, I think it should be removed. So religion-based anti-LGBTQ content should be removed (for example).

Holocaust denial stems from a long history of anti semitism, which in itself tends to advocate the poor treatment of others and enbraces a certain amount of dehumanizing language. All for something they cannot help and doesn't actually affect others. We know that hate groups embrace this. We also know it happened - we have pictures. It is simply lies to get folks to treat others badly. So, removal.
Rust is always on my list. I am a happy user that is grateful that Zig and Rust both have great stewards!
Have you considered buying a laptop with linux at some point?
I agree with gambiting. Yeah, it sucks, but just tow your car outside and turn it on again. These things exist for a reason. If it had really been stolen, and there was the work around of 'oh, there's no signal so we'll let the car start and drive off' - then a thief could permanently jam that signal, or remove the electronic device responsible for receiving that signal.

E.g, it's not perfect but it is secure.
OP clarifies in the thread that this was for a child seat installation. And I think that qualifies as something that's pretty basic.
The "ignore voices you don't like" argument completely fails to account for the effect of those voices on the millions of people around you, and the effect of their changed actions as a result, on you in turn. It's like saying "pretend you're the only person in the world."
Good, I like being told what to think so that I don't have to have any opinions of my own. This frees up my mind to focus on consuming new products.
Behind China’s ‘pork miracle’: how technology is transforming rural hog farming
Unity also has a history of retroactively changing its license to revoke usage rights on assets you purchase. Eg, revoking you’re ability to let your freelancers use your asset licenses earlier this year. I just don’t trust the company as a partner after that stuff
it is hateful speach, because it is like rubbing salt to wounds intentionally, and it has 3rd party victims. While flat earther, don't have any third party victims....

Instead of saying: they support the mass killing of particular group of people directly.

They say: it didn't happen

I do think holocaust denial is hateful speach, often used by neo-nazi groups. Should iy be illegall, like it is in Germany? No. As that is a step too far. But I think a particular platform is free to filter these idiots out from their algo and recommendations and FB is doing the right thing in this case.
The slowest of slow claps imaginable. It's better to do it 5 years too late than never, I guess. But Facebook doesn't get any pats on the back.

Facebook's modus operandi is:

1.) Allow algorithms to grow and foster toxic ideas and communities, because these create the most user engagement

2.) Extract as much ad revenue as possible from the user engagement

3.) Say 'Oooops, our bad. We're doing something about this now' when Facebook's role in proliferating toxic content gets politically untenable

4.) Keep the bags of money they generated from this content and get positive press

5.) Wait until people start paying attention to the next abhorrent thing Facebook helps propagate

---

It's really getting old.
A few days ago, FastCGI was on HN. Is there a common thread to the nostalgia for old CGI tech or just a coincidence? (Not that I mind, I have fond memories)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24683304
> What makes them the best people to be making these decisions?

Because rightly or wrongly billions of people entrusted their data to FB in exchange for services. There is no best or worst about it -- FB are the only people who control FB servers.
Brain training habits are not associated with generalized benefits to cognition
If all you have is an AK-47 everything looks like an enemy combatant.
Realistically, if you fire a howitzer you have zero assurance that the shell will only land upon legitimate targets. The recent hostilities between Armenia and Azerbaijan are testament to the indiscriminate destructive power of military weapons.
Funny to see this hit the front page. Last week I started binge watching Nick Zentner on YouTube. He's a geology professor at Central Washington Uni and offers some fascinating expositions on PNW geology. The PNW has an absolutely riveting geologic story, including supervolcanoes and continental accretion.
Yes, buying Ubuntu would make sense for severeal reasons:

- They seem to be comfortable shipping that as the default WSL for a few years and this would allow them to integrate even deeper.
- Ubuntu is one of the main systems people use in cloud based environments; including Microsoft's own Azure where it and other linux distros are more popular than Windows Server. Taking control of Ubuntu would allow them to take full control of that stack. The goal here would be to offer an alternative to the likes of Oracle and IBM for enterprises and make sure Azure retains its competitive edge over cloud platforms offered by those two. IBM just bought Red Hat; and Oracle ships its own Red Hat derivative.
- On premise "cloud" is becoming a big deal. Owning Ubuntu, which is a player in that space too, would enable MS to make Azure on premise a better product.

The Desktop application market at this point is mostly split between creative tools and developer tools. MS is big into the latter and most of that targets Linux already. Creative tools are basically Adobe and similar companies. Most of those target Apple and MS. Finally there's office, which mostly already works in a browser. I doubt they are in a hurry to produce a Linux desktop version. It's a lot of work for basically no big return on investment. They already struggle with keeping the OSX version relevant.

Finally, there are games. PC Games are big drivers for MS Windows sales. It's what keeps home owners buying windows computers with the windows license. While in decline for years, that's still a lot of money for MS. Without gaming, they'd have been bleeding more users to Apple and Linux for years. Of course XBox is still Windows based. I'd say this is the main thing that is keeping Windows Desktop alive. So, I don't see them walking from that any time soon. They might however, transition X Box to a subscription based streaming service at some point. Various companies are already piloting solutions for this (Google, Amazon, NVidia). Linux might make sense here but it would require tight integration with hardware and software. I'd say forget about MS even attempting to support that at the level they currently support Windows. But, I wouldn't discount it for a future iteration of XBox though.
Thank you very very much.
This made my day :-).
If we ban this speech then how can we argue against these ideas?

The photos, evidence, eyewitness accounts demonstrate the Holocaust is undeniable. BUT we know that there are people that say the world is flat, moon landing was faked, etc.

If anything I’d like to engage these people and verbally smash them. If anything, Facebook should make posts like this unblockable, so people can’t defriend or block people with whom they don’t agree with.

It’s the wrong move for the right reason.
Why would it, as no real historian denies the Holocaust. But that is besides the point, as these discussions propably don't need facebook to take place. And if they do, that in itself might be part of the problem.
I disagree that this is an encroachment on free speech. Your free speech protections are only protected _from_ the _government_. The government is not allowed to silence you on most things you say. However, things like shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater (the age-old example) are not free speech. Moreover, Facebook is not the government and does not need to allow you to say anything you want.

People who would otherwise post on Facebook about Holocaust denial can go out on the streets and talk about it to their friends or others. But, they can expect a punch in the face if they do. I think that is what is happening here. People are spewing nonsense, and a non-governmental entity (Facebook) is punching them in the face (not letting them say it on their platform).

Like the grandparent post said, this is intolerant. But it's following the paradox to allow more tolerance in society.
Spam, bots and scams aren't speech in any meaningful way. They don't attempt to say anything. Threats of violence and abuse may be speech in some sense but is in no way part of a dialogue.
Some people describe this split as "type deduction" vs "type inference," that is, C++ has deduction, Rust has inference.

Here is the gist of it. Inferring types in C++ (and languages with type deduction) basically looks like this:

auto a = something;

Here, the type of a is determined by the type of something. The left hand side determines the type of the right hand side.

In Rust (and languages with type inference), inferring types can look like that:

let a = something;

but it can also "go backwards":

let a = 5;
let b: u64 = a;

Here, a will be a u64, because you later assign it to something of type u64, and so the compiler can "work backwards" to infer this. (In my understanding, it does not literally work backwards, but it feels like it.)

To see how this plays out in your parent's comment, I adapted the code from: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/cpp/auto-cpp?view=vs-20...

#include<vector>

void func(std::vector<int> &vect)
{
vect.push_back(30);
}

int main()
{
std::vector<int> vect;
vect.push_back(10);
vect.push_back(20);

func(vect);

return 0;
}

You can't say "auto vect;" there, or else gcc will say "error: declaration of 'auto vect' has no initializer".

But in Rust, you can write:

fn func(vect: &mut Vec<i32>) {
vect.push(30);
}

fn main() {
let mut vect = Vec::new();

vect.push(10);
vect.push(20);

func(&mut vect);
}

no type annotation on "let mut vect" there; it can see that you eventually pass it to func, and that's enough to infer the type. (For completeness, the line would be "let mut vect: Vec<i32> = Vec::new();" if you wrote out the type.
True, but somewhat irrelevant to most people. There are so many lower-hanging and juicier fruit than recording audio from your phone that I just don't understand why this would be a relevant case.

Most people have their email, personal photos, medical records, financial records, chats etc. on their phones. If you believe your phone is likely compromised, you should first move all of those off your phone before being concerned about realtime audio recording.
This is cool. Also looks very pleasing on mobile.
Come on dude, we've all seen the drone footage showing the US blowing people to pieces for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Does it do the right thing if you unset the traceback portion of the Exception object?
Facebook could be considered a public square, where they would be required to protect it's users free speech and lose their own ability to censor by choice. This would be similar to the central area of a mall or when companies provided housing to workers to prevent unionization efforts. Both places were upheld as places where the First Amendment must be upheld, despite private ownership.
The Farm of the Future Might Be in Compton. Inside a Warehouse and Run by Robots
Most try to avoid Covid-19, but thousands volunteer to be deliberately exposed
The aim of colonialism (at least according to Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations [1]) was to exploit the New World's resources in order to accumulate wealth. Extending authority over these territories was just a means to this end.

These days, rather than the Spanish Empire stripping South America of its gold and silver, it's individual workers emigrating to countries with a low cost of living to maximise their own personal wealth.

[1] https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/119#Smith_0206-02_185
Almost certainly but it probably will read different from what you seem to think.
Almost every interviewer asks you to talk about yourself.

Not my experience in Germany with big companies.
Check out this clip from South Park's 'Pandemic Special':

https://youtu.be/uo63QQsm5Dw