skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
There's a distinction between experiential or reputational advice, and theoretical advice, even where both are empirically based, largely having to do with verification costs.

For an experience, where direct validation is expensive, it's necessary to replicate the experience in order to achieve direct validation. An alternative is to collect multiple assessments --- to check references, or sample public opinions. Reading additional reviews on a given online site (Glassdoor, Amazon, Yelp, RottenTomatoes, etc.) is appealing for ease of access, but is subject to various problems, whether unreliable reviews, curation (negative or positive), rater kickbacks or extortion, etc.

Essentially these are examples of the censorship, propaganda, surveillance, and monopoly dynamic I highlighted recently:

https://joindiaspora.com/posts/7bfcf170eefc013863fa002590d8e... (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24771470)

A preferred mode is to bypass any intermediary and directly sample those with relevant experience. Where such experiences are thin, this is difficult. For broader experiences, forms of statistical sampling are powerfully useful, and, contrary to widespread popular opinion given random sampling "large number" estimates can be achieved with sample sizes of as low as 30, and reliable small-sample estimates well below this. Sample bias matters far more than sample size.

For advice on theory, validation can be performed through experiment or by checking with trusted authorities. Note that 'trusted authorities" != "appeal to authority". That is, trust is based on both expertise and reliability, rather than position or office.

That's easiest when specific references are given,[1] but even here, @lordnacho has provided both keywords and reasonably cogent arguments supporting their views.

Their comment is a great example of why the vetting problem is so hard and enduring, though.[2]

________________________________

Notes:

1. There are reasons I frequently cite or footnote my own contributions on numerous sites.

2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vetting
"I think we should abolish the first amendment"
I'd stop in most of those situations. Except for the bogus painted lines -- I'd see that they were trying to direct me into oncoming traffic and respond accordingly.

The panel van (or drone) attack is highly targeted, and doesn't stick around like paint does.

These aren't just "ridiculous what ifs," they're a rather plausible method for freshly unemployed Luddites.
The very article this thread is about talks about Duff's device. This comment confirms my suspicion that most HN readers, like me, read the comments before optionally reading the article.
I think the whole idea about not selling cupcakes to gay people is stupid (but I understand the theory, it's like asking an ideological vegan to provide the side dishes to a BBQ), but it's not the same issue.

In monopoly situations (or duopoly, if you wish), there are generally different rules that apply, because you can't just go somewhere else to do business: there is nothing else. Hence utility companies can't simply go "I don't like your nose, no water for you".
The documentation says that Waypoint does not want to replace PaaS, but rather to integrate with both PaaS and lower-level infrastructure like Kubernetes.

However, the documentation also says that Waypoint injects a “smart entrypoint” into the containers it builds, and that entrypoiny seems very intrusive. Among other things, it calls home to the waypoint server and registers on a “URL service” which will then route traffic back to it. That is basically a PaaS service mesh.

So my understanding is that Waypoint, while claiming to be complementary to PaaS, is actually a trojan horse to inject its own PaaS into my infrastructure. I understand why that is valuable to Hashicorp; and I may even be interested in evaluating a Hashicorp PaaS. But I am not a fan of the way this is being snuck in. Injecting a service mesh into my stack is a major change; please be upfront about it so I can compare it to other PaaS.
Can LIDAR reliably detect stop signs? I think it would have to be based on the shape, and LIDAR loses resolution pretty quickly over distance.
Wait, what language is this? That doesn't look like C.
First thanks so much for writing this. The gilded world of unicorn CEOs seems all roses and wine from the Techcrunch armchair VC/outside world, so it was eye-opening to read an intimate account of the cold, brutal reality of being one.

That said, I have one question. What on earth was the co-founder doing? Isn't it the whole point of having co-founders so that you can share the trauma? Why did the CEO have to suffer through so much pain all alone?
Improved Collaboration is often cited as an advantage of the office. I've been working from home throughout covid and I haven't found this to be the case.

If anything, I have more energy due to less distractions and this gives me more energy for collaboration.

The extra energy also makes the collaboration that does happen better because I can concentrate easier.

Apart from that, my productivity working on code as an engineer has gone up probably 2x what it was in the office.
Thankfully these are all in LEO and the vast majority are under a controlled decay, and those that are not currently were most likely placed in a specific orbit to decay safely first per your starbad link.
Is there a bug in there? What's a better way to structure those tests, if they are logically valid?
Check out http://www.founderweekly.com/ It includes product related stuff as well.
I have always assumed they were defiled according to Muslim strictures on life representations.

Is that falsifiable? We would need someplace Muslim thought held sway but they aren't broken, and places where it never penetrated and they are all broken anyway.

None of that would conclusive in isolation. You would need a lot of data; or records of fatwas issued demanding it.
Yep, people really don't get the extent that bills actually only state intent and some rules, then the rule-making process actually sets the full rules that get published in the Federal Register.

If you took the time to lets say read something as large as the Affordable Care Act you would see how little of the rules of implementation were in the bill. I generally look at this as the legislature abdicating its authority. The excuse is that its actually delegation to experts that actually have to enforce the rules.

This is why it is so important to read the Federal Register and push the folks in the Senate and House to specify rules on important bills to give the executive branch as little wiggle room as possible (this advice should apply to all parties).
Speech is considered violence by some people.

Some people consider a lot of speech violence but nearly everyone considers a small amount of speech violence or some equivalent. Telling someone to grab a electrified wire is violence by nearly everyone's standard. A mafioso directing a hit man to kill is nearly everyone's standard. The famous "shouting fire in a crowded theater" is mostly violence etc.

So you can't say the situation is "free speech or not". The situation is always where the boundary is. Of course, the question of where quickly spreading slander on the eve of an elections is on the spectrum of protected speech is a complicated question. But it's a bit different than the question of whether a given dogma can be challenged.
Russian propaganda hits its mark
Metrics might matter. Exceptions for non profit (no ads) or orgs under undetermined amount of monthly active users?
Democracy has worked in the past because most members of said democratic societies believe largely the same things. They don't have to be the correct thing, they just have to be the same thing. This was easier when information was more tightly controlled and curated. The internet has opened us to a Babylonia of different belief systems, which is not so good for functioning civilizations. Free speech was easier to defend before the internet when it wasn't quite so free.
I always wonder why people use Twitter for these braindumps? Do these threads just lend themselves well to starting and typing until it’s all off your chest?
Tesla cars are far from being autonomous. Autopilot (including the so called "full self driving") is level 2, meaning that the driver has to pay attention at all times.

From a driver responsibility point of view, it is a fancy cruise control, there is no question about autonomous certification because the car isn't autonomous.

If one day, Tesla thinks it is OK for drivers not to pay attention and wants to make it legal, that's when the question about what kind of tech is reasonable will be asked. But for now, it looks like we are far from it. There is a huge gap between "works well most of the time" and full autonomy.
Yahoo also went for WFH in a big way, until a CEO change and they did an about-face. It will be interesting to see how many of these companies "do a Yahoo" in a year or two.
Speech is an action.
if your novice dev cant understand the second example, he should be fired on the spot
No one in america is restricting your free speech. Go buy server space and write what ever you want.
What's a bot account? What's a spam?
> Ancient civilizations knew full well the earth was not flat.

Some did. Not all of them. The first one I'm aware of is the Greeks. Do you know of any earlier ones?

Also, the fact that particular intellectuals knew the Earth was round in a society does not necessarily mean it was common knowledge in that society, much less that it was such common knowledge that the average person would think it absurd to question it and would be able to explain why. The books we have from the ancient Greeks that give good arguments for the Earth being round were probably not read by more than a tiny fraction of the population. The earliest example I can think of of the roundness of the Earth being taught in a widespread fashion is the Christian church after it accepted the roundness of the Earth as dogma and taught it as such.
There is a reason for all the stereotypical commercials showing a pretty woman walking by causing chaos in her wake ...
We definitely do, especially along the coasts, up the Missisippi, and along the Great Lakes, but we don't use them exclusively, and a lot of factories don't appear to use them at all. So in those cases, we get all the downsides and none of the advantages.

Stated as a question: how often do brand new factories (or new enterprises in existing factories) use water for transport?
That’s the Turkish model. A pioneer in censorship and totalitarian media control, it evolved in licensing and controlling everything.

It started with simply getting your platform/publisher license(so they can make you take down illegal content, save the kids), now Turkey dictates your content depending on your internet business.

Just few days ago Spotify was forced to get a license and establish a contact(probably because of the podcasts, will see), recently Netflix was forced to cancel a tv show because of a LGBT character, remove other shows and so on. They are trying to get their grip on Youtube to regulate it like a TV. Booking.com & Paypal are gone since years due to licensing.

As soon as you have your definitions somebody will have to make sure that you are acting accordingly, so rules for the publishers and licensing For the platforms to control the publishers will follow.

With the everything happening, that’s the feature for everyone and let me tell you, it’s not fun.
Why? Cameras can work just as well as your vision. Humans manage just fine and don't have LIDAR. Just because it causes the cars to slow down now doesn't mean it will in the future.
Hagia Sofia is a church though.
Yes, this is a better way to phrase what I was trying to say. They might actually believe it, but it's not because they find the arguments convincing. It's a "meta" issue.
You're defining "dominant ideas" as the ones that make people the angriest and get the most clicks! That's not the same as quality. That's entirely how those amplification algorithms exist!
C Linked-List Visualization (GDBFront end v0.3.0-beta)
Adding the google cache. Looks like the medium is down.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:-EgQnmp...
For others, here's [0] the Ada rationale writeup on this. I suppose because I've been trying to learn SPARK more than Ada proper, this hasn't bitten me. Since SPARK's version of functions are closer to pure functions. But reading the rationale, I sort of get why they did it. Functions were already impure, but couldn't be marked as explicitly changing their inputs (access types could be altered and you'd never know by the function signature), so changing it to allow explicit `in out` parameters made some sense (as the Ada language has a preference for more explicit rather than implicit behavior). Though that kind of defeats my case since I used Ada as an example, and its functions may as well be procedures.

[0] https://www.adaic.org/resources/add_content/standards/05rat/...
In the case of the lambda version, the compiler will fail if you forget a break statement or don't handle a possible case. Plus this way you can make x const, which can also prevent breaking other code further down.

It seems to me the extra safety it provides actually makes it harder for a novice to break your code?

Unless you mean strictly in the sense of "harder to break compilation", but I'm not sure that's a good thing (insert obligatory mention of Rust here)
Where do you see that I want war with the PRC to happen?
They stopped manufacturing the HP LaserJet 4000 over 21 years ago, and the jetdirect EIO network card (J3111A) not long after that.

If there is a newer network card or firmware that supports this printer, I’d love to hear about it.
Before the Internet and social networks The Stupids never got a change to speak. Now their voice are amplified by their peers.
Different rules apply with scale. HN is fine doing whatever it does but global monopolies require special handling.
1 gigabyte over a billion cellphones turns into a exabyte, so I would guess, similar orders of magnitude?
I've had a Vanguard account since 1997. 500 index. Put the minimum in at the time and never touched it since. I do not have 12% annualized returns.

Indeed, I just checked portfolio visualizer, which gives a 1997-2020 return of 8.5% CAGR for the 500. My guess is you started adding in 2007 (so your principal was very small during the great financial crisis) and you've been adding during the entire recovery. You don't know how lucky you are. Of course, maybe you just bought QQQ in 1997. Again, you don't know how lucky you are.

The number of fallacious assumptions embedded in your syllogism is difficult to unpack. I'll start with one, past returns are not indicative of futures results. I'll add another, the relative expensiveness of stocks at a given point in time are negatively correlated to long-term future returns. Someone won a nobel prize by illustrating the last one.
In the US, colleges are required to have some sort of emergency alert system. Not sure what the regs are in Canada.

It would be nice to tap into the Amber or Silver (old folks in danger) alert system.
honestly it feels like a colossal amount of software development process is designed to prevent exactly this. put it on the backlog. we'll come back to it. i very much appreciate some of the sensibilities of trying to bring bring your team with you, but also i feel like 95% of the world outright fears & is desperate to wrench control (and a sense of purpose) from those who can & those who aspire. ultimately we are very very alone in many cases in what we make of our positions, and excellence & a mentality of chasing the unlimited & great is often quickly sacrificed to support a more manageable corporate existence.

apologies. i am fairly blunt in first writings, it takes me time to refine, synthesize, be nice. this is many many sided; engineers so far to little to create inroads & expose their wonders, which is just one of innumerable problems in this tension. there's, in this case, some good recent writing on the topic on HN, huzzah. "We throw away our power as engineers working for other people."[1][2] the tension is real.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24773266

[2] https://medium.com/better-programming/we-throw-away-our-powe...
ffggvv says >"so many stories about trump are later proven to be fake or unsubstantiated such as the russian bounties, that he owes money to russia, the steele dossier etc... and his tax returns were also stolen or hacked"<

By now you should understand the Democratic Party's news cycle:

a) Make up a message (something, anything bad) and present it to the press as a Presidential abomination,

b) Get Democratically-favored media to repeat/embellish the rumour,

c) Get Democratic - favoring prosecutors, government spokesmen, bureaucrats, college professors, or outside "experts" to repeat the rumor and to fabricate supporting "evidence",

d) Call for investigations in the House of representatives [which the Democrats currently control],

e) Ask representatives to go on record to news media concerning the fabricated messages,

f) Invoke every right under the sun in support of the false message: e.g., "free speech is being violated", "trial w/o
jury", "conspiracy", etc.

g)When a new fabrication is concocted, drop the current claims or say they were a Russian or Republican conspiracy, and go to the new fabrication. Never follow-up or complete investigations into past false messages.

Rinse, repeat;

IOW lie, lie, lie and lie again.

Recently Democrats have added to this recipe the following:

Bring out the mob,
shout and scream,
burn down the police station!

Every Democrat, from the lowliest Antifa street slug to Nancy Pelosi follows the same formula. They're political thugs who give the Thuggees:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thuggee

a bad name. Why? b/c their behavior will kill entire societies of people and their governments, not merely individuals as did the Thuggees.
Could someone explain, from Twitter's perspective, how reading data from a legally obtained hard drive constitutes "hacking"?
If I'm teaching young'ns per se using a toy language, I'd reach for Scratch. It's history and Google's embrace of it seem like strong endorsements. Are there other good candidates in that space?

If I'm teaching an intro class using a general purpose language, it's Ruby or Python. My heart lies with Ruby, but having basic Python chops is such a bigger win downstream.

for i in range(1, 101):
if i % 15:
print ('FizzBuzz')
elif i % 3 == 0:
print ('Fizz')
elif i % 5 == 0:
print ('Buzz')
else:
print (str(i))

(1..100).each do |i|
if i % 15 == 0
puts 'FizzBuzz'
elsif i % 3 == 0
puts 'Fizz'
elsif i % 5 == 0
puts 'Buzz'
else
puts i
end
end
US news publishers are not prohibited from publishing copyrighted information for the purpose of making the news. That’s part of the First Amendment.

Whether the repair shop owner had copyright to the content is totally irrelevant. He had legal possession of the drive, and handed it to a journalist who found something newsworthy on it.

Almost every single major story every told in modern history will contain essentially the same type of information transfer, and it is not illegal for the journalist to use this information or publish it if it’s newsworthy.

Sometimes a source can go to jail for sharing the information. But almost certainly that won’t happen in this case, because there is no evidence that the repair shop owner did anything wrong. In fact, he was the one who called the FBI!
They've probably been just improvising.

They become quite good at it as it follows simple rules.
Apple’s (Not Quite) Secure Notes
If Twitter's censorship really has no relevant effect beyond its platform, then why has there been such a push to get Twitter and others to deal better with Russian bots following 2016?

Are these people mistaken? Does what's allowed to appear on Twitter really have no effect on the broader society?
But the new generation of people, even here on HN and the internet
hacker personalities I used to align with have turned so pro-censorship

I was born in the 1970s and I can tell you why I flipped.

The (hopelessly naive) ideal many of us had was that, by breaking down communication barriers, we'd create an egalitarian "marketplace of ideas" and the best ideas would win. And by "best" ideas we generally meant principles of equality, science, and so forth.

Regardless of what you feel needs to be done... I'm sure you can agree that hasn't been achieved. Probably more like the opposite.

The problem is that by amplifying all voices, we've simply created another "might makes right" situation. Unfettered online discourse is dominated by those who yell the loudest. This includes a large number of woefully misinformed people, and genuinely malicious actors such as (for example) the hordes of paid internet trolls funded by America's rivals in order to sow discord and disinformation during our 2016 elections.

In effect, we've replaced the staid and conservative corporate self-censorship of decades past with something that is quite frequently worse.

I mean, free speech sure sounds good, but in reality it means that your racist uncle ranting about chemtrails on Facebook gets to be heard right alongside people who actually know what the fuck they're talking about.

I unapologetically do not know what the solution is.
Is it meaningful whether the story is true or not? The existence of Trump's presidency says Americans don't care about corruption or whether the president is beholden to shady foreign actors. Maybe that's a good argument for the natural born citizen ship requirement to be removed from the presidency?
Not every company. But certainly google, facebook and twitter.
I believe CantorDust was the direct inspiration for our code (I wasn't exactly involved in the editor project though, so hard to call it "our").

The moment you mentioned "CantorDust" it was like a giant lightbulb filled with memories of discussions :)
> it creates a civil liability shield for interactive computer services and states who that applies to and how it is to be used.

Right, and the limits of that liability shield are not well enough defined in the law so the policy must define the limits until Congress acts to clarify the law. Hence the rulemaking.

Facebook and Twitter's actions yesterday and the controversy over the role of 230 make the lack of clarity apparent.

If Congress doesn't like the new administrative policy, allow them to clarify.
In addition to the other answers, it sounds like they knew they needed more time to execute & validate the pivot.

Let the original founder/visionary execute the pivot and then hand off the reins, rather than pull someone new in and try to brain-dump how you want them to pull off the pivot that mostly exists in your head.
> I was hoping

It's a volunteer project. Be the compatibility initiative you want to see in the world.
I have the following pattern two or three times before. When it comes up, it's very useful.

It can eliminate code repetition, without the bother of making a whole new function:

for(i = 0; i < 10; i++){
switch (i) {
case 1:
// this is special for 1
break;
case 3:
// this is special for 3
// fallthrough
case 5:
// case 5 needs 3 processing, plus its own
break;
case ...:
// ...
}

// a slightly long block here
// common to all cases.
}

I don't think I've ever done anything quite like this though:

switch (i) {
case 0: // so we can enter the for at all
for (i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
case 1: ;
}
}

which is what the parent comment is getting at, if taken literally.
The printing press was also used to fuel deranged, antisemetic hysteria in the form of Martin Luther’s widely-disseminated book, On the Jews and their Lies. So, I guess some things really never do change:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_and_antisemiti...
4000° Lightsaber Test [video]