skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Regardless of my opinion on holocaust denialism, I'll never be comfortable with such a large communications platform having the power to decide what ideas are acceptable and unacceptable to discuss. Like all of us, I hold a number of opinions that many believe are incorrect or harmful so I feel the need to defend the principles of freedom of speech regardless of the issue at hand.

As for this policy change, I wonder what the limits will be here? Holocaust denialism isn't something I know much about, but my understanding is that there are different categories of holocaust denialism. A lot of holocaust "denialism" isn't strictly denial of the holocaust, but more the extent to which it happened. Many will argue that there were far less than 6 million deaths – which as I understand it isn't supported by the majority of academics.

However I do believe some denialism is academic in the same way a small handful of scientists disagree about climate change, there is also some academic disagreement about the treatment of Jews during holocaust and the total number of Jews killed. Are these kinds of discussions also off limits? Would I be allowed to share academic research which suggest 8 million Jews died, but not 4 million? Or is only discussion that centres on the 6 million number acceptable?

I suspect as usual any legitimate discussion that happens to fall outside the bounds of what's socially acceptable to those enforcing this policy will be removed and the bounds of what's acceptable will continue to shrink. I know Twitter and Reddit ban people for having the wrong academic views on race and gender these days so I assume this policy will be enforced similarly.

It does seem going forward only those with the correct views on race, gender, global warming, COVID-19, history, and social issues will be permitted access to digital communication platforms. I'm just thankful Facebook and Twitter weren't around to police wrong think during the gay and civil rights movements tbh.
Not over licensed RF links in most countries, unless you publish the private key.
If the fuel pre-ignites, proper flame propagation will be thwarted, and the fuel will not be burned as thoroughly, leaving residue, and exhausting (albeit tiny amounts of) fuel. Sure, I put the cart in front of the horse, but I can always count on HN to point out the pedantic.
Pterodactyl 1.0 – Game Server Management with Docker
The updates are pretty hilarious as well. Basically even after sending the tech the car is still bricked at the moment.

Update 1: https://old.reddit.com/r/Justrolledintotheshop/comments/j9ji...

Update 2: https://old.reddit.com/r/Justrolledintotheshop/comments/j9qn...

There was also a story a few years back that is kinda similar in issue. A rental car was taken into a rural area but they couldn't restart the car as there was no cellular signal for the app to re-enable the car. https://twitter.com/kari_paul/status/1229214223227478016
Me. Am I in the minority? I clean my phone about as many times as I clean my steering wheel - a few times per year.
Somehow I doubt this is a concern many Ferrari owners have.
Pretty detailed report. Hope that the antitrust actions can follow through.

Ars Technica had a good summary up: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/10/house-amazon-fac...
A good pattern for this is to use the Unity serialization to inject all the references and initialized values you need. This allows Unity track all the dependencies and load everything you need.

Unity is still crap at loading things in order but you simply have to make peace with that. Instead you have to write a bit more defensively and assume that your code will get initialized in a random order. As long as you use Unity serialization all the references will be set when the lifecycle callbacks fire.

You can
- Use coroutine Starts to wait for initialization

- Ensure all the inits are done in Awake so things are ready during Start

- You can also move away form initialization towards a more lazy pattern and make sure any calls into your behavior are asynchronous and include self init when needed.

It is a bit clunky but you can get used to it. Lean into the idea of behaviors being asynchronous actors and it makes a bit more sense.
I think that largely speaks to your bubble has blinded you, and thus the problem as a whole.

With people on the right, Parler is very well known. There are a pretty large number of celebrities and politicians - and unlike Gab not merely people who were dumped from other social media platforms.
Makes me wonder what they forgot to consider in the network security department...
Congratulations, you’ve discovered the paradox of tolerance (which the parent helpfully linked)?

There can be no stable and 100% tolerant society, because by definition that means that nothing will be done to stop intolerance from taking over. Given that 99% tolerant (with an exception for “no nazis”) is about as tolerant as it’s possible to be, most people use “99% tolerant (with an exception for no nazis)” and “tolerant” synonymously.

It’s not perfect, and yes it would be clearer if every single use of the word “tolerant” was replaced with “99% tolerant” and came with an explanation of the paradox of tolerance in the footnotes, but I think most people already understand what is meant here.

IMO it’s more nonsensical (and dangerous) to go the other way, using "1% intolerant” and “intolerant” synonymously - as then people start getting the impression that “banning holocaust denial content” (1% intolerant) and “gassing the Jews” (100% intolerant) are equally bad acts.
> A kernel that, from a business standpoint, is adding little value to Microsoft?

> Obviously Windows isn't going away - but how many of Microsoft's customers would know that their kernel has been swapped out when the UI and all the applets look identical

Right. Because it's just a simple switch to flip when changing kernels, and all of the Windows software will just go on working as it before.
> Tolerance means putting up with things with which you disagree.

True, but it kind of crosses the line when something denies well documented fact and tries to discredit reality itself. This "gamification" of alternative realities is insanely toxic to democracy and society.
More power in terms of ability to censor/effectiveness of censorship.
The question was: "Who defines unreasonable"?

As a matter of fact, the answer is: Facebook. That _does_ seem like the issue to me.

I think that you're moving the goalpost from "who decides" to "is it a good idea". To which I've already answered: yes, it has a proven track record.
No, that doesn't hold water.

There's nothing inherently "more recreational" or more interesting about a thing that shoots bullets than a laser that burns things. That's just your personal interest built on top of the interests of other people, a cultural artifact.

Whatever you say about guns, I can counter with something like: lasers can be bounced off mirrors, therefore they are more interesting and fun than devices that fire bullets.
Survived yes but think of the effects on the kid and the family.
So you're making a narrow case that holocaust denial is specifically bad and not endorsing more policing by facebook in general?

There's certainly precedent for holocaust denial being considered specifically and uniquely harmful, although it feels a little dated in the year 2020.
It is factually true! And yet there are many disputes over the facts in our world, and the "Fact Check" is an entire genre of opinion journalism these days, and Facebook is already applying censorship based on these opinions.

Take, for instance, this overtly right-wing partisan here, John Stossel, also writing within the past week:
https://pjmedia.com/columns/john-stossel/2020/10/07/fake-fac...

I have little traffick with John Stossel's work, and will not attest to any specific claims about wildfires, but Facebook's idea of "fact checking" this specific video involves groups like Climate Feedback, who are apparently empowered to lie about Professor Stefan Doerr of Swansea University reviewing his video.

This is not about Stossel, whose work I will not condone here. This how much you should trust Facebook to be an effective arbiter of Factual Truth, which should be very near zero. And there's a word for enforcing the "Factual Truth" like this: it's called Orthodoxy.
Yeah, clearly freedom of speech doesn't apply to things that have already been refuted.
Maybe, but what do you say when they put the same anti-theft system in a Land Rover, or just the regular cars that the people who live or work in sparsely populated deserts drive?
Freedom of speech is a principle that our constitution enshrines. It exists independently of our constitution and government.

The fact that the government isn’t violating an obligation to not restrict free speech does not mean that the principle isn’t being violated by other parties.

XKCD was wrong.
> The photos, evidence, eyewitness accounts demonstrate the Holocaust is undeniable.

Yet it is still fervently denied. They cannot be "verbally smashed" because they are so much more invested in these ideas and because of this they are beyond the reaches of rational argument (i.e. you will be the one getting smashed). There are nearly 100 claims they will throw out such that no single person can know them all, here is a helpful academic source of these claims: https://www.hdot.org/debunking-denial/ Removing an accessible location of discourse is the best solution for this instance.
> For two, when you talk with other Windows admins about a problem you're having, you don't get "well it works for me" presented as though it is somehow helpful.

If I had a pound for the number of times I've had Windows issues, Googled the error code (because error code 0x800704cf is so intelligible) and found some mix of "I'm having the same problem, how do I fix it? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯" or "just reinstall".
As shitty as they are, drone strikes are operated by the CIA, and not subject to the military's rules of engagement, or military oversight, this is entirely on purpose.
Surely it's up to the GP to bring at least some evidence for such a broad claim before the obligation falls on other people to spend their valuable time refuting it.
Apple and Comcast probably can use them.

Also Comcast may have to invest more in NAT grade infra if they sell significant chunk of their Class A allocation so it may not make sense for them.
A lot of readers here, and on Reddit seem to be misunderstanding the situation.

The way I understand it, this car was taken in by a garage for 'seat installation'. I presume this means after market seats.

The car disabled itself during installation. The OP assumed due to an anti-temper device, but it could have been any failure mode. Most modern cars with airbags will have sensors in the seats to disable some of the airbags if there is no passenger sitting there. So it is no surprise that any type of work on the seats puts this system in an error state. Especially on high-performance cars it is not unusual that the car immobilises itself when the safety systems are in error state.

A certified dealership will have the computer interface and software to reset the fault mode. For those that do not have this software, Ferrari can remote into the car and reset it for you. This requires connectivity though. This is actually quite a common thing on luxury cars.

This has nothing to do with 'smart' modes, remote hacking capability or disabling a car while in motion. The fact that the manufacturer can remote into their cars, does not automatically mean that the car is vulnerable to remote hacking. This is, in fact, a safety system that kicked in.

The solution here was probably simple: bring the car outside, and let Ferrari do it's thing. Or trailer it to a certified dealership to have it reset there.
Inflation Targeting Dashboard visualizes price growth versus the Fed's 2% target
For my own edification, would you mind linking these posts you're referencing? The only comments on the reddit thread that I can find that say anything like that admit they're speculating, as opposed to the actual post which says the only thing that cell reception has to do with this is that the remote team can't access it remotely without cell reception (which is a no-brainer).

This might be a more contrived example, but this is kind of like trying too many times to unlock your tablet (made from platinum) and tech support can't unlock it when you call them because your router died and your wifi is down.
No, I was pointing out the use of a term that, in common understanding of what "grenade" means, was confusing.
Given the hype, I almost want to reinstall Linux to try it out, and see what all the fuss is about.

And it's funny you bring up anti-cheat, because my biggest success using Wine was Battlefield 2, which actually ran more smoothly on my machine under Linux than Windows, but then I tried to get online, and learned a harsh lesson.
Look, I don't disagree with you, it's a problem - but I can guarantee that more Ferrari customers are affected by someone trying to steal their car than there are Ferrari customers driving through an unpopulated desert with no phone signal(and trying to do roadside repair). It's just a question of probabilities, and the first issue seems more important to solve.

Besides, I think there's a certain fundamental misunderstanding here - the car disabled itself because it "thought" it was being stolen. It's no different than triggering a car alarm in any car made in the last 30 years - most systems will kill the ignition until you reset the alarm.

The difference here is that Ferrari can unblock the car remotely for you - but I'm certain it's also possible in-person with some kind of key/button input or some diagnostic device.

It's no different than what 1990s volkswagens used to do, if you removed the battery the radio would be locked until you entered a special pin code, but of course the dealership wouldn't give you the pincode, you had to take it to them and pay them some money. The only difference here is that Ferrari can now do this remotely(if you have signal).
This seems like it would be very difficult to litigate. How do you ascertain the "predominant motive"? How do you define "serious or legitimate"? To whom? If a Muslim woman wants to wear a head-covering (or a Christian wearing a cross necklace) in a French school, it's probably very serious and legitimate to her, but perhaps not to a tribunal of secularists. There aren't any silver bullets for the issue of speech freedoms.
It's two years for the local municipal police.

For comparison, nationwide we have less than 1 police fatality per 10 mm population.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforc...
On paper.

I hang out a lot with a lot of former US infantry guys on discord, and they talk all the time about how rule one was come back alive, and rule two was 'make sure you all get your stories straight.' This mythos of the American warfighter being above and beyond is propaganda. Good propaganda, because it has some basis in truth, but it whitewashes a lot of nastiness.
Just by comparing the position of the GOP with some positions of, say the AfD and the former FN (Germany and France respectivley), I could make the case that right wing parties have a much smaller voter base in these two countries then the US.
The full title is

"The Sveriges Riksbank prize in Economic Sciences in memory of Alfred Nobel"

which tells you all you need to know about it.
Has the stock market become less representative of the economy?
But then they just look stupid, no? Like flat earthers, anti-vaxxers etc.
I'd say it's their fault, since due to the above situation, there were a lot of Linux users with Nvidia cards. Nvidia didn't care to upstream things and that caused them not to support Wayland and many other modern use cases for years.

Today it's less relevant, since usage of Nvidia on Linux is gradually dropping, so their damage to the progress is also diminishing thanks to that. Wayland compositors' developers can simply say - we don't support the blob and don't plan to and be done with it. In the past it was much harder, due to how many Linux users had Nvidia still while alternatives were way less viable.
There's also the consideration to be made that you knowingly had been selling bullhorns to the nazi in the past, and are continuing to sell bullhorns to other folks of questionable beliefs
I really appreciate what you've written here and I'm sorry you're going to get down-voted into oblivion. The down-vote button is sometimes used as a replacement for proper engagement.

Free speech is not what allows hate to grow, it's lack of it. Look at every awful event in history - it's always surrounded by misinformation, propaganda and a lack of free speech. The only way they can gain control is by oppressing the speech of their opposition.
“The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong; it's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't eat steak.”

― Robert A. Heinlein
Ah yes, version "9999.0-empty-to-avoid-conflict-with-guava" is especially impressive.
Some of this repeats what others have said; modern safety and efficiency requirements mean the car needs more electronics. When they fail, you're SOL, but modern cars are pretty reliable, making up for part of the desire for consumers to fix them.
What does this have to do with a car being electric?
Not quite, you also need hydrochloric or sulphuric acid as a catalyst.
lol do you think the criminalisation of holocaust denial is a new invention that somehow needs to be studied by future historians? Most democratic countries on this earth, except for the US, not only ban holocaust denial on private platforms, which is insidious historical revisionism, but punishes it by law.

I have absolutely no idea how someone can be so childish as to not see that rights have their limitations to be preserved. Yes, to protect truth and the ability to speak freely we need to put limits on the damage someone can do by abusing free speech, in the same way we have highway speed limits, have a police that can do arrests and sometimes can use violence to stop other violence.
Sure, but how much time is needed to process that information? As far as I understand in this case it was a single bit (change rate yes/no). What is the minimum time you think is plausible for 1bit throughput?
Exactly. It's akin to the difference between dropping "a bomb" and dropping "a nuke". The terms are sometimes interchangeable but should never be confused.
Distinguishing between free speech and harassment requires discernment, which is what a lot of modern people are either not trained to do, don’t have time to do, are too lazy to do, or have been brainwashed against. More and more, we demand bright lines in a society increasingly filled with gray areas because we charge ahead without consideration.

It’s never been easy and current social pressures make it even harder to do.
Monogame isn't really an engine, more of a framework, but its API is so static that you can copy/paste 11-year-old code in XNA 4 Framework tutorials into your Monogame project and it will probably just work (shaders, storage, and a few other things are different). I did that just yesterday. (Monogame was initially created to match XNA 4 API).

I didn't even try porting my 10 year old XNA game until a year and a half ago, and I was able to get it compiled and running with 90% functionality (again shaders and storage was broken) in just 24 hours.

And they just had a major new release that, among other things, supports .Net Core, just two months ago, yet I'm still able to do this.
A quarter of the Alexa Top 10K websites are using browser fingerprinting scripts
Lest not forget FAAAM started the witch hunt by banning pornographic, violent or gore content, all tyrants.
The legal basis is that a court awards a remedy[1] for harm done (or being done). Often that's monetary damages, but it doesn't have to be. The courts chooses what remedy is appropriate.

I'm not sure that's relevant though. This might just be a preliminary injunction[2] rather than a final decision, whereas your "get equity in the factory" seems to be thinking about a final remedy rather than a preliminary injunction sought to minimize ongoing damage.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_remedy
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Injunction#Preliminary_injunct...
> Everyone who thinks that using the Linux Kernel is better than NT is already using Linux

Well, except - of course - if they need to use one of the multitudes more "programs" created just for Windows, which won't run on Linux.
I think this advice is incomplete

In general, I don't like to try risky new things in prod right away. Maybe I'll write some throwaway code or a test that uses the new thing. (This is how I started playing with ranges)

If it's an improvement, I'll leave it in, and as I figure out how to write clean code or fix the bugs with it, I'll start considering it in prod.

This is a useful trick! Also consider the alternative (eg in this case you can just write class functions on your type or use existing libraries)

If you get reasonable push back, don't use it. But I've seen it used in end seemed like sensible places in a production codebase and wouldn't say "never do this." The limits idea at the end seems fine, for example.

(The rust language ergonomics can be a good guide: try to balance "applicability", "power", and "context dependence". [1]

In the case of limits it is not very powerful, it's just a little syntax sugar. Seems ok.

I would say the from_string code has a few more footguns)

[1] https://blog.rust-lang.org/2017/03/02/lang-ergonomics.html
Our first amendment rights in the US restrict the government from prohibiting free speech. But that doesn't mean free speech isn't a principle that can, and should, be applied in other areas of life. When people say Facebook is violating free speech, that absolutely makes sense as a violation of a principle that many of us care strongly about, and that our society is to a great extent founded upon. Just because free speech as a right is enshrined in the first amendment doesn't mean the first amendment is where the principle of free speech begins and ends.
These languages aren't even try to capture the same market niches.
Swift is literally vendor locked. How the heck is it next to open source runs anywhere languages?
Maybe techbros will only realize how damaging the "unchecked free speech" they defend is when they end up being the target of hate speech (and eventually actions)
I don't understand why this was downvoted.
As I understand it there aren't restrictions on who can own vehicles, only on who can use them on public infrastructure.

I think comparing a driving license with a concealed carry permit is the most apt although not a perfect case. In many states a course must be undertaken to obtain a concealed carry permit, and some states put many restrictions on obtaining one.

A driving licence does however allow you to use any public road, whereas concealed carry permits are per state. I've wondered if lawmakers could use the possibility of federal level permits in exchange for tightening of current restrictions on say background checks.
I think you proved the parent's point.
194925604 Create an account and that's the username
>> people who live in sparsely populated deserts drive?

Well, by the very definition, there can't be that many people there - so unfortunately they will have to buy something else, or discuss it with their dealership before they purchase the car. When I got my current car(2020 Volvo XC60) the dealership did warn me that if I don't have signal many features in the vehicle won't be available(no idea if it would "brick" itself if I tried repairing it in the middle of a desert, but I'm not interested in finding out).
I don't know if you remember the 90s, but a lot of people wanted to ban Marilyn Manson because school shooters.

Food for thought.
> we're taught in schools the results of something like Nazi Germany, 6 million died in camps

You're taught poorly. 11 million died: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust#cite_note-USHMMf...
FreeBSD Case Study – Netflix